01 Balsall Common - Barratt's Farm

To the Planning department,
I live at No. 87 Meeting House Lane (MHL) and the edge of my garden abuts the land subject to the proposed development.

1. I have a few concerns but the major one is that of ground water and potential flooding. During the rainy months, the water level in our rear garden and the fields beyond, gets so high that ponds begin to form. The fields become a Marsh land. This the situation now, with all that natural drainage. I am very concerned that once you've concreted over the entire area behind my house and far beyond, this problem will only be amplified - to the detriment of all current residents.

Therefore I would like to know what actions will be taken to address the following:

A. Rainwater harvesting
B. Storm water collection

I would also like to know the nature of the proposals with regards to our Personal Property Protection (PPP). I have read that you have to provide a Sustainable Urban Drainage system, that will prevent the ground water levels rising and surface water run off due to concreting of this green belt land - please can you elaborate on all these points.

Many of the locals call this area the 'Marsh', so I probably not the first to want to know how you plan to stop our properties getting detrimentally effected.


2. Traffic Density - Our village is already grid locked on evening during rush hour. Meeting House Lane is barely wide enough to get two cars passing and for most has no pavement. This becomes even more dangerous when mothers with children on the road are included in the equation. I cannot see, even with the best will in the world, how you plan to accommodate an additional 1600 cars (2 cars per 800 houses)? Please tell me what your plans are here. I am one of those
3. Schools, Doctors and local amenities (like train stations etc - have you seen Berkswell station?) - We struggle now to get an appointment at the Doctors or even get your child into the Primary school - what plans do you have for the additional 1000's of people?
4. My fourth point is that of wildlife. For a years now we have enjoyed listening to the owls in the woods behind the house and watching the bats catching flies at dusk. I realise that Muntjac deer are not protected but they can also be regularly feeding in these fields. During summer the number of birds and butterflies one can see is astounding - what on earth will you do to mitigate the destruction of all this natural wildlife habitat?

I am not against development but this plan doesn't strike me as the one with the best balance of benefit v's negative impact on current environment at all.

Lastly, if this idea is allowed to continue, how will you protect the residents and pedestrians of Meeting House Lane from the site traffic? I regularly walk my small children to school and nursery along the lane and already feel threated by speeding cars passing alongside me, never mind a huge, mud covered, truck. Will they be prevented from using MHL?

Please can you explain how you will be addressing all the issues detailed above.

Will there be any public forum regarding this proposal? I attended the one in the church call with the developers but that was just awkward looks and not many facts. It would be nice to speak to the people responsible for the plans rather than those who drew the short straw for working a weekend!

I realise you all have a hard job to meet the national quotas, I just hope common sense can prevail on this one.

Draft Local Plan Consultation - Barretts Farm, Balsall Common

Further to your letter 8th December 2016, I strongly object to the above proposed development on green belt land.

Balsall Common has already been flooded with large developments which has changed the character from being a quiet village to urban sprawl. If this goes ahead, residents of Barretts Lane and the immediate vicinity will be faced with a loss of privacy and depreciation in the value of their properties. The intensity of the development will add to the traffic congestion in the village which at peak times already sees roads in and around the village at a near standstill.

Any visitors to the village will see instantly that the centre with its shops and amenities has reached breaking point with regards to congestion and parking. This will only deteriorate further if further housing developments are approved.

I am also very concerned that the site will have an access that runs to the side of my property which will have an impact on the quiet nature of Barretts Lane.

Re: Representation received. ID:167
I must have pressed the wrong button - I OBJECT to the proposals.

The attached statements demonstrate a support for the allocation of Barratt's Farm, Balsall Common for housing development and demonstrates the ability of the Archdiocese of Birmingham and the Restful Home Group to deliver a viable and sustainable development site to assist SMBC in its housing and wider objectives.

Building on site previously known as Catchems Nursery off Waste Lane in Balsall Common
I wish to object to houses being built on the above mentioned land.

There are many reasons, but I shall mention the most important ones.

There are many trees on this plot that have TPOs on them.

There are several public footpaths that cross this land.

Drainage will be a problem, there is a storm drain that runs directly on to it.

Planning permission was refused 6 years ago to build houses there

I believe that the propsed large development in Balsall Common, does not meet the criteria from question 3. Over 800 homes are planned on green belt at the narrowest point of the Meriden gap, closing the distance with Coventry. Developed land, for example, to the north of Balsall Common has been ignored. The west of Balsall Common has more room to accommodate development sensitively. The largest site chosen has poor public transport and worse car access than other sites. Increased car numbers would add significantly to the congestion in Balsall Common itself.

I object to the Local Plan proposal for Balsall Common under references 1at Barratts Farm, 2 at Frog Lane & 3 at Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road.
All these plans for Balsall do not give sufficient consideration for the infrastructure of Balsall Common; the impact on the local primary school, GP surgery and village centre etc. I would support a plan where one housing site catering for all the housing needs and incorporating a school and shops is built. I understand that land is available to the north of the village for such a proposal.

I believe the fields around Barratt's farm justify a conservation order in the same manner as that accorded to the fields to the south of Berkswell. That said, I would favour acceptance of the application of Berkswell Estate for development on one of the Berkswell fields behind Village Farm. My reasons are: a) development will be tucked away behind a short frontage b) I believe the village would benefit from the injection of a few new residents c) it could be adopted as the better of the two developments proposed by Berkswell Estate for the centre of the village.

It would appear for Balsall Common site selection has preferred Greenbelt over PDL sites. Barratts Farm appears to have been selected to facilitate a bypass rather than choosing sites to the north of Balsall Common with direct access onto the A452.

I don't consider that the criteria for selection have been correctly applied:
*This is GREEN BELT LAND and this should have over-riding priority over all other criteria.
*It will MASSIVELY increase the size of the village causing unresolvable problems in traffic congestion, parking, overcrowding of the secondary school (and hence further lowering academic standards), and service provision.
*It will inevitably and permanently ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE VILLAGE, which would be completely at odds with the Borough's policies.

There should therefore be NO BUILDING on Barratt's farm, AND IT SHOULD BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO A LARGE CONURBATION - SOLIHULL

The size and location of the Barratt's Farm (Balsall Common) housing area will cripple the village. The centre of the village is already a traffic jam in the peak hours and you are proposing to build 800+ houses in a location where all these homeowners will be driving through the village to go North (to where all the major transport links are).

A relief road to the east of the village will help a little but the existing part of this road is already full of cars parking for the train station and is a dangerous road.

The Barratt's farm development is inappropriate - it is being proposed on greenbelt land, that has no boundary and so could open up development from Balsall Common to Tile Hill. The latest Government white paper states that all other avenues should be investigated before Green Belt land.
The impact on traffic levels in and around the site would be significant, with delayed transport times, congestion, additional pollution and noise.
The delivery of Barratts lane, HS2, by pass, would create an environmental and social divide and impinge on the quality of life of the inhabitants of the east of Balsall Common

Sites 57, 6 and 11 in Balsall Common. You have planned to build 1150 houses, all on Green Belt land, ancient Forest of Arden and the Meriden Gap, all are protected and this is in breach of the governments white report, which specifies that building on greenbelt should be avoided when other sites are available. Balsall Common has 14 brownfield sites that were submitted and ignored by the council. Why? The above sites are farms containing footpaths, playing fields and sites of interest. Building is coinciding with HS2 and will turn the village into a building site for years.

Barratts Farm should not be included. Whilst i don't have access to accurate figures, I estimate that Barratt's Farm represents 13% of Solihull's planned 6150 dwelling increase, but Balsall Common in TOTAL encompasses just 9% of land mass. Furthermore, I believe there are approx 2,400 dwellings in Balsall Common, so Barratts Farm on its own is a 33% increase to the total settlement. I don't think that can be called managed or sustainable development, and it is at the expense of Green Belt. The negative impact on residents, wildlife and ancient woodland is huge and seemingly ignored.

I am writing to show my strong disapproval for the planned 1150 new houses in the Balsall Common area in which I currently live. Why are you contravening the latest government White Paper directive recently published that states that green belt land should only be used in exceptional circumstances and when there is no alternative. Yet your current proposed development under consultation has proposed building on 3 green belt sites HA1, HA2 and HA3 when there have been 14 brownfield sites in and around Balsall common already submitted. Why have these sites been ignored and green belt sites given precedence

see attached letter

I disagree with the proposal for the Barrett's Green site in Balsall Common as the location just fills a small green corridor wedged between existing housing and with extremely close proximity to the proposed HS2 main line. The noise from HS2 would bring nothing but misery for anyone living in this housing. A better choice would be to build any new development on the west side of the conurbation along with a new bypass to relieve the existing overcrowed main route through Balsall Common.

see letter from agent of Land owners at Hob Lane and Waste Lane Balsall Common

QUESTION 23 : Appendix C

Site Reference LPR 1 : Barratts Farm, Balsall Common
My client is the owner of Pool Orchard, Barretts Lane, Balsall Common. His ownership includes the house (which is a Grade II listed building), its residential curtilage and an adjoining paddock to the east and south-east of the house and garden.
Whilst I appreciate that the plan showing the area of the proposed housing allocation (called Barratts Farm) is not fixed and that the boundaries may change by the time the Local Plan is submitted, the indicative area presently includes all of my client's land and property. To this end he supports the intention as set out in paragraph 224 of the Consultation Draft, to undertake further work in conjunction with land owners, promoters and the local community and my client would very much want to take an active part in the development of a master plan for the proposed allocation to ensure that his interests are fully respected.
Until the outcome of this further work is undertaken, any response must be limited at this juncture to the principle of the allocation and to set out my client's objectives for his land and property.
With regard to the principle of the allocation of Barratts Farm for 800 houses, my client naturally has a number of obvious concerns with regard to the potential effect of the development upon his property.
In no particular order of priority, his concerns revolve around the way in which the development might affect the character of Barretts Lane, the overall impact of the housing and the associated infrastructure upon his residential amenity and the way in which the allocation will change the character and nature of what is a tranquil part of Balsall Common.
Although my client fully understands the need to provide additional houses across the Borough and that Balsall Common has capacity to accommodate further growth, it is vital that significant allocations such as that proposed for Barratts Farm, protect and respect the important characteristics of the area. Until further details are made available to demonstrate how the area will be developed, he wishes to reserve judgement on the principle of the allocation.
With regard to the adjoining paddock, if the allocation comes forward, it will radically change the character of the area and alter the function and setting of the paddock. In these circumstances, my client would look to develop those parts of the paddock that do not affect the character or setting of his property, but he would wish to do so independently from a master plan for the main housing allocation to retain control over the way any such development comes forward.
Accordingly my client wishes to engage with the process of formulating the next stage in the development of a master plan for the proposed allocation to both protect the character and setting of his property and the amenities of his family whilst allowing for the residential development of those parts of the adjoining paddock that can accommodate discrete and sensitively designed housing.

Brandon Planning & Development

concerns that you are trying to expand Balsall Common into a town when it is a village. The infra structure would not cope with the number of planned houses.
Already has the HS2 construction to deal with. Additional construction traffic impacting on the village.

More needs to be done to identify appropriate sites for housing. It is essential that the Borough Council protects green belt sites and agricultural land for the production of food and wellbeing of residents who are already facing major disruption due to HS2.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I have been advised by my local parish council (Berkswell) to address you directly, as well as to the former, re my concerns over the above report, where it applies to the housing development plans for Balsall Common.
May I first of all say that I fully appreciate the challenges that SMBC face over the next 5-10 years and thus commend you on the contents and presentation of the draft report. However, in relation to Balsall Common, whilst I am not against the need for additional housing in the immediate vacinity per se, I would urge SMBC to consider the following points before any final decision is made.
1) As you are no doubt aware, Balsall Common village will be blighted by the advent of HS2, especially during the construction phase, which may very well start within the next 2 years, with our section of the project lasting for anything up to 10 years. During this period, our village will be transformed into a 'building site' with storage locations dotted around the environs, the construction of a 'temporary' living facilities for HS2 employees and the endless movement of HGV vehicles. It therefore seems unreasonable and unfair to burden our community further with additional construction work within the same timeframe, when conceivably, this additional housing requirement could be accommodated elsewhere within the borough.
2) On the other hand, if Balsall Common has to be seen to be 'taking its share' of the extra housing requirements, then why could this not happen to the west side of the village, where there is plenty of land available. It would of course mean that these houses would be further from the village centre, but this would be a small price to pay to avoid the potential monumental 'bottle-neck', which would arise from the construction of 800 proposed houses on the Barratt's Farm area in such close proximity to HS2.
3) As I am sure many residents in Balsall Common will have already indicated, the present infrastructure in Balsall Common is already 'creaking at the seams', especially from a schooling, recreational, parking/shopping perspective. This has arisen directly from extensive house building projects within the village, both past and present - we need to learn lessons from this experience. Whilst infrastructure issues have been mentioned in the report, there are no specific details which address these problem and therefore it would be irresponsible to forge ahead with extra housing without addressing the same. I would respectively suggest that an integrated plan for the village is required, covering for example, additional housing (if required), schooling, maintenance of/addtional recreational areas/facilities, retail/parking amenities, road network system, public transport. If this was forthcoming, then not only would this engender a greater degree of goodwill from the local community, but equally importantly, would hopefully prevent the real risk of destroying the amenable characteristics of our village, which the present plans are in danger of doing.

I look forward to receiving further communication from SMBC on this important subject, via our parish council, and trust that common sense will ultimately prevail. Thank you for reading this correspondence, and I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to acknowledge receipt.

see attached report
Balsall Parish Council resolved at the Council meeting on 15 February 2017 to submit this report in response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Consultation ending 17 February 2017

see attached letter and vision statement

see attached response

Ref : SMBC draft Housing Plan : proposed developments of 1,150 houses in Balsall Common

I am writing to respond to the Consultation Document published by SMBC as it relates to Balsall Common.

My interest is as a resident at 99 Meeting House Lane in Balsall Common. My property backs onto the fields earmarked for the Barratts Lane development.

I have tried to use the SMBC Questionnaire : I have submitted it but it doesn't allow me to tell the story in the way I think is relevant - despite the several hours it took to read most of it! So I am sending you this short précis which covers the points I want to raise.

Current situation -
* Balsall Common has already undergone significant housing development over the past 30 years with significant increases in Kemps Green, Needlers End, Riddings Hill and more recently on the Kenilworth Road (Elysian Gardens). Add to this numerous infill/smaller estates.
* Overall population growth must have increased by at least 2-300% over that period (conservative estimate).
* The improvements in infrastructure have not kept pace at all with the increase in housing and population growth
* The centre of the village is small with relatively narrow roadways and becomes hazardous to all users at peak times.
* Parking is severely restricted adding to periodic traffic "chaos" and danger to pedestrians
* Facilities at the railway station are totally inadequate with restricted parking availability - overflow parking onto Hall Meadow Road overspills almost onto the roundabout by the station every working day
* Having said that the greenfield area to the north of village at Barratts Farm provides good access to the countryside for many residents where people walk and take their dogs, cycle - which adds to the satisfying rural aspect of the village - so important for a more healthy lifestyle and family time


SMBC Plan -
* The proposal in the SMBC Development Plan is to increase housing by 1,150 units
* This is almost 20% of the entire allocation for the borough! - going into an community which has already seen massive redevelopment in very recent times
* Note - of this 800 representing 13% % of the total Plan is earmarked for just one area in the village - at Barratts Farm !
* This will be in close proximity to the new HS2 line
* 100% of the development is in the green belt


Impacts -

* Further destruction of the green belt around Balsall Common representing also additional unacceptable incursion into the Meriden Gap
* Increase in population will not be supported by already inadequate infrastructure - centre of the village especially will be put under even greater strain
* Increase in hazards resulting from increase in traffic density and road usage :
Specifics regarding road access and possible by-passes around the village are still to be finalised - but in any case the general increase in population - and therefore cars - will cause more overloading of the already stretched traffic networks
* Add to this problem the significant level of construction traffic supported by inadequate networks at the same time as HS2!
* Station parking already overstretched will become impossible
* Schools and doctors surgeries will not cope without further significant extension and therefore investment
* Size of Barratts Farm development too large to be absorbed by village - risk of becoming a separate community (village within a village)
* Barratts Farm development will cut off the easy or nearby access to countryside for many residents
* Where will the "multiple points of vehicular access" be located to give access to and from Barratts Lane site? Impossible onto the very narrow and already dangerous Meeting House Lane - at the very least for health and safety reasons. So the access pints will be at the far ends of the village. See further comments below.
* Current quality of life enjoyed by existing residents will be further negatively impacted by this proposed disproportionate development - also coming on the back of HS2

This allocation to Balsall Common (and especially to Barratts Farm ) is totally disproportionate to the size of the village. The village is already overly-developed due to recent increases in housing which have outpaced both existing and recent increases in infrastructure.

Alternative considerations

* Brownfield sites - more effort needed to identify these. It is too easy to redesignate green belt land
* Total allocation needs to be more sensibly and sensitively spread rather than doing what is easy and convenient - perhaps this has been done based on developer land banks in the green belt currently available (I assume use of these was never promised so therefore were at their risk)
* I would suggest a suitable cap on any allocation - perhaps based on population - to ensure fairness and sustainable integration. Any allocation to BC should include the existing development on the Kenilworth Road (Elysian Gardens) to avoid changing the goal posts. The allocation of 800 homes to one site in a small village - in this case Barratts Farm -should not be allowed to be developed to such a size due to difficulty of sustainable integration. We don't want a "village within a village".
* If brownfield sites and a fair and proportionate allocation of sites around the borough do not generate the housing capacity required, consideration should be given to the creation of a "new town/ village". Although this would still probably be within the greenbelt, such an approach would have the benefit of :
- being planned from scratch according to current or new norms - so built for the future and not as a make-do catch-up which is what the current proposal represents
- include purpose-built transport networks rather than inefficient (and potentially dangerous ) bolt-on access points or use of inappropriate roadways
- limits for redesignation from green belt would be agreed in advance, but would allow for further growth and expansion in the future as whatever you do now, you will want more at some stage going forward
- no disruption to existing communities as a result of "haphazard" top-down allocations based on available land (incl speculative developer land banks) which are probably in the wrong place (as in the case of BC)


Meeting House Lane

There is a suggestion - though denied by a Parish Councillor - that an access is being planned to the Barratts Lane site at or near No 111 Meeting House Lane. Can I remind you that you have the report prepared by the Parish Council raising several health and safety concerns regarding traffic using the lane. As you know the lane is narrow and has no pavements (and no room to make them) to the east of the pinch pints (by the church/tennis courts). There is not enough room for 2 cars + pedestrians. Sleeping policemen (road bumps) act as an inducement for some cars (usually SUVs) to increase their speed. However dangerous, traffic today uses the Lane as a short cut around the village at peak times. We know children who have been "brushed" by cars on their way to school. I walk down the lane most days - on several occasions the traffic have driven at inappropriate speed within a few feet of me. One road user commented to me that speed bumps were "an unnecessary inconvenience as nobody has been killed yet". He was serious! - as am I on this subject. So already today we need better traffic calming measures, improved signage regarding speed, and clarity of priority at the pinch-points.
Conclusion - any suggestion of an entry/ exit onto Meeting House Lane from the proposed Barratts Lane development is not worthy of consideration at least on health and safety grounds


Conclusion

I formally object to the proposed allocation of a further 1250 new houses to Balsall Common on the grounds that it is totally disproportionate to the size of the village Such large development, will overstrain the already inadequate infrastructure (despite plans to improve), represent an unwarranted incursion into the Greenbelt and Meriden Gap and reduce the rural quality of life currently enjoyed by residents. Specifically with regard to the development of Barratts Lane - the village would have serious problems absorbing and integrating the "massive" allocation of 800 houses on this single site. I would therefore request that you withdraw the proposed Balsall Common developments as currently drafted from the Plan.

I would appreciate a reply to my points at some

see letter

Solihull Housing Plan for Balsall Common

To contemplate building 1350 houses in Balsall Common beggars belief .The impact on the Village of what could be 4000 extra residents and 2700 cars is just so ridiculous that if someone had said it' s April 1st ,you could understand the joke.
The Roads and Lanes around the Village are so noticeably busier over the last 2 years as some small sites have been built(These 200 or so houses) and residents are bracing themselves for the impact of the two current builds on the Kenilworth Rd by Kelsey Lane . These 2 Sites pale into insignificance on their impact on the village
when the Borough are talking about not 200 house but 1350.!!
Everyone you speak to at mtgs like Councillors ,employees at the Council are saying quietly 'don't quote me but i agree it is ridiculous to think the Village of Balsall Common can absorb numbers on this scale.'
They even utter observations that 'it would not be allowed to proceed even to this stage in Knowle of heaven forbid Dorridge where the MP lives.'
If Housing has to be found but not on the scale of 1350, there are other areas on the outskirts of the Village eg Oak Farm area where housing could be sited ,still on bus routes etc.

To declare my interest ,i live on Meeting House Lane .It is a LANE with no pavements on the bottom half so for any body to seriously consider building homes in this vicinity which will result in Meeting House lane becoming a thoroughfare to and from the Village is either choosing to shut their eyes to the known impact or someone that is deliberately not considering the impact on existing residents and road /lane capacities.
In all my life and i am 69 ,i have never read about such a ridiculous idea to build 1350 homes in Balsall Common .The village has grown enormously over the last 10 ten years and is starting to show signs of maximum capacity .As i said earlier with the current developments on the Kenilworth Rd ,we are bracing ourselves to the detrimental impact this will have on the Village environs. BUT no-one is listening or choosing not to listen.What are the chances of anyone listening to the impact of a further 1350 ,sadly very little . I hope my faith in human nature will be restored and some common sense will come to the fore by the Planners.

Thank you and please take this letter and its points seriously in your considerations.

see letter

Green Belt Issues Barratts Farm

I am e.mailing to protest about the proposed development of land. 800 houses at Barratts Farm.150 houses Balsall St. And 200 houses Windmill Ln. Balsall Common.
Obviously as we live at 120 Meetinghouse Ln and the access to the Barratts farm Site is exactly opposite our house would not be an ideal choice for us! As we are in a Green belt area we felt this was an ideal site to live but not with this proposal on offer.