01 Balsall Common - Barratt's Farm

see attached letter

Local Plan Objection

I am writing to object to the proposal to build more homes in the Green Belt. In particular, I would like my objection to the housing proposed for Barret's Farm registered. We are not looking forward to HS2 so the idea to build houses nearer to its path than us seems bizarre to say the least.

Response to Solihull MBC 23 questions extended consultation on the draft local plan
Question 1 are the right borough challenges identified?
Question 2 agreement with the Borough Vision

Only In a very small part yes, as they are clearly written from an urban Solihull centric perspective, once more bringing into disrepute the belief that Solihull successfully combines a well-balanced combined Urban and Rural vision. Looked at from a holistic position, Solihull MBC in this draft proposal will not be satisfied with following their own policies until an urban jungle is built through the most vulnerable portion of the Green Belt between Berkswell / Balsall Common Parish and Coventry City. Berkswell / Balsall Common is already a congested community with poor infrastructure and very poor public sector connectivity with the local economic centres which are primarily to the East and South ie NOT Solihull.
Adding the proposed disproportionate housing and its resulting population to Berkswell / Balsall Common will simply make the problems worse and continue the belief that SMBC will ignore its own Policy's when they do suit political goals.

Question 3 agreement with Spatial Strategy?
The approach defined for sites being appropriate for development as written looks good with the right priorities, But Unfortunately they have not been adhered to in this draft plan.
Barratt's farm land is Green field land not Brownfield land and has significant drain off issues. And as stressed above the village is virtually bereft of effective public transport The demolition of the Meriden Gap Green belt and its impact on the local ecology of the Green fields, ancient hedge rows and trees will directly effect the existing local residents and families who extensively use the area and its many crisscrossing footpaths for open air exercise and leisure activities. The additional traffic emanating from such a large increase in housing will add to the air pollution provided by poor control of the take off and landing heights from Birmingham Airport, especially the north turn over the settlement
If this land is built on the drain off problem identified above will represent a risk to local adjoining properties to the north and south.

Question 7 regarding sustainable Economic Development?
Good principles. But again not seriously considered in the draft plan with no consideration of the disproportionate building of houses on an already congested and ill planned village centre.

Question11 policy P2 providing homes for all
The total proposed housing numbers are grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing community and will have a very significant detrimental impact on the size, shape, character and environment of Berkswell / Balsall Common as a Rural Village. It is also noticed that while mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.

Question 15 appropriateness of draft proposed sites. As mentioned throughout this response mention is made of how Solihull MBC have failed to follow their own Policies in establishing the appropriateness of the chosen sites and yet proposals for a new village on a brown field site development to the north of the region have been ignored.

Question 16 completeness of required supporting infrastructure to complement the proposed draft development?
While Doctor and Schooling infrastructure is mentioned, no mention is made of shopping, banking etc Banks are withdrawing from Berkswell / Balsall Common and a lack of action on the site to the rear of the Co-op shop allowing it to be isolated from other retail outlets, preventing a cohesive village centre

Question18 sustainable Travel
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport apart from Birmingham focused rail is very, very poor in the area

Question 22 Delivery
CIL payments for local development should be focussed in the local area for locally requested and agreed infrastructure improvements.

Question 23 Any other comment
No explanation has been given to the fact that a grossly disproportionate number of houses are proposed to be built in Berkswell / Balsall Common in an important and sensitive Green Belt area compared with elsewhere in Solihull borough. Such as Dorridge, Knowle or other villages to the South.
There is a very strong perception in the Berkswell / Balsall Common region that Solihull MBC have abandoned the Greenbelt and consciously discarded their own policies and values and have lost what trust they had as a result.

Local development and housing plan

I write to express some of my concerns about this plan in relation to Balsall Common.

1. There is much encroachment onto the green belt, particularly at the Barratt's Farm site when brown belt land adjacent to Lavender Hall Lane and the railway just north of the village is untouched as are pockets of brown belt land close to the A452 north of the village.
2. The plan does not make adequate proposals for the centre of Balsall Common, bearing in mind that an extra 4,000 to 5,000 people will live in the village. There will need to be a better flow of traffic, improved parking, improved pedestrian area, retention of banks (two closed/closing in the last year), larger Post Office facility etc etc.
3. The plan should propose that a dual carriageway bypass is built as a continuation of Hallmeadow Road south to the junction of Meer End Road and the A452. This is particularly important if the Barratt's Farm development has to go ahead, as access roads from that development onto the new by-pass will be needed. Traffic access of that estate onto Meeting House Lane which is too narrow to have footpaths in part would not be safe.
4. I cannot see that adequate consideration has been given to providing accommodation for the elderly has been given. It is obvious that care homes are closing at the same time as the NHS is under pressure to provide 'care at home' in the years to come, and this must be planned for. It's no good developers building only 2,3,4+ bedroom homes for families; special facilities for the single elderly must be included too, and these must be close to regular bus service. Despite the difficulties that care homes are having at present, I would recommend that a major care home provider is approached to see if they would support such a provision in the enlarged village (care home, not nursing home).

see attached written rep

Further to our discussions I am responding to the local plan on behalf of Balsall and Berkswell Football club and have the following points to make:

1. We understand the need for expansion of the housing in the village and want to ensure that appropriate sports facilities are made available to the families and especially the children.
2. The football club have a lease from the council for land on Lavender Hall lane and also rent pitches in Lavender Park opposite the ground.
3. Two of the proposed housing sites off Meeting house lane and Holly Lane will result in between two and four football pitches being removed from the village. These pitches are used by various junior teams and so will need to be replaced. These have historically been hired and maintained by the club from either the Church or School.
4. One of the proposed developments offers a "sports facility" being built within the housing estate. This will not provide for any external pitch or outdoor facilities.
5. We believe that the Football club and council could work together to further develop the facilities both on the club ground and within the Lavender Hall park.
6. Our initial suggestions would be to Improve the resilience of what we have, i.e more drainage connected into external drains on lavender hall,
7. level & improve the playing surface
8. Upgrade Lavender hall park so that it is also made more resilient i.e. there would be a need to install drainage and improve the playing surface
9. The installation of floodlights would open up the possibilities of greater use
10. Improved car parking within either the current ground or in Lavender Hall park
11. Make the Lavender Hall park more of an integrated sports facility rather than just a pitch in the park
12. We are currently working with the cricket club to install a cricket square on our ground and already have the agreement of the council for this.
13. The lease agreement with the council always allowed for us to develop the site into multi sports facility and we see this as an ideal opportunity for this to happen and the council to meet it's sporting aspirations and commitments
14. In an ideal world the village could do with an all-weather surface as a training or playing surface and this would open up other sports including hockey, Netball in particular.
15. There is space on Lavender Hall Park to build a sports centre when indoor facilities including badminton, table tennis, tennis and cricket nets could be provided thus turning this end of the village into a true multi sports environment.

We very much look forward to working with the council on developing future sporting plans for the village.

Sorry not to have completed the online portal but I could not get it to work so resorted to an email!

see attached response

Response to Draft Housing Plan
I have attempted to respond to Solihull Council's draft housing plan using the online portal this afternoon. However, I have found the website to be very confusing and circular in nature. I could not access the online form for responses, despite clicking on hyperlinks for 'direct access to the online form'. As a result, I am emailing the key points that I wish to make instead. However, I would be grateful if the Council would review the approach that it takes to consultations in the future and consider the accessibility and clarity of its webpages.

Question 1 - I believe that the following key challlenges should also be included:
* Improving the range and number of facilities in Balsall Common, including the town centre, without this creating further problems with traffic and car parking
* Retaining the character and attractiveness of rural and semi-rural locations in the borough
Question 2 - I believe that my responses to question 1 should also form part of the vision for the plan, namely:
* Improving the range and number of facilities in Balsall Common, including the town centre, without this creating further problems with traffic and car parking
* Retaining the character and attractiveness of rural and semi-rural locations in the borough
Question 3 - I agree that brownfield sites should be selected ahead of greenfield sites. However, the distribution of planned new homes within the plan does not seem to reflect this strategy sufficiently. For example, greenfield sites in Balsall Common seem to have been allocated a very large number of new homes, particularly relative to its current size when other more developed areas of the borough that may benefit from regeneration or be better able to absorb expansion have not. I believe that this will be damaging to the character and attractiveness of Balsall Common and that it would be better for all communities in Solihull for new homes to be built in smaller numbers per development but in more locations spread throughout the borough. The present plan seems to place the burden on a small number of locations.

The current spatial strategy does not take sufficient account of the disruption that will be caused in communities by HS2 and how building new homes in the same areas may compound the difficulties experienced. Balsall Common will I expect, for example, experience significant issues from HS2 such as construction traffic, potentially at the same time as disruption from the building of a large number of new houses and infrastructure to support them. This needs to be taken into account when making final decisions on sites so that particular parts of the borough are not shouldering the burden of multiple developments at the same time, whilst other areas remain undisturbed. All areas need to make a fair contribution to the sustainable development and success of the area.

Please see response to question 15 for further comments on considerations for the spatial strategy/choice of locations.

Question 7 - Balsall Common should be listed as a town centre requiring a masterplan. Now, even before new homes are developed, the centre suffers from significant traffic problems (speeding, congestion, parking problems) and too few facilities. If the number of homes planned for Balsall Common proceed, a master plan is vital to ensure that the area remains a pleasant, desirable and prosperous place.

Question 15 - I believe that the locations selected should include consideration of ease of access to employment. For example, it seems strange that there are not more sites in or near the Dickens Heath/Monkspath/Blythe Valley area to enable ease of access to jobs at the business park and in the area south of the airport and east of Land Rover to enable ease of access to the jobs at both of those sites. The proximity of significant numbers of employment opportunities and transport links are much better in those areas than some of the sites selected (e.g. Balsall Common, Knowle). I also believe that those areas would be better able to absorb expansion without damage to the character of the area. For example, Dickens Heath features modern housing developments already and additional similar developments would be in keeping with its current design/character.

If the number of new homes cannot or is not spread more evenly around the borough and plans for Balsall Common to have the number of homes suggested proceed, I would welcome these being in smaller numbers across more developments. I believe that this would allow the town to expand in a more managed way that is in keeping with its character, limits the amount of green space and natural habitat being lost in each part of the town and manages the additional traffic more evenly. I am quite concerned about such a large number of homes being planned for Barrett's Farm for a number of reasons, including:
* This will create a large volume of additional traffic for a small number of routes
* The nearby town centre will not be able to cope with the additional demand and has little room to expand
* The location is a beautiful natural habitat for a range of wildlife and the public footpaths are a well-used and well-enjoyed feature of the area
* Having such a large estate of new build houses is not in keeping with the unique and semi-rural character of the area
I would welcome some of these being located in other parts of the borough or, at least, other parts of the town. For example, I believe that a developer owns land near Oakes Farm Shop off Balsall Street East and that this would be a good location for some of the homes currently planned for Barrett's Farm because:
* This part of Balsall Common is less congested
* It is serviced by a main road that could take the additional capacity
* There is a farm shop/cafe and a pub within close proximity
* There is space for the development of additional facilities, unlike in the town centre which is close to Barrett's Farm
* Pressure would be taken off the town centre, which is currently very busy with traffic and people relative to its size
It also would seem to make more sense in terms of ease of access to road and rail networks, as well as the health centre, for new developments in Balsall Common/Berkswell to be nearer to Hallmeadow Road, Truggist Lane, Riddings Hill, Lavender Hall Road etc.

I am sure that there are also other locations in Balsall Common and neighbouring villages/towns (e.g. Berkswell, which appears to have not been earmarked for any expansion) where the homes could be spread out in smaller numbers to make growth more manageable and easily absorbed.

Question 16 - If the number of homes planned for Balsall Common proceeds, I believe that the following infrastructure is required is addition to new schools and GP surgeries:
* Traffic calming measures in and around the town centre, including Station Road, Kenilworth Road and Meeting House Lane to counteract the volume and speed of traffic that already exists and will be exacerbated by new developments. I live on Meeting House Lane and the speed bumps and chicane that are there already are already ineffective at discouraging people from using the road as a 'rat run' and driving at high speeds to and from the town centre (e.g. because the speed bumps are very small and very spaced out). My cat was recently killed as a result of a speeding driver on my road. I am very concerned about the number of houses that may be built on Barrett's Farm and make the noise, volume and speed of traffic on the road even worse. I would ask that the Council would consider not having a vehicle access point from Meeting House Lane to the Barrett's Farm development (or off other similar residential roads) and instead ensure that access points are from main roads designed to manage this sort of capacity. I would also welcome Meeting House Lane being made a no-through route (e.g. being blocked off half way down near the Catholic Church/Tennis Club) or at least having more chicanes/single file traffic and more frequent/higher speed bumps , pavements being built all of the way down and any other appropriate traffic calming measures.
* More green spaces e.g. nature reserves, parks, play areas, cycle tracks, walking routes/public footpaths
* Extension of the by-pass (Hallmeadow Road) so that it provides ease of access to new housing (e.g. the Barrett's Farm development) and takes pressure off other routes in the area. At the moment, this road is underused and does not provide much of a useful route to anywhere
* Extension of the Kenilworth Greenway and the ability to access this by bike from Balsall Common (at the moment, it is not possible to access the Greenway on a bike without having to lift this above stiles/gates, which is very frustrating)
* More frequent and later night rail services from Berkswell to and from Birmingham New Street and International
* Additional bus routes and more frequent services
* Supermarket on the outskirts of the town (e.g. off the by-pass)
* Additional shop, bar and restaurant premises (but not all in the current town centre)
Question 22 - I understand that there may be good reasons why the Council may want/need to divert some of the CIL payments, new homes bonus and profit on the sale of Council land to areas other than those where the new homes are built in order to support prosperity and growth across the borough. However, I think that it is important that those communities who experience the disruption of new homes being built, their local area being changed (e.g. loss of natural habitats and greenfield sites, change in area character) and the impact of additional people/traffic in the area are compensated through sufficient additional infrastructure and facilities for managed and sustainable growth before the profits relating to those developments are used elsewhere. Diverting profits to areas of the borough which have not had new developments should be in exceptional cases only and where the minimum required needs of those in the development areas to manage the impact on their community effectively have been met first. I would also say that if developments were more evenly spread across the borough, it would be easier to justify sharing the benefits across the borough, too.

I hope that this response is helpful.

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Housing :-

"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of ALL Greenbelt land where there are alternative PDL sites available; especially those in Balsall Common known as Barratt's Farm and Windmill Lane. The latter is an historical site in which no development should be allowed to encroach into and ruin.
The reasons for my objection are below.

The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated. If Balsall Common must be subjected to yet more development, it seems ridiculous that greenbelt can be released when there are so many other brownfield sites available.

Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

Buses to and from the village are infrequent (1 an hour) and there is such heavy demand for the train service from Berkswell station that trains are often full to capacity. The inadequate parking at the train station results in neighbouring roads being used as car parks for the full day and over night having a negative impact on movement around the edge of the village.

Within Balsall Common itself and its surrounding hamlets is often grid locked, particularly at rush hours and school run times or when a nearby major road has issues and traffic diverts through the village. Parking in the village and surrounding area of Berkswell is extremely limited and it is difficult to actually get to the amenities due to volume of traffic.

The local primary schools are already oversubscribed and bursting at their seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing. Traffic around the schools is a huge danger to the young children.

These sites are all considerable distance from the schools and amenities, and there would undoubtedly be a huge increase in volume of traffic as it would be considered too far to walk.
Balsall Common is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car.

Windmill Lane and Meeting House Lane will become even more of a "rat run". The volume of traffic already using Windmill Lane and Meeting House Lane as a cut through is high and the speed of this traffic is also already dangerous.

These sites scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) These sites removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

see attached letter

Please find attached my response to your questionnaire which includes my personal concerns regarding my own land which appears to be included in the potential Barrett's Farm development but which has in fact never been offered by me for development.

see letter and various appendices supporting site land - between no. 39 and 79 Earlswood Road (The Paddock) and The Orchard, 79 Earlswood Road, Dorridge

I am chair of the Burton Green Parish Council and I am sending our response to the Solihull Local Plan. I would appreciate if you confirmed that our response has been delivered. Also when the Inspector's proceedings begin, we would like to be represented there when it looks at the developments in Berkswell and Balsall Common, especially when the transport infrastructure is discussed.

Ref: Solihull Council's draft housing plan

In response to the communication regarding Solihull councils plans to build 1350 more house in balsall common, I would like to record the following comments:

There is not sufficient existing infrastructure to support this increase in residential properties which will result in a significant population increase. It is already difficult to park, local amenities are already stretched in the local centre and traffic becomes extremely congested at peak times of travel, 7 days a week.

I moved to balsall common as it provided a 'village feel' due to the presence of open spaces and a small population. This will reduce the popularity of balsall common as a desired location for the population increases will result in the area becoming contested and the area will lose this feel.

In addition, the possibility that hallmeadow road may become a by-pass is extremely distressing. This is extremely concerning not only in terms of the increase in traffic this will lead to but also noise and pollution levels. I am also concerned in terms of the environmental impact and the removal of open spaces.

I submit for your consideration.

Responding to Solihull Council's draft Housing Plan

Having followed the various publications and announcements with regard to the proposals for an additional 1350 houses in Balsall Common, I am taking this opportunity to make my representations. The online questionnaire that I have been referred to does not appear to be accessible, so I a simple email covering the basic points will have to suffice.

I do not agree that 800 houses at Barrett's Farm is an appropriate response to the need for additional houses in this area. The reports suggest additional road access will be necessary from Station Road - which suggests an entry point to the land by the British Legion. All well and good, but this will create significant additional traffic on Station Road, which at the junction with the A452 is already congested at peak times. For people wishing to visit the village centre from this new location there will be little by way of additional parking at what is already an overcrowded area. There just is not enough capacity in the centre of the village to deal with this additional population and the necessary car travel it will create.

Adding a further 1350 houses to Balsall Common will not create additional employment opportunities local to this housing. Balsall Common will become even more of a dormitory settlement with most occupants having to travel away from the area to work. There are already significant numbers of cars parking on Hall Meadow Road as the Station car park is not large enough. More cars will eventually lead to more congestion. Further work needs to be done to address the need for employment opportunities in the area.

With the huge vanity project that is HS2 due to commence at a similar time, the disruption, road closures and additional construction traffic will make life in Balsall Common almost intolerable.

All in all, whilst accepting the need for additional housing in the area, it seems that Balsall Common is scheduled to take a disproportionate number. Spreading the overall number more evenly around the area would have a lower overall impact on the area as a whole, cause less damage to the local environment, and share the burden more evenly.

There must be scope for retaining as much green belt as possible by concentrating on brownfield sites. How can ripping up green fields be the right way, when there are packets of undeveloped brown field industrial land left to idle.

Everybody accepts that there must be development, but it appears that in this instance the council have not given sufficient thought to the impact on local people. Please reconsider.

The proposed 1350 houses is not acceptable. I have been a resident in Balsall common for 50 years and been involved with Planning. in Solhull since 1973 and have absolutely no faith in the planning to be able to deal with this or even their ability to read the plans. It is our misfortune to have a railway station in Balsall Common so there is virtually no hope of Appeals because government policy will enforce up to three storey development within walking distance of a station.

There is no infrastructure to support intense development.

There is 100 acres of brown belt land at Lincoln Farm screened from kenilworth road. Ideal for starter homes which are desperatley needed. Most development in Balsall Common has been 4 and 5 bed homes. Government views on support of greenelt are under review.

Parking in the village is a problem. Did I read that Ove Arup international engineers had been appointed for this work ? I could do job in two hours on the back of an envelope. but I could not build Sydney opera House.!

Baratt Lane development will be affected.by
HS2 which is politically motivated madness.
d architect
The national housing scarcity could be solved if town cetres used the mostly empty floor space above retail shops.
For many years developers have resisted using this space because they do not want residential tennants.
Access to all these floors would need separate stair access and fire escape provision.

I have no objection to the building of more houses in B.C. but making access to Barratt's farm area from narrow Meeting House Lane is asking for accidents and congestion to take place. Surely this would be better place form Old Waste Lane area.
Shopping in Station Road is extremely dangerous now, unless a larger parking area is provided we can be certain of more accidents taking place.
We hear a lot of insufficient accommodation for elderly people what is included in this area?
Building so near to the proposed HS2 line makes little sense when there is so much room the other side of the line that cramming in so many houses in the farm is the only solution.

see attached documents

With reference to the consultation in respect of the draft Solihull Local Plan, I object to the inclusion of land identified as Ref 1, 2 and 3 in the Schedule of Allocated Housing Sites for the following reasons:

1. Green Belt - the land is within the existing Green Belt and whilst the NPPF indicates that Green Belt boundaries can be altered through the preparation and review of Local Plans, it also makes it clear that this is only in exceptional circumstances. In my submission, the circumstances here are not exceptional.
2. Alternative sites - I consider there to be suitable alternative sites elsewhere in the Borough that can accommodate a development of this scale. In particular, I am not convinced that the Borough Council has adequately addressed how it can maximise the use of previously developed land before then considering altering the Green Belt boundary. One of the purposes of Green Belt is to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict land. In my view, the Council is taking the easy option by seeking to allocate this site ahead of maximising brownfield sites
3. Countryside - one of the purposes of Green Belt is to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. A development of this scale and on these sites would have a significant adverse effect on the countryside setting of Balsall Common and would be contrary to the principles of Green Belt policy in the NPPF.
4. Infrastructure - any development for up to 800 houses in this location would put an unacceptable strain on local infrastructure. Roads, schools, GP's surgery etc are already at or near capacity and a development of this scale in this rural setting will have an unacceptable impact that is unlikely to be adequately mitigated.

For the above reasons, I urge the Council to reject the allocation of these sites.

I would like to be kept informed of progress with the Local Plan.

Please find below our thoughts on the draft housing plan.

We do not believe that 1350 more houses be built in Balsall Common. The area has already been subject to substantial development over recent years including developments, as we speak, on the Kenilworth Road. It cannot be said, therefore, that people in the area have not been accommodating to new development. However, we do object to the unnecessary destruction of unspoilt Greenbelt land in Balsall Common, in particular to any further development of the Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane "triangle".

Windmill Lane is on the outer reaches of Balsall Common - we cannot see how road traffic can be managed from this end of the village for people to access facilities - road traffic will increase as people use the facilities in the village/railway station/schools as realistically it's too far for people to walk - we commute into Birmingham every day from Windmill Lane and it's a 25 minute walk to the station at a quick pace (people are time short in the morning and with a heavy commute and walk the other end of their journey to places of work there is not time to do this walk; every second is precious on long commutes and working days) - so Councils need to be realistic in their thinking and not put the onus on people for being lazy when in fact the car is essential to busy lives. The increase in traffic, therefore, from the over-development of Balsall Common, in particular Windmill Lane, in our opinion, will not be able to be 'managed' and will cause traffic problems to an already congested area. Parking at the railway station will become even more of a problem - there is not enough space as it is and unless you are an early morning commuter you have no chance of parking later in the day on the car park - hence the long line of cars already being parked opposite the medical centre.

The centre of Balsall Common (which is in dire need of improvement) is already very congested with cars and the parking there is hazardous with drivers reversing in and out of spaces and often there are near misses with cars almost colliding with each other; the danger will further increase, if the proposed development on Windmill Lane were to go ahead, as again, for the reasons stated above, people will drive to the shops causing even further congestion.

We do not believe that 800 houses should be built on Barretts Farm - this amount of development will require major infrastructure changes to accommodate more families - for example, there is already a good medical centre in Balsall Common but it is a very busy centre. From newspaper articles to news bulletins we are constantly hearing of the crisis in the NHS and the shortages of General Practitioners (GPs). Will it be that simple to expand the medical centre and for them to recruit more GPs to accommodate the amount of people that will be living in the village in the coming years if the proposed developments take place? Already GPs are under a lot of pressure and these concerns do not appear to be at the top of any developers list. Pressure will also be put on schools to accommodate more pupils - the roads near to the schools are already heavily congested in the morning and afternoons and we are at a point now where driving is extremely difficult as parents parking their cars outside the schools effectively block off one side of the road with no gaps left for cars to even pull-into causing deadlock and very uncomfortable driving conditions.

If development has to take place, we believe that brownfield sites should be prioritised over greenfield. There are brownfield options, including on the north side of the village, in particular the site behind the George in the Tree is bigger than "the triangle", more accessible and enclosed by existing roads.

We hope you will take our objections into consideration.

see letter and supporting documents for Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Nos. 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green

see attached letter

Barretts Farm

As a resident of Berkswell Parish who will be affected by the proposed housing development on Barretts Farm (Christchurch/Greenlight, HA1) I wish to object on the following basis.
Established historic Greenbelt is being allocated for this development :-
i. Have all the available derelict and brownfield sites been given priority consideration as instructed by the Minister of the Environment?
ii. What are the "exceptional circumstances" being proffered for ignoring Greenbelt conditions ?
iii. Farmland is currently at a premium and following "Brexit", this country is expected to be more self-sufficient in food production.
iv. The high volume proposed houses on this development could cause potential flooding form the run-off which is currently absorbed by the land.
v. The environment diversity of the area would be totally lost to the established wildlife.
vi. Public footpaths across this area are extensively used by both local residents and rambling clubs are unlikely to be respected by developments.
vii. Ancient trees and hedgerows will be destroyed in the proposed development.

The attraction of the semi-rural nature of this area will seriously be affected by the increase local traffic. Light pollution will be imposed by the inevitable street lighting and housing currently evident in this area.
Local services and infrastructure will cause deterioration of water supply, drainage services ,electricity, gas, telephone and broadband, and road conditions and safety.
Schools, medical services, shops, banking, parking, etc at present in the Balsall Common area are barely sufficient to serve the existing community and are therefore unlikely to be adequate with the development population increase.
I hope the previous comments will receive your favourable consideration in determining that the Barretts Farm development should not progress.

Understand I have until midnight on 17th February to respond. Please note I have tried to access the on-line questionnaire but it does not seem to be there.

In the plan there seems to be no mention of "leisure/sporting" infrastructure. As result of development we are for example losing the park at Meeting House Lane and the playing fields at Holly Lane .... this will mean that the village football club will have lost green space which had 4 pitches located on them. In terms of my thoughts we either have to find alternative green space or we make the existing facilities more resilient, i.e. improve/change the playing surfaces at the football club, lavender hall park etc.... so that they accommodate training and 3 or 4 games a weekend and be multi sport. Another thought is how we could develop Lavendar Hall Park into a multi sports facility, hockey, football, rugby ...... The village is already running out of leisure space .... an example of this is the cricket club can no longer accommodate junior and senior cricket at the Cricket Club and is now working with the football club to create a cricket square at the football club to accommodate junior cricket.

So in summary please, please seriously consider how we provide the young and old of Balsall and Berkswell with access to the "leisure/sporting" infrastructure during the day, the evenings and the weekend without having to travel to get that opportunity.

Having studied the draft, I find it very alarming and disappointing in many respects. Whilst I realise housing is required in the borough, I feel that all areas of development on brown field and derelict sites have not been fully investigated and considered.
To build on Green Belt is disgusting both for existing residents and those who will come in the future. Care must be taken or the result will be no "Green Lung" in the centre of England but a "Concrete Corridor" from the Black Country to the Cotswolds. In this area HS2 will impact on the village tremendously so the last thing needed is further disruption and chaos from building development.
The village is loosing is identity and will become a commuter village for Birmingham (perhaps even be absorbed by it). The extra traffic will grid lock the area. The present situation in the village centre for parking is a joke! So despite the plan's "idea" that everyone will walk or take public transport to the shops, schools, medical services will not happen. The car rules -school runs, nippng to the shops and visits to the doctors, dentists etc..
The demands on schools in the next 20 years + will grows together with the health requirements for young and old.
The Barretts Farm development has not been thought through regarding probable access from the propose by-pass if built? If not it will cause traffic and pollution problems. The area around the Station is possibly a water meadow/marsh but there is a limit to the run-off rom the house and roads it can take resulting in flooding. The Greenway amenities will be destroyed or damaged and as HS2 will have an impact it will only add to the problems for walkers, cyclist and the wildlife it does not bare thinking about.

It seems that "green sites" are quite a temptation to developers as no cleaning up is required so the development works out more cost effective. The promise of affordable housing for local young people or the older members of the community is a bit of a myth, just look at the prices of the current build on Kenilworth Road.
I'm not a NIMBY but consideration of existing residents needs to be shown. Everyone wants a bit of England's green and pleasant land but we don't want an island of housing developments simply because our population has expanded so much.

We all need a safe place to live but not at the expense of sacrificing village life

I am writing to formally record my feedback on the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review, so you may include my views along with all other feedback you have received.

I wish to comment specifically on the draft plans that affect Balsall Common and Berkswell.

Proposed Housing - General objections.
I object to the total of 1,150 proposed new houses for a number of reasons:-

1. The total is way in excess of what can sensibly be assimilated into the village without dramatically and detrimentally changing the village into what is effectively a town. The 2011 census reported a population in Balsall Common of 7,039. The same census recorded an average of 2.3 people per household. It can therefore be expected that 1,150 new homes would add around 2,645 residents. An increase of 37.5% over the 2011 census population. Even accepting the population of Balsall Common has grown since the 2011 census, this increase cannot be absorbed into an already overcrowded and under-resourced village.
2. I believe there are other locations within the Borough more suited to build new homes. Examination of the Draft Local Plan Review Map shows that the proposed distribution of new homes in Solihull is not spread proportionally to the existing centres of population. There are some villages where little or no new homes are planned, whilst Balsall Common has been identified for far more than it can accommodate. A fairer and better spread would reduce the impact on existing communities.
3. The village does not have adequate resources to serve a substantial increase in population.
a. Medical/Welfare Facilities - The existing medical centre does not have the staff or buildings capacity to copy with the increase in residents that would arise from the new homes.
b. Schools - there are not enough places, buildings or facilities to accommodate the resultant demand for primary or secondary school places.
c. Shops - the existing retail shops in the centre of Balsall Common are inadequate. Berkswell has no real shopping facilities.
d. Parking - lack of public parking is already a major problem in areas such as the library, rear of Tesco's and along the shops in Balsall Common. Parking at the station is almost impossible much of the time due to lack of spaces and excess demand. As a result more and more cars park on the adjacent roads, such as Hallmeadow Road
e. Public Transport - As mentioned, Berkswell station lacks adequate parking and is crowded during the rush hour. It is clear to everyone using it, that is barely copes with demand from the current resident population. Buses are not regarded by most residents as a reliable or practical alternative, hence most people drive to their destinations.
f. Roads - most houses in Balsall and Berkswell possess at least one car. The existing roads are busy but cope with current demand. Even the main Kenilworth Road only experiences delays during rush hours. The remainder of the day and at weekends, traffic flows freely. However, the addition of hundreds more cars onto local roads as a result of over a thousand new houses will create a traffic problem.
4. It is vital that the Green Belt surrounding Balsall Common and Berkswell and in particular the Meriden Gap is retained and preserved. Not just in the short-term, but for future generations too. I believe the Council has strong responsibilities to not sacrifice the Meriden Gap to accommodate housing development. Releasing Green Belt piece by piece is an erosion of a valuable asset that we need. It delivers important environmental and social benefits. The National Planning Policy Framework clearly states that "Green Belt boundaries should only be changed in a Local Plan under "exceptional circumstances" and only permit most forms of development in "very special circumstances". I believe that the Council has the choice to locate the required number of new homes elsewhere within the Borough and to preserve the Green Belt and in particular Meriden Gap.
5. We, along with many residents, chose to pay a premium to live in this village, so we can enjoy all the benefits living in a rural community offers. The impact of 1,150 new homes will remove many of the reasons we made that choice. We understand we have to accept our fair share of new homes, but not the huge volume planned.
6. Bypass by default. Having lived with the blight of the prosed Balsall Common bypass for many years, we, like many, were relieved when common sense prevailed and it was removed from the local plan. The bypass is not required to cope with traffic demand. That is one of the reasons it was removed from the existing plan. However, the proposed housing developments will establish a new village boundary that will encourage re-instatement of the planned bypass line. Many more years of blight for residents.

Proposed Housing - Specific Site Objections

Barratt's Farm

I object to the proposed development of 800 new homes at Barratt's Farm for the following reasons:-

1. This would be a Green Belt development.
2. The quantity of houses is far more than Balsall Common & Berkswell can accommodate without detrimental impact
3. There is no infrastructure on that side of the village. Everything would have to be built, whereas there are alternative sites (e.g. Grange Farm) where major roads, etc. are already nearby.
4. Development at Barratt's Farm will move the village boundary and effectively create a new, much bigger village (town). Moving the boundary into Green Belt in this way will make it difficult or even impossible to successfully resist future applications to develop that side of the village.
5. This development will effectively establish a line that will tempt planners to re-introduce the bypass plans.
6. The development is scheduled to be spread over 15 years. We are already blighted by HS2 construction lasting around 10 years. This means for many residents 15 years of disruption from continual construction and development.

Windmill Lane

I object to the proposed development of 200 new homes at Barratt's Farm for the following reasons:-

1. A further 200 houses, in addition to those already being built on greenfield sites at Elysian Gardens will result in the complete sacrifice of the rural aspect at the Windmill Lane end of the village. Effectively the village will have crept south along the Kenilworth Road and expanded substantially.
2. The roads infrastructure is inadequate. Due to the hill on this part of the Kenilworth road, more cars turning into or out of new housing estates on the busy Kenilworth Road will be dangerous and likely cause delays. If the answer is to allow access to the new houses via Windmill Lane, then this quiet, unlit country lane will become even more of a dangerous "rat-run" for drivers and pedestrians than it already is.
3. The historic and culturally important Windmill will become virtually inaccessible to visit, as parking on Windmill Lane will be too dangerous if not impossible.

Summary

I accept that Balsall Common and Berkswell may have to have some new housing development for Solihull to meet its obligations. However I object to the current plans because:-

a) Sacrifice of Green Belt.
b) Too many houses for this area to accommodate.
c) Lack of infrastructure and resources.
d) Barratt's Farm and Windmill Lane are not the most suitable sites.
e) There are more suitable sites, e.g. Grange Farm is less impact and near current roads infrastructure plus there are brownfield sites in the borough that have not been chosen and will remain brownfield, even after all this proposed development.
f) We do not want an unnecessary bypass by "stealth".

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my views.

Solihull housing plan
To Solihull Planning,
I have attended several meetings concerning the building of 1350 homes in the area of Balsall Common and have concluded that no building should take place especially at the Barratt's Farm and Windmill Lane sites as no improvement of the infrastructure is being considered.
The centre of Balsall Common, the school, surgery and the surrounding roads are already at full capacity and by adding further housing is going to make the problems even worse. It will create an area of overcrowding and therefore make the quality of life for people in the area poorer not better.
The land at Barratt's Farm and the Windmill Lane sites are in Green Belt which should not be built on until other brown field sites have been developed. Green Belt is Green Belt which means no houses or development.
The Council should explore in more detail other possible building opportunities in the Borough before attempting any further development in Balsall.
The Meriden Gap must stay without development.

We are in possession of the above document which requests any responses either by online questionnaire, e-mail, or letter and the closing date fro any correspondence is Friday 17th February 2017.

Firstly, I would like to advise that my wife and I have a very simple approach to this project, which given the potential significant effect it could have on us, please forgive us for responding from a position of not entertaining your questionnaire or strategy to achieve the desired result for the borough - we are just personally bitterly disappointed...allow us to explain.
1. My wife and I are both Solihull "Born & Bred" (as the saying goes) and as a result of spending 15 years living in Monkspath, it was an opportune time for us to move to a more rural area with the children coming of age and becoming independent with their own transport etc
2. Our search for a property with the objective of being in a rural setting but still in a community which has all the necessary facilities etc, resulted in us investing in our home in Balsall Common in January 2014
3. Naturally, as part of the usual searches through our solicitor at the time of purchase, one would expect to find out about planning applications, housing developments etc etc and even though it has now come to the surface this project has been in the melting pot for many years, it was not identified by our solicitor that the open fields of Barrett's Farm was in fact well and truly part of the future housing development for the borough. For your information, we only now have been advised the view from the rear of our property is the site for hundreds of new properties, which looking at the plans, they would actually be constructed immediately behind our garden fence - so the rural view would disappear in its entirety
4. The price we paid for the property was obviously reflected in the size and premier location of the house and it is very difficult to put a value on such a wonderful view overlooking countryside, but nevertheless, we felt the north facing rear garden was a very small price to pay for views looking over 200 acre farm which on record, did not have any documents filed for future development at the time of purchase. So it is extremely unfortunate that we have invested in a property in such well respected Lane in the borough, only to find the status will diminish greatly when the bulldozers move in...!!!
We acknowledge the borough needs to expand, especially with the continual development of the airport and the introduction of HS2, so houses need to be built somewhere and you will never please everyone. However, the impact this will have on our menial existence in society is significant...and we believe the sequence of events to date and the level of stress and cost we will endure over the next few years must be compensated in some way, or one can always live in hope the Barrett's Farm development is rejected and no houses will ever be built in our lifetime - unlikely though...we all know the decision is already made and the borough is just playing the game to make everyone feel as if they have a say in the matter...!?

Herewith are the issues we believe are gross negligence and probable costs etc involved...
1. Barrett's Farm is supposedly "green belt" which we presumed that all previous planning applications have "ALL" been dismissed as not practical for this reason, hence the land registry searches etc not declaring anything - The view over open fields was a key ingredient in our purchasing decision and we have paid an intangible price for this - We will therefore lose money on the re-sale when we move as we do not intend on staying in the property, as it will not ultimately be what we purchased and need to find a suitable alternative home...
2. Either someone has knowingly concealed this development for a long time so as to not create unrest until the project is ready to gather pace and all the preparation work is completed "OR" the council have purposely not updated the status of development so it would not be "flagged up" at the time of a solicitor investigating any potential issues...either way, this is gross negligence or simply a case of David & Goliath...!?
3. There will be a considerable pro-rata reduction in the value of our house value when selling, especially at a time when the new owners will know what is going to happen e.g. An opportunity for them to negotiate a better price - bearing in mind, to maintain our original objective of having a view from the rear of our property would mean having to move before the bulldozers move in, as it would be almost impossible to sell during the construction behind us...unless we were to accept an even more ridiculous offer to get out...!
4. We will incur significant costs in respect of estate agents fees, solicitors, stamp duty and general moving costs - stamp duty alone could be as high as £50K
5. We have invested over £150K during the last 3 years, believing it is our home for many years to come - this money will now be wasted and someone else will benefit from it...
6. The house we move to will be at a value higher than the pro-rata value of our current home because prices have increased over the last 3 years. In other words it could look something like this...
1. We paid £750K for the current property and a Zoopla valuation today suggests it would be approx £950K, however, we would probably have to take off £100K to find a buyer because the value is now lower with different planned surroundings
2. The house we move to will also have increased in value over the last 3 years, which means that we will have to pay for an equivalent property £950K, yet only receive £850K for our house and after investing £150K thinking it was going to be home for many years - this means we are into a negative equity situation of some £450K e.g.
1. Buy at £750K - Spend £150K (this money is now lost because we will not benefit from the investment)
2. Sell at £850K and not £950K, so a loss of £100K
3. The new property would be at full value of £950K, yet we only paid £750K for the house we expected to stay in...these three items total a negative impact £450K...!!!
I could continue with many more tangible and intangible costs, as well as detailing the levels of stress and energy required to sell and re-house ourselves sooner rather than later.

I think it is also important to note that I have personally endured a very serious illness over the last 12 months and still not fully recovered, together with awaiting one final operation in the next few months...we appreciate you are unable to deal with individual circumstances and that any ruling or proposal would be based on a same deal for all scenario, nevertheless, to say we believe we have been "deceived" is a tip of the iceberg in that we should have been informed of the plans at the time of purchase, which would have allowed us to either make an offer which would compensate us for the future development, or we could have walked away from the deal...

So in summary, we have been "sucked in" by the system with absolutely no communication whatsoever to date from the borough and councillors to say what they are going to do to compensate residents who are going to be affected by this...bearing in mind we have neighbour's on Waste Lane and Hodgetts Lane who are in the HS2 zone and we know financial agreements have been settled, or in the process of being sorted...so, until we know what the council is going to do for us, I'm afraid our vote is an obvious one in respect of what we think about the future needs of the borough should be...

We therefore suggest you consult with the people who are going to be inconvenienced financially, logistically and mentally by this development before you ask us to comment on the global issue...

To conclude, as we do not know the protocol involved in a dispute of this nature, we will adopt the same stance as you have given the residents and general public in requesting opinions etc by 17th February - If we do not receive your response to this communication by Friday 3rd March, we will engage our lawyers to act on our behalf in order to ensure we are being heard, with the objective of establishing a resolution as soon as possible...!

I'm writing regarding the proposed housing developments for Balsall Common and Berkswell.
We moved to Old Waste Lane just over a year ago (Nov 2015) in order to enjoy a village location. The proposed developments would completely change the look and feel of Balsall Common, and we feel are wholly inappropriate for a village.
Traffic is already a significant issue to the village, and adding 1350 more homes would be catastrophic in this respect. It's hard to imagine the increase from that being at all manageable in a small village. Parking in the village centre is scarce and difficult (someone reversed into me in October in the village centre). The village would be completely overrun.
Access to the Barrett's farm plot would be a complete disaster. Meeting house lane, one of the proposed access points is completely inappropriate for more traffic, being too narrow, and the junction of Windmill Lane/Kelsey Lane/Waste Lane is already dangerous which would be much multiplied with such an increase of traffic.
At our end of Old Waste Lane, which could be directly bordered by housing behind, even for a fit relatively young couple (we are early 40s) it's not really feasible to walk into the village centre to collect shopping etc. Any housing here, would be sufficiently far from the centre and public transport to preclude anything other than more traffic to an already overstretched area.
What would be the plan for the village centre? There doesn't seem to be one whatsoever.
We moved to this area because of its stunning natural beauty. The area of Barrett's Farm, and around the Windmill really are truly beautiful. These would be forever lost. Surely we could use all previously developed land before raping and pillaging our beautiful countryside and greenbelt?
When we visited The Church hall for a look at the proposals, the proposals all had more detail in them. Now, the boundaries of many of the sites have been changed and the details of what the developments would look like have completely vanished. It's impossible to have a fully informed view without significantly more knowledge of the proposals.
We already lack significant areas of park or green play areas. Taking away beautiful paths would further impacts on the quality of our family life.
We'd like to see the option to develop the formation of a new village, with new modern custom designed services, situated on previously developed land, rather than trying to bolt on and squeeze in massive developments on an already overstretched village. This was suggested in Berkswell Parish's response to the Solihull Housing Plan Review and a potential site suggested in reclaimed quarry land off Cornet's End Lane.
Or as a last resort, Oakes Farm or Pheasant Oaks farm would better balance the village, although many of the problems would still remain.
It is also our understanding that some of the landowners whose land would be needed for the extent of the developments have not even been contacted, and they've indicated that they would be unwilling to sell. Is this the best way to go about planning proposals? Proposing the use of land you don't know is available.
I would urge you to reconsider destroying this beautiful area (Barrett's Farm and Windmill Lane), which is enjoyed by all this side of the village and many outside and in Berkswell Parish. It is clearly not suitable for significant development due to the issues raised above.

OBJECTION to site 1 , Catholic Church Land and Barrets Farm, Balsall Common

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of site 1. Barrets Farm and The Land Near there owned by the Catholic Church

The reasons for my objection are below.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) No access would be safe via Meeting House Lane. Lots of children walk to the school and cricket/tennis club and the proposed access via any part of meeting house lane would be dangerous.

5) Cul-de Sac roads should remain this way and would not be safe to transform any of
these.