01 Balsall Common - Barratt's Farm

Response to Solihull MBC 23 question extended consultation on the draft local plan
Question 1 are the right borough challenges identified
Will the impact of Brexit have a material effect on the total number of homes needed in the Borough?
Question 2 agreement with the Borough Vision
Only In a very small part yes, but it is 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 and narrow portion of the Green Belt between Balsall Common and Coventry City.
SMBC fought a huge battle at enormous cost to preserve this piece of land from a coal mine development; why is it now prepared to sacrifice this precious 'lung' between two major city conurbations?
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 and this is the way traffic flows at peak times.
Further, no consideration has been given to considering sites to the South and West of the settlement toward the considerable economic development driven by JLR at their Fen End site, where they plan to site 2,000+ engineers. Many of these people will seek homes in Balsall Common and, therefore, to reduce cross-village traffic any major development should be on the West side of the village. Similarly, if a village bypass should ever be needed then consideration should be given to siting this on the West side.
Adding the proposed disproportionate housing and its resulting population to Balsall Common in sensitive and fragile Green Belt areas will simply make the problems worse and continue the belief that SMBC will ignore its own Policies when they do not 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 Greenfield land not Brownfield land and has significant drain off issues. Additionally, 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 affect 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 caused by poor control of the take-off and landing heights from Birmingham Airport, especially the northern turn over the settlement.
If this land is built on, then the drain off problem identified above will represent a risk to local adjoining properties to the north and south.
This area is already under severe threat of noise and Greenbelt erosion from HS2.
Piling in some 800 homes with shops, a school and other amenities with poor access to existing roads is a planning nightmare.
The site between Windmill Lane and the A452 Kenilworth Road to the South of the settlement is broadly a Brownfield site, BUT it is also proposed for a density of housing which is too high. This will generate traffic onto the narrow Windmill Lane that has poor visibility junctions at each end, or onto the A452 Trunk road with difficult North and South junctions.
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 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, 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. This is also true of potential sites to the South/East of Solihull toward Hampton in Arden and Catherin de Barnes, these being closer to the proposed new High Speed HS2 interchange.
Question 16 completeness of required supporting infrastructure to complement the proposed draft development?
While Doctors and Schooling infrastructure is mentioned, no mention is made of shopping, banking etc and banks are currently withdrawing from Balsall Common. A lack of action on the site to the rear of the Co-op shop has caused it to be isolated from other retail outlets and has exacerbated the lack of any sense of a cohesive village centre. Car parking facilities in the Village are very limited and in some areas dangerous.
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 Balsall Common in important and sensitive Green Belt land compared with elsewhere in Solihull Borough. Areas such as Dorridge, Knowle, Chadwick End and Fen End to the South are in less sensitive and less pressured areas of Green Belt land.
There is a very strong perception in the Balsall Common area that Solihull MBC have abandoned the Greenbelt and consciously discarded their own policies and values and have consequently lost what trust they had as a result.
It also appears from the draft local development plan consultation information booklet that land belonging to Lynda Beasley (Wyer) and Michael Cooper has been included in the proposed Barratt's Farm development. We assume this error will be rectified. In the event this development does proceed we would expect a barrier to be put in place to protect livestock on the above mentioned fields.

Draft Local Plan - Balsall Common
As a very concerned resident, I am asking you to look again at the housing developments proposed for this area.

We need to look at brownfield sites for new homes, not the green belt sites which have been put forward. As detailed in the recent Government white paper, green belt land should be protected.

We need to protect the Meriden gap and the countryside for future generations. I do appreciate that we have a housing shortfall, but surely we can allocate sites which current residents are happy with not just greedy landowners, who do not have a vested interest in the area they develop.

We are already facing a huge amount of construction traffic with HS2 and at present, we do not have anywhere near the required facilities or infrastructure such as school places and public transport.

Another option for Solihull is to look at developing a completely new area, perhaps similar to Dicken's Heath which is a lovely village development. Surely, this would provide affordable housing for young and old to meet the requirements.

As a resident of Balsall common for over 8 year I would like to respond to the Solihull Draft Land plan.

I do not support the bypass as I don't believe the details of the proposed bypass are year detailed or clear enough.

The current primary school serves the residents of balsall common fine - the issue with the primary school is that it has over the years widened its catchment too far out and this has resulted n the school now feeling its out grown its current site. If the school and its governors severed the local residents of balsall this would not be an issue.

The sports and recreational grounds again in balsall common are sufficient and cater for all ages and areas of the village. The issue arises when SMBC plan to dispose of the recreational ground on Holly's Lane/Frog Lane for housing development. This area is used for weekly football, daily dog walkers and other locals and would be a loss to this side of the village if it was to be disposed of. I support us keeping Holly Lane recreational ground as part of our green belt and as important free land for residents.

I believe that all tows and villages have to review their housing as SMBC hs put a case forward. However this should not be at the detriment of green belt land. Balsall common has had its green belt reduced recently with JLR extending their area towards Holly Lane. Further housing on Frog Lane would only increase the traffic flow at this end of the village. I object to this housing as it would again further erode the green belt at this side of the village and reduce the recreational facilities for residents on this side of the village.

The proposal towards Berkswell train station (Barretts Farm) is a more considered and sensiable option. It is close to the train station meaning residents could walk/bike/bus to the station. Thus reducing traffic with the use of more cars in the village. It would allow a fairer distribution of traffic through out the village. I understand that currently much of the traffic comes from coventry/tile hill through balsall street east, baslall street and kenilworth road. With increase traffic flow for these exiting rads once the JLR site opens this would strangle this part of the village.

I totally support keeping baslall street east and balsall street as the southern defensible boundary of balsall common.

With all the new developments within the balsall parish - how can the local amenities cope? Where are the pans for how new residents and hosing will be served by the doctors, shops, buses?

Response to draft housing plan, with reference to the Barratts Farm site


1. I do not agree that approx. 1500 houses should be built in Balsall Common, with particular reference to the above site ( & also to the Windmill Lane site )

2. Whilst recognising that the borough needs to increase housing provision I believe that brownfield sites should be considered as a priority, rather than use green belt land contrary to HM. Govt. reccomendations.

3. The Barratts Farm proposal alone would generate a great deal of additional traffic in a busy area which already has inadequate car parking in the village centre with little or no opportunity to increase this provision.
Congestion could become a major issue at or near the station roundabout as many residents of such a site would inevitably travel to work, shops etc. by car. Traffic flow towards Coventry is already restricted by the light controlled low underpass.
Any additional traffic would also put further pressure on the already inadequate station car park, with many rail travellers cars already parked daily on Hallmeadow road, frequently stretching from the station roundabout to the Lavender Hall Lane roundabout, often creating difficulty for passing traffic.

4. There would be greatly increased pressure on local health provision, which is quite stretched at present., also on school provision.

5. The proximity of HS2's path could aso be a problem whilst rail construction work is in progress with the conflicting access needs of HS2 and house builders and may well have a detrimental effect on developers sales opportunities and marketability.( or is the housing proposal reliant on the possible dropping of HS2 plans? ) I cannot help but feel the two requirements are not compatible.

6. What possibility exists of redeveloping the HS2 construction sites for housing on it's completion?

7. I think that a new settlement or village to the north of Balsall Common should definitely be considered, with opportunity being taken to use the moving of existing roads
for HS2 purposes as a springboard for such development.

Letter of opposition to proposed development of Barratts Farm in Balsall Common and construction of by-pass.

1. Pressure on the Village

a) With no clear access from the South neither Hallmeadow road nor Station Road could cope with the increased traffic this development will bring.

b) There is already a lack of car parking spaces in and around the village. Hallmeadow Road is consistently used for general parking for Berkswell Station and the medical centre. Parking for any of the shops, library and Jubilee centre are extremely hard to come by. In this area there is an average of 1.6 cars per household with 2.5% of households having 4 or more cars/vans. It is fair to assume that there will be upwards of an additional 1500 cars in the village and the pressure these additional 1500 cars would bring would be immense.

c) It is already difficult to obtain a doctor's appointment at the clinic. The feeling locally is that it is already at capacity in terms of providing an acceptable level of service. With an average of 2.4 people per household locally another 1900 patients will do nothing to ease this problem.

d) Building more houses in this location will create more unsustainable car traffic by encouraging more car commuters to live in Balsall Common. It is accepted that Balsall Common is an area where there is little in the way of job creation and many residents have to commute by car to work around the West Midlands. Only 6% of residents of this area travel to work using public transport (information from solihull.gov.uk) This is contrary to planning policy. Routes to exit the village to the east is very restricted under the low bridge at Station Road and the narrow bridge on Lavender Hall Lane with no room for expansion on these. To the west Balsall Street East is not a major thoroughfare and does not have the capacity to cope with a large increase in traffic, so virtually all traffic will be travelling north on the A452.

e) Brownfield sites to the north of the village would be far more suited to cope with the increase of traffic without adding strain to the village centre.

f) This land is greenbelt land. The NPPF identifies the 5 key Purposes of Green Belts as the following: 

i. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

ii. to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
iii. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
iv. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and,
v. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.


g) I understand that there are adequate brown field sites which could be used without using greenbelt land in order to fulfil the housing requirements. It is clear that the only reason the greenbelt site to the rear of my property has been highlighted is because it is the biggest site allowing for the maximum amount of housing possible including high density housing. With the above 5 points in mind it is clear that the availability of these brownfield sites would bring into question the adherence to the NPPF guidelines. The development would bring outlying areas of Solihull even closer to the outlying areas of Coventry.

h) The development of these houses in this site will do nothing to benefit the village, only to ruin the community feel of this village and put further strain on its capacity.

2. Consequence of the development to the immediate surrounding area

a) For the duration of the construction of the proposed development, estimated to take up to 4 years we will be subject to noise, HGV traffic, dust and general appearance of the area.

b) I live within the blighted area of the impending HS2 build. With the current housing and bypass development you are not taking into consideration any of the pressures HS2 will impose on surrounding property in this area and HS2 will not be taking into consideration any of the pressures you are looking to impose. We could possibly end up with the HS2, 900 new houses on the greenbelt land and a newly built bypass in close proximity to our homes.

c) Once the houses and bypass are built, there will then be the day to day noise, congestion and additional traffic that an additional 900 households will bring to our doorstep and with 73% of people travelling to work by car in this area that means in the region of 1100 cars will be commuting to work each day.

3. Personal quality of life

a) I am not against progress in general or for the good of the village and community, but this burden should be shared by all. This proposal on top of HS2 means that a small number of residents in this area are impacted twice as much as any other area and are therefore taking much more of the burden of 'progress'.

b) I appreciate that 'view' is not an acceptable reason for opposing a build of this nature but both 'view' and the 'right to light' law does absolutely play a part in me opposing this build. Should there be a large area of high density residential development or houses close to my property or any other that is adjacent to Barretts Farm then the uninterrupted views over green fields for, in my case, 400 years, and the amount of direct sunlight could be severely affected. Under this circumstance we would have a very strong case under the so-called 'right to light' law to impose an injunction on the commencement of building.

4. My objection and rejection of the proposed development of housing and the extension of the bypass.

I object in the strongest manner to the proposed building on land to the rear of my property on the Barratts Farm site and to the possibility of a 'bypass' across the same land.

Should the plan go ahead, I object strongly to Barretts Lane being used as a pathway to the houses especially as this will encroached on either side of my property. Barretts land is a narrow road which is already being blighted by fast through traffic on the Barretts Lane Farm site and is becoming dangerous for pedestrians.

Any 'high density' housing should to be moved directly to an area that is not blighting any existing housing bordering this greenbelt area.

Until further plans are seen, it does not appear that the bypass is not only a 'bypass' but an access road to serve the 900 proposed houses. This would not help in easing pressure on the village it would put much more strain on the village and Station Road due to the sheer amount of extra traffic therefore irrelevant where it is placed.

My letter concerns the Local plan for Berkswell and Balsall Common. I fail to see how the addition of more than 1300 homes in this area is viable due to the fact that the centre of Balsall Common is not a suitable "town centre". Improving the centre has to be a priority PRIOR to any plans to build further residences.
The vision fails to mention any improvements to facilities for the residents let alone the addition of maybe up to 5000+ more people in this area.

I firmly believe that Brownfield sites should be thoroughly investigated before looking at green belt land. The priority should be areas with good infrastructure and transport facilities. The road system near to the Barretts farm plan is hideously in sufficient. If one thinks that there will be at least 2000 more road vehicles in addition to the vehicles already in the area.
I object particularly to the Barretts farm plan as the transport routes are not adequate to support all of the extra traffic.There is land between The George in Tree and the garage along the Kenilworth Road that already has some previous development (Brownfield) which would has a good road system and access to the railway station. I believe that a plan was submitted to Solihull but turned down.
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". If you ever want to to validate this statement a visit to the Kenilworth Road in the rush hour will confirm the point.

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. .

I note that the plan does not mention the building of bungalows or indeed facilities for older residents.
I would recommend a re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common and Berkswell given its poor accessibility using public transport, its poor road system to the main site at Barretts Farm and as previously stated its limited employment possibilities.

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 scale of development proposed in Balsall Common and any potential future development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common).

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.
I live in Dengate Drive which joins onto the Kenilworth Road in the north of Balsall Common. I frequently struggle to get out onto this road at peak times and in the morning and evening especially there is a crawling line of cars coming into the village from down past the roundabout where the George in the Tree restaurant is all the way into the village. This would only be made worse with increased cars on the roads due to increased housing in this area.
The development of more sites on top of the one already being developed on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase.
3) There is already inadequate parking in the village centre and even driving through the existing parade of shops is an accident waiting to happen as cars pull in and pull out suddenly. Further development in Balsall Common is only going to add to the existing congestion and parking difficulties.
4) 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 that:
1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

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

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

As someone who has lived in Balsall Common/Berkswell most of my life and have seen the area change beyond recognition...50years ago Balsall had a wide variety of independent shops where you could buy just about anything....today the choice consists of estate agents, hairdressers and four small supermarkets this hardly attracts residents into the centre.....oh yes, the parking....or lack of it....echelon parking would save people reversing cars into each other.
Balsall Common and Berkswell is in the Green Belt in the vital Meriden Gap...this is being eroded by house building on Green Belt, HS2 with all its infrastructure, nearby Birmingham Airport. If an individual wishes to make changes to their property they are reminded that they are in the green belt.
Yes, people need houses, but ideally on brownfield sites near to good transport links without having to build new roads, schools,doctors etc.
Therefore saving the Green Belt for future generations to enjoy.

see detailed response to policies and 4 supporting documents supporting proposed sites

Comments Regarding the Balsall Common/Berkswell Proposals


Barratt's Farm Site

There are too many houses proposed for the Barratt's Farm site. Wherever the access points are created, there will be traffic congestion.

If the site is used at all, access must be away from the village centre and residential roads.

Barratt's Lane/Sunnyside Lane provides the only existing access to the proposed site and it would be entirely unsuitable to use this route either during the building phase or for the finished development. As Sunnyside Lane has no traffic calming measures, it is already a rat run between Meeting House Lane and Station Road. As a result, parking on the pavement is widespread and it is often impossible to push prams and buggies without walking in the road. Vehicles race along Sunnyside Lane at dangerously high speeds and frequently drive round the mini-roundabout in the wrong direction when travelling towards Meeting House Lane as this allows them to maintain their speed.


General

The proposals are for too many houses overall and would place unsustainable pressure on roads and services in the village which are already at full stretch. As an example, the minor works currently affecting a few parking bays in front of the shops are causing chaos as a result of deliveries and heavy traffic along Station Road.

The proposals should be refocussed on smaller developments on the periphery of the village ensuring that each links into existing or new roads that will allow access away from village centre and residential roads.

For traffic planning purposes It must be assumed that every dwelling will have at least two cars and that everyone will drive to the shops or to the school if they live more than two minutes' walk away. This is the current situation and there is no reason to believe that this will change.

Barratt's Lane Planning Application, Balsall Common

I am not the type of person who complains or moans, but I feel compelled to write to you to raise my concerns over the development of 800 houses on the Barratt's Farm site. This development will mean little or no green belt left on the east side of Balsall Common. These fields are used by both dog walkers and ramblers with public rights of way.

The current population of the village is approximately 8000. The proposed 1250 houses being built will turn Balsall Common from a rural village into a town. However, I see no plans proposed to cope with the increased traffic and increased footfall. The centre of the village is chaotic at times. The road network and public transport is insufficient to support a 5000 increase in population and 2000 extra vehicles. There is no proposed infrastructure in these plans.

Due to the centre of the village being surrounded by residents it cannot be expanded to absorb the extra demand, so why are more houses being built so close to the small centre of the village?

I recognise the Government pressure to build more new homes. However, there are better sites to build houses in this area, which will minimise the impact on the community of Balsall Common. Oakes farm on Balsall Street and the large green areas north of the village on the A452 could accommodate new builds with little or no impact to the community. I understand Oakes farm has been approached by Spitfire homes to develop houses on this site.

I urge the planning department of Solihull Borough Council to strongly consider the consequences of the current proposed plans and review viable alternatives. The current proposals may lead to a catastrophic outcome.

Solihull Draft Housing Plan - Balsall Commo

Having lived in Balsall Common since 2003 I feel compelled to comment and express my feelings about the proposed building of 1350 new houses in this lovely semi rural village.

When we chose to live in Balsall Common it was because we wanted to live in a village with beautiful swathes of green belt but with good access to the facilities of towns like Solihull, Coventry and Kenilworth. Over the past 14 years there has been a steady addition of new housing developments but on the whole in a reasonably thoughtful and controlled manner. This latest development appears to have been given little thought and will result in Balsall Common becoming more like a town but without any of the facilities or the infrastructure to cope with this change.

I feel most strongly about the proposed building on Barratt's Farm. This is a beautiful piece of greenbelt which is enjoyed by myself, my family and many many other ramblers and dog walkers. This area of greenbelt enhances the village with a feeling of openness and permanence. Indeed isn't that the value of greenbelt that it prevents urban sprawl by keeping the land permanently open.

Where will the many people who enjoy this green open space now walk? Due to all this development our options are diminishing as is the pleasure we get from living here.

How will the Barratt's farm site be accessed? It is surrounded by houses and small roads which are unsuitable for the number of vehicle which will need to access this site.

How will our village shopping centre cope with the drastic increase in the number of cars that will enter the village? The village centre is already dangerous and unable to cope with the present level of traffic and quite often is an unpleasant place to be.

How will our surgery cope with the increase in population when at present I struggle to get an appointment on the day that I need one?

This increase in population will need facilities.... More restaurants, shops, leisure facilities but even if money is made available to provide these facilities there simply aren't the local sites to house them? The village centre cannot expand because it is surrounded by houses.

This increase in population will mean that the village will need an improved road network and an increase in public transport, has any thought been given to this?

I feel that Solihull Borough Council has a duty to the residents of Balsall Common to give full consideration to and address all of the above issues before approving such a dramatic increase in this village's population. An increase of 1350 more houses will be an historic change to this village and will change the lives of many of it's inhabitants. I cannot speak for other residents but my husband and I have already decided that we feel so strongly against the proposed development of Barratt's Farm that we will move.

see attached letter

Please find attached a response to the Solihull Local Plan Review consultation on behalf of Colchurch Properties Limited who are promoting land to the south of Station Road, Balsall Common.

This response comprises a 'Vision Document' which includes the following sections,

Foreword (inset)
1. Introduction
2. The Vision
3. Planning Background
4. Draft Local Plan 2016 Consultation Response
5. The Concept Masterplan (not including figures which are within the hard copy and CD issued separately)
6. Transport and Access

Letter of opposition to proposed development of Barratts Farm in Balsall Common and construction of by-pass.


I would like to start this letter with highlighting that there is enough brown field sites to fulfil the housing requirements needed by the council. There is no valid reason to take greenbelt land in order to build these houses and the 'bypass' will simply serve to provide an access road for the houses and nothing else.

Without clear access from the South neither Hallmeadow road or Station Road could cope with the increased traffic this development will bring.

Whilst traffic levels are higher during peak commuter periods it has already been accepted that the village does not require a 'bypass' in order to sustain the levels of traffic, there is currently not enough demand for this. The real reason for the proposed bypass is simply to fulfil future road links for HS2 expansion. In the current proposal this 'bypass' is not a 'bypass' it is an access road for the 900 houses which will only add further pressure to the commuter traffic within the village.

There is already a clear lack of car parking spaces in and around the village. Hallmeadow Road is consistently used for general parking for Berkswell Station and the medical centre. The only other two car parking sites in the village have now been turned into Shops or houses (the spaces directly behind the shops leading to the Co-op supermarket and behind the new shops of Tesco and Costa). Parking for any of the shops, library and Jubilee centre are extremely hard to come by. In this area there is an average of 1.6 cars per household with 2.5% of households having 4 or more cars/vans. It is fair to assume that there will be upwards of an additional 1500 cars in the village and the pressure these additional 1500 cars would bring would be immense.

It is already difficult to obtain a doctors appointment at the clinic directly opposite us. Despite raising no objections to the build of the clinic, as it was a much needed requirement for the village, and although I don't have official figures, the feeling locally is that it is already at capacity in terms of providing an acceptable level of service. With an average of 2.4 people per household locally another 1900 patients will do nothing to ease this problem.

Building more houses in this location will create more unsustainable car traffic by encouraging more car commuters to live in Balsall Common. It is accepted that Balsall Common is an area where there is little in the way of job creation and many residents have to commute by car to work around the West Midlands. Only 6% of residents of this area travel to work using public transport (information from solihull.gov.uk). This is contrary to planning policy. Routes to exit the village to the east is very restricted under the low bridge at Station Road and the narrow bridge on Lavender Hall Lane with no room for expansion on these. To the west Balsall Street East is not a major thoroughfare and does not have the capacity to cope with a large increase in traffic, so virtually all traffic will be travelling north on the A452. Brownfield sites to the north of the village would be far more suited to cope with this without adding strain to the village centre.

Within the plans for using this land you are earmarking reclassified greenbelt land which simply does not make sense, and its legality can be brought into question.

The NPPF identifies the 5 key Purposes of Green Belts as the following:
1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and,
5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

It is our understanding that there are adequate brown field sites which could be used without using greenbelt land in order to fulfil the housing requirements. It is clear that the only reason the greenbelt site to the rear of our property has been highlighted is because it is the biggest site allowing for the maximum amount of housing possible including high density housing.

With the above 5 points in mind it is clear that the availability of these brownfield sites would bring into question the adherence to the NPPF guidelines. The development would bring outlying areas of Solihull even closer to the outlying areas of Coventry.

The development of these houses in the site we are objecting to will do nothing to benefit the village, only to ruin the community feel of this village and put further strain on capacity. With 73% of people travelling to work by car in this area that means in the region of 1100 cars will be commuting to work each day.

The bypass is not a 'bypass' it is an access road to serve the 900 proposed houses. This would not help in easing pressure on the village it would put much more strain on the village and Station Road due to the sheer amount of extra traffic therefore irrelevant where it is placed. The 'bypass' needs to be moved fully away from our boundary perimeter, at least 50 metres from our boundary border.

Yours Faithfully

Letter of opposition to proposed development of Barratts Farm in Balsall Common and construction of by-pass.


I would like to start this letter with highlighting that there is enough brown field sites to fulfil the housing requirements needed by the council. There is no valid reason to take greenbelt land in order to build these houses and the 'bypass' will simply serve to provide an access road for the houses and nothing else.

Without clear access from the South neither Hallmeadow road or Station Road could cope with the increased traffic this development will bring.

Whilst traffic levels are higher during peak commuter periods it has already been accepted that the village does not require a 'bypass' in order to sustain the levels of traffic, there is currently not enough demand for this. The real reason for the proposed bypass is simply to fulfil future road links for HS2 expansion. In the current proposal this 'bypass' is not a 'bypass' it is an access road for the 900 houses which will only add further pressure to the commuter traffic within the village.

There is already a clear lack of car parking spaces in and around the village. Hallmeadow Road is consistently used for general parking for Berkswell Station and the medical centre. The only other two car parking sites in the village have now been turned into Shops or houses (the spaces directly behind the shops leading to the Co-op supermarket and behind the new shops of Tesco and Costa). Parking for any of the shops, library and Jubilee centre are extremely hard to come by. In this area there is an average of 1.6 cars per household with 2.5% of households having 4 or more cars/vans. It is fair to assume that there will be upwards of an additional 1500 cars in the village and the pressure these additional 1500 cars would bring would be immense.

It is already difficult to obtain a doctors appointment at the clinic directly opposite us. Despite raising no objections to the build of the clinic, as it was a much needed requirement for the village, and although I don't have official figures, the feeling locally is that it is already at capacity in terms of providing an acceptable level of service. With an average of 2.4 people per household locally another 1900 patients will do nothing to ease this problem.

Building more houses in this location will create more unsustainable car traffic by encouraging more car commuters to live in Balsall Common. It is accepted that Balsall Common is an area where there is little in the way of job creation and many residents have to commute by car to work around the West Midlands. Only 6% of residents of this area travel to work using public transport (information from solihull.gov.uk). This is contrary to planning policy. Routes to exit the village to the east is very restricted under the low bridge at Station Road and the narrow bridge on Lavender Hall Lane with no room for expansion on these. To the west Balsall Street East is not a major thoroughfare and does not have the capacity to cope with a large increase in traffic, so virtually all traffic will be travelling north on the A452. Brownfield sites to the north of the village would be far more suited to cope with this without adding strain to the village centre.

Within the plans for using this land you are earmarking reclassified greenbelt land which simply does not make sense, and its legality can be brought into question.

The NPPF identifies the 5 key Purposes of Green Belts as the following:
1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and,
5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

It is our understanding that there are adequate brown field sites which could be used without using greenbelt land in order to fulfil the housing requirements. It is clear that the only reason the greenbelt site to the rear of our property has been highlighted is because it is the biggest site allowing for the maximum amount of housing possible including high density housing.

With the above 5 points in mind it is clear that the availability of these brownfield sites would bring into question the adherence to the NPPF guidelines. The development would bring outlying areas of Solihull even closer to the outlying areas of Coventry.

The development of these houses in the site we are objecting to will do nothing to benefit the village, only to ruin the community feel of this village and put further strain on capacity. With 73% of people travelling to work by car in this area that means in the region of 1100 cars will be commuting to work each day.

The bypass is not a 'bypass' it is an access road to serve the 900 proposed houses. This would not help in easing pressure on the village it would put much more strain on the village and Station Road due to the sheer amount of extra traffic therefore irrelevant where it is placed. The 'bypass' needs to be moved fully away from our boundary perimeter, at least 50 metres from our boundary border.

SMBC
To Whom it may concern:

As a resident of Balsall common for nearly 9 year I would like to respond to the Solihull Draft Land plan.

1) Bypass: I do not support the bypass as I do not believe the details of the proposed bypass are very detailed or clear enough.

2) Primary School: The current primary school serves the residents of balsall common fine - the issue with the primary school is that it has over the years widened its catchment too far out and this has resulted n the school now feeling its out grown its current site. If the school and its governors severed the local residents of balsall this would not be an issue.

3) The sports and recreational grounds: Again in balsall common these are sufficient and cater for all ages and areas of the village. The issue arises when SMBC plan to dispose of the recreational ground on Holly's Lane/Frog Lane for housing development. This area is used for weekly football, daily dog walkers and other locals and would be a loss to this side of the village if it was to be disposed of. I support us keeping Holly Lane recreational ground as part of our green belt and as important free land for residents.

I believe that all towns and villages have to review their housing as SMBC has put a case forward. However this should not be at the detriment of green belt land. Balsall common has had its green belt reduced recently with JLR extending their area towards Holly Lane. Further housing on Frog Lane would only increase the traffic flow at this end of the village. I object to this housing as it would again further erode the green belt at this side of the village and reduce the recreational facilities for residents on this side of the village.

The proposal towards Berkswell train station (Barretts Farm) is a more considered and sensiable option. It is close to the train station meaning residents could walk/bike/bus to the station. Thus reducing traffic with the use of more cars in the village. It would allow a fairer distribution of traffic through out the village. I understand that currently much of the traffic comes from coventry/tile hill through balsall street east, baslall street and kenilworth road. With increase traffic flow for these exiting rads once the JLR site opens this would strangle this part of the village.

I totally support keeping baslall street east and balsall street as the southern defensible boundary of balsall common.

With all the new developments within the balsall parish - how can the local amenities cope? Where are the plans for how new residents and hosing will be served by the doctors, shops, buses?
Regards

Update to the below:

I learned on Saturday 18th February that the council plans to cease the bus service from Balsall Common to St George and St Teresa.

I therefore think it is critical that the council provides a catholic school in Balsall Common as part of the housing plan and given the size of the proposed final population.

thanks

Chris McDermott


Dear Sir/Madam,
I write regarding the consultation on the housing plan and have some feedback that I would like to be captured. Broadly the document seems sensible and the council is taking the necessary steps to make some difficult decisions. Personally I do not look forward to the additional houses but accept that we probably have little choice.
My main concerns are around how we maintain the standard of living of existing residents as these houses go in and also how we capitalise on the opportunity to improve areas because of the potential investment opportunity that is afforded by the introduction of these homes.
To this end I have some specific comments about the proposed developments in Balsall Common that I would like to be captured so that they become "hard wired" into the plan. I think that is the really important bit...if the houses are to be introduced then there must be a commitment to improve a number of aspects of the village. I do not believe it is satisfactory for this to be an independent process as the Council Vision will not be achieved unless due consideration is given at the start to the true impacts of the proposed changes.
My main focus for ensuring that everyone has an equal chance to be healthier, happier, safer and prosperous, including those that live in the affected areas are providing Leisure facilities, schooling, preventing unnecessary road journeys and ensuring safe access.
Specifically about the Balsall Common proposals I have the following comments:
Leisure Facilities
I think the most important aspect of any scheme to build houses in Balsall Common is the inclusion of some significantly improved leisure facilities. Looking at my own family the number of times we make journeys to access leisure facilities in Coventry and Solihull is ridiculous. Adding those homes will only lead to more unnecessary journeys that could be prevented if facilities are built within the village to include a swimming pool, gym, outdoor Astroturf five a side football pitches, squash courts etc. This facility could also provide some appropriate community space for other activities/clubs too.
I am also nervous about existing facilities/clubs and their ability to welcome new members. The rugby club, football club and cricket club for example all have limited facilities and so I think it is important that some money from the developments are made available to these clubs to build additional facilities. The Balsall and Berkswell rugby club has terrible facilities and so a modest investment in additional changing facilities would mean new families could be welcomed without the need for them to make additional journeys to other places to play their sport.
Finally on the leisure front I'm concerned, particularly in the development near the station, that a number of leisure walking routes will be spoiled. I'd like consideration to be given for rights of access in the adjoining fields so that appropriate family walking can be maintained within the green belt with a number of circular routes still available. I believe the landowner who has made their land available for sale also owns some of this other land. It therefore follows that providing access on some of this other property could be a condition of sale. There is also an opportunity in the HS2 "dead zone" (where I understand houses are not permitted within 30m of the new track) to be inventive and create enhanced leisure facilities. As an example this space could be developed into a mountain bike circuit for local people to enjoy.
Clearly I support all the proposed ideas that I've heard that would ensure good pedestrian and bicycle access within the new housing developments.
Schooling
My children attend St George and ST Teresa school as it is the closest faith school. I know that this school is oversubscribed and I think as part of the plans the educational needs of catholic children in the borough need to be considered. I would strongly advocate the provision of more catholic school places either in Balsall Common or Knowle as part of the housing plan.
Access
Railway
One of the reasons I really like living in the village is the great access currently afforded via the railway. I've seen in some of the prospectuses that people living in the new houses will be expected to complete a number of their journeys by rail. I fully support this plan...although it does need to be flagged that the three main Birmingham bound services in the morning from Berkswell (0717, 0742, 0821) are already full and standing most days and on a number of occasions have left people on the platform. Similarly southbound the 0753 and 0811 are often very busy. I would like to see plans for expanding capacity on this route in order to support the additional patronage that is being heralded within the new homes plan.
It should also be noted that station parking is inadequate and so more space will be required to park as part of the plans.
Road - mitigation required of existing risk
At the moment there are two major risk points for me in the village. These are station road (outside Tesco) and meeting house lane.
Station Road
I attended a recent planning road show for the proposed developments and was concerned to learn that without a relief road the 800 homes proposed near the station will have no southbound access directly off the site onto Kelsey Lane. Instead anyone wishing to travel south will look to use station road and drive past the Tesco store. This area is heavily congested already and getting in and out of parking spaces is very difficult. I would therefore like to see some mitigation of this risk in the plan. This could be achieved via providing a relief road to the south or through the use of a one way system, diagonal parking with additional roundabout or some other method of easing this bottle neck. I do not think it would be safe or satisfactory to build the 800 homes on that site without a clear method to ensure that southbound traffic does not make the station road congestion worse.
Meeting House road.
This road is extremely treacherous for pedestrians. There is very little space for two cars to pass at the same time. The parts of the road that have a pavement are dangerous because the pavement is narrow, there are overhanging trees and bushes and when two cars pass the wing mirrors of one car overhang the pavement. The remaining section is dangerous as there is no pavement! For this reason I'd be nervous if any of the new development had direct (or indirect) access onto this road without significant improvements to protect pedestrians.
Thanks

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 Windmill Lane 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.

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan and would like to register my disapproval of the proposed plan both on the unfairness of targeting one area and the blatant disregard of the green belt.
Over the last 10 years Balsall Common has seen an unprecedented number of houses built which has doubled the size of the village and led to undue pressure on school, roads and health services. To now propose to build a further 1000+ houses is nothing short of madness. I feel that is totally ingenuous to publicise these building plans as being split between the parishes of Berkswell and Balsall Common when in fact all the houses are in or next to the village of Balsall Common. The site noted as Barratts Farm where the plan proposes 800 homes to be built is more than 3 miles from the centre of Berkswell but less than half a mile from the centre of Balsall Common. These plans should be looked at by area not by parish boundaries which have been in place over a hundred years and bear no relevance in today's planning world. The actual village of Berkswell has seen no new houses for 20 years, if only Balsall Common could say the same!
It appears on the surface to be totally unfair that Berkswell village has no houses planned, Hampton in Arden 100 homes, Meriden 50 homes whilst Balsall Common has 1000!!!!! I find this discrepancy totally unacceptable and when I spoke to an SMBC representative at the Balsall Common Library consultation day he could offer no sensible or sane reason for this. When I asked further questions on how these development plans had been formulated he said that land owners/builders had put forward the sites for consideration. This, surely, cannot be right? SMBC should surely be deciding where and what is built to fulfil the Government's demands to increase the housing stock not people with vested interests? It would make so much more sense for the planning department to look at the infrastructure of the Borough, look at the demand (which by all accounts is supposed to be for starter and cheaper properties not 4 & 5 bedroomed detached houses) and plan accordingly. Not deposit 1000 homes in an area with no thought whatsoever except for the fact that someone who owns the land would be able to sell it with probably a good profit.
I strongly object to all 3 sites, Barratts Farm, Windmill Lane and Frog Lane. The Frog Lane site would see the allotments & playing fields disappear, how can that be right? The playing field is used by local children for football etc, local dog walkers and joggers. At a time when the Government spend millions telling people to eat healthy and exercise you propose to build houses on the very site that enables residents of Balsall Common to do just this.
I hope that SMBC planners will take into account the residents of Balsall Common feelings and re think this proposed strategy with more fairness and objectivity.

Housing Developments for Balsall Common - Meeting House Lane
Having struggled to access your website to provide feedback on the planned development in Balsall Common, I am now committing my feedback in this email. I have recently received a leaflet through my post box, indicating plans to develop the Barretts Farm to accommodate up to 800 houses in Balsall Common.

The leaflet indicates an access point to the left or right of my property i.e. 111 or 115 Meeting House Lane. In the event that the developer gains approval to build the houses on the site of Barretts Farm, then I believe 113 should be included. The access point from Meeting House Lane is narrow under normal traffic and would most certainly be difficult to manoeuvre when taking into account the large vehicles used when building housing in addition to needing sufficient walk ways for pedestrians . In additions, I suspect that any development will want to minimise potential hazards for home buyers accessing the site to view the show house. As a result, the show house is typically based at the entrance to the site which I believe would be best served by the purchasing of not one but two properties. In this case 111 and 113 or 113 and 115 Meeting House Lane.

I accept that the borough needs more housing but it should not be at a detriment to me. As a result, if the plans are approved, it must be on the basis that 113 is purchased.

Please would you email or write to me, to confirm receipt of my emails as I understand the deadline is today, 17 February 2017.

Best regards

In response to the consultation please find below my response to the questions posted by Solihull Council.

Question 1 Do you agree that we have identified the right challenges facing the Borough? No not fully.

As a resident of Balsall Common living in the Parish of Berkswell I can mainly comment on the area in which I live.

Balsall Common Centre is exactly .5 mile from my house. The village centre is very small and the increase in population over recent years has meant the centre can no longer cope with the throughput of vehicles and parking in the area. In the plan there appears to be no mention of major improvements to this area but to suggest an increase of a further 1150 houses to the village. 800 of those dwellings are suggested for Barratt's Farm area which would cause further chaos in the centre of the village. Key to the plans must be the development of a potential new extension to a village possibly to the north of the village. I have witnessed several crashes of vehicles reversing into one another in the centre and some near misses with pedestrians. Safety should be a priority and facilitating parking is also important if the area develops. It is key to the growth of the village and needs to be reviewed.

Question 2 Do you agree with the Borough Vision we have set out? No I would refer to the answer in question 1. Balsall Common village centre on Staion Road needs to be reviewed for the longer term success of a growing village. It does not appear on the plan.

Question 3 Do you agree with the spatial strategy?
No as spatial strategy cannot fully be answered by a subjective criteria. It is a reasonable starting point but one that may need weighting. Transport links and terminal need planning at the same time as development. In 25 years from now electric vehicles could be the norm and there has to be plans now for access to charging points etc. Being near public transport can change. Berkswell station platform needs improvement for the future it may become an issue if trains were no longer allowed to stop at the station.
I do agree that Brownfield sites should be used in preference to Greenfield sites however in Balsall Common you have chosen to develop 3 Greenfield sites at odds with your categories. Why?

Question 7 Sustainable Economic Growth
For Balsall Common there needs to be a review of the centre and how people can access the facilities. Possibly developing a different facility either at the Station end of Station Road or possibly north of the village.

Question 11 Do you agree with P4 ?. No
To add a further 1150 houses to Balsall Common at the same time as having a HS2 line ploughed through the centre is ridiculous. Having 800 potential new houses confined in Balsall Common between Station Road, Meeting House Lane and Waste Lane (Barratt's Farm), together with the possibility of a new school with that area is not possible without easy access to facilities and the road network. There is little employment within the village and most people have to commute. The car is the main transport from the village and I estimate on the Barratt's Lane development at least a further 1200 vehicles with 2500 vehicle journeys per day extra without considering the new school! Not everyone wants to live in flats and there needs to be areas for social care within the community together with opportunities for bungalows at reasonable prices. These are not explored in the proposals. Whilst a by-pass is mooted it is not final and without that road, access for the housing in the confined area of Barratt's farm would be unsafe.

Question 15 Do you believe we are planning to build new 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? No I don't think the volume or locations are correct.

1 In Balsall Common all 3 sites are Greenbelt sites. Once the greenbelt is lost it will never be replaced and the amenity which is cherished by all residents and visitors making the village have a unique feel to it's location equidistant between Coventry and Solihull would be lost forever.

The Barratt's Lane site is one of the narrowest parts of the Meriden Gap and it would see erosion of limited greenbelt between Coventry and Balsall Common. The residents and visitors to Balsall Common value and cherish the open feel and countryside views for recreational walking and pursuits. Once built on it would cease to have the same appeal. In August the landowner showed plans for access to their site to be made from Station Road and by knocking down two cottages on Meeting House Lane as an access point directly onto the Lane. If the access onto MHL were to be accepted it would be an extremely unsafe situation. There are no pavements on Meeting House Lane and the width of the Lane would make it difficult to turn onto the lane especially for refuse vehicles, pantechnicons etc. Safety would be the major issue with the possibility of up to 2000 cars using the lane with pedestrians daily is unacceptable. Much would depend on whether or not a by-pass could be built as to whether Barratt's Farm would be right for access and for the building of so many houses. A school on the site would only aggravate the traffic situation within the site. I do not support the plan for 800 homes on this site.

Whilst Solihull have chosen 3 sites for development it may want to review this with the possibility of eliminating or reducing the units for Barratt's farm or even to look elsewhere completely if the by-pass is not approved. Why I would put this forward is that if access was difficult it may be worth investing in a larger area to the north of the village where a school and facilities could be located which would help to mitigate traffic in the village centre. In real terms the proposals from Solihull will not help the village unless facilities are made available on the area surrounding the Station. I would favour an area for growth in the north of the village to give direct access to the Kenilworth Road and provision of facilities to ease the burden on the village centre.

The Frog Lane site is not huge and the Windmill Lane site is infilling the triangle already being developed. Whilst I don't like to see development on the greenbelt I don't have a view on these small sites.

16 Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure to support these developments? No A defined route and by-pass is required. Room for multimodal transport developments and terminus is required. We have a Doctor's surgery but probably need more Doctor's for the growing size of population. A further affordable care home and day care facilities in the Barratt's farm area is probably needed. Car parking and village centre development (elsewhere) is required.

18 Improving Accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel.
Balsall Common's bus service is hourly. To get from Waste Lane to the A45 in Coventry by bus takes 45minutes to Coventry City Centre then wait for 15 mins for a 20 minute bus ride to take you back to the A45 arriving near your destination of 4.1miles away from Balsall Common in 1hr 20mins. This is why most households have 2 cars . This will mean a further increase in vehicle movements and problems in a village centre location.

My comments are below are specifically related to the housing proposals in Balsall Common:-

Strategy

In the 21st century it is entirely inappropriate to use parish (council) boundaries as arbitrary measures for building proposals. Few of these boundaries directly relate to building developments in the last 50/75 years. In the case of Balsall Common, the parish boundary runs directly through the centre of Balsall Common (BC) which places much of the village in Berkswell parish albeit no one in full command of their faculties would recognise that much of Station Rd., Hallmeadow Rd and even the railway station are in Berkswell. Nor is the proposed Barretts Farm development. In fact, I can see NO proposal to build houses in the village of Berkswell! Why has there been no development in or directly adjacent to Berkswell village in over 30 years?

Similarly, Hampton in Arden proposal is for 100 houses and Meriden is for only 50. So why, is Balsall Common targeted for > 1,000?

This is nothing more than SMBC expediency which culminates in an unfair and disproportionate burden on Balsall Common. I was advised by a SMBC rep. at the BC "roadshow" on 7 January that the land proposed for development had been "offered" to SMBC for inclusion in the plan. Is this really the best SMBC planners can do? It is clear that this approach has been favoured by landowners with a clear vested interest and greedy developers who wish to build on green field sites all around the borough and as the easy & expedient option for the council. SMBC will reply by saying - "What alternative sites are there?" Well, of course, the truth of the matter is for them to know and/or find out. It is not the job of local residents to locate suitable sites for housing development and then have to object when SMBC produce some kind of hare brained plan. I cannot recall this approach being adopted for the route of HS2. Local and national government didn't accept "offered up" sites for this!

There seems little evidence of brown field sites being considered or targeted. There are 14 PDL sites in BC.

Specifically

The housing developments in BC in the past few years (Kenilworth Rd.x 2, Riddings Hill, Kelsey Lane) have already overloaded the existing infrastructure.

BC Primary school operates with > 700 pupils on a site designed for 300+. This expansion has already blighted the lives of local residents because of traffic and parking problems. There is little enforcement of restrictions by SMBC CEOs. Traffic also causes concern & chaos for residents in the vicinity of Heart of England school which "imports" children from outside the catchment area.

The rail service is overloaded and run by one of the worst franchises in the UK. Trains are late or often cancelled, dirty and overcrowded. The station car park is full and cars are parking in nearby roads causing obstructions.

The bus service is haphazard. Again, services are late, cancelled and staffed by drivers who don't know the routes. History shows that operators can and will withdraw services with little notice.

The main A452 is a continual queue of slow moving vehicles during peak times in both morning and evening. The road itself is an "escape route" for traffic delays on the M40, M42 &M6 with side roads becoming "rat runs".

BC is poorly served by public transport and is gradually choking by virtue of traffic on the A452.

There is virtually no employment within BC hence most people will commute by car adding to the pollution and congestion.

There is already inadequate car parking in the village centre for both long and short stay motorists.

Financial institutions are increasingly closing their branches in BC.

The proposed development at site 2 (Frog Lane) will completely spoil one of the finest landscape views in the village looking south west.. It covers an area of allotments which have only been open in the past few years and a sports field which is the only available sports field on the west side of the A452. This is currently used by village football teams, joggers, walkers, dog walkers and is one of the few "quiet" environments left in BC away from traffic noise and pollution.

In SMBCs rush to add to an already over-developed BC, there appears to have little or no consideration given to historical sites such as the Windmill. The undoubted mess and confusion due to be by HS2 will be a further burden.

The effect of building 1000+ houses with (say) 4000+ inhabitants will virtually double the size of BC. The whole character and heritage of the existing community will change out all recognition. What other community within SMBC area will suffer the same expansion?

Conclusion

There can be no justifiable reason to foist this level of development on BC when taking a view on the minimal levels proposed for neighbouring villages. It is neither fair nor proportionate.

SMBC need to reconsider use of brownfield sites where suitable.

BC is already at breaking point with much of its infrastructure. Where are plans to improve this?

Protection needs to be established for the heritage and history of BC. It is not acceptable to double the population and lose its essential character.

Remove site 2 from the DLP as a prime piece of community used land offering a totally rural & tranquil environment away from traffic & pollution enjoyed by residents of all ages.

I write in response to the draft housing plan with specific reference to Balsall Common

1) Traffic - The proposed 1350 new homes for Balsall Common will generate approximately 9,500 additional vehicle movements each day, most of which will discharge onto the A452 Kenilworth Road. This road is a through route for cars and heavy goods vehicles from the south to the M42 and M6 motorways, and is gridlocked at certain times of the day even now. How are these vehicles to be accommodated on the existing road network?

Does the Council intend to construct a by-pass, and if so, will it be on the line of the previously proposed route utilising Hall meadow Road?

Why did the Council revoke this improvement line only a year or so ago, knowing that it would have to meet future housing needs?

2) Infrastructure - What proposals does the the Council have for improving the infrastructure for Balsall Common to cater for the people living in these new homes in terms of schools, medical centres, shops and other basic infrastructure requirements?

3) Parking - Parking in the centre of Balsall Common is presently chaotic and insufficient, and exacerbated by the lack of provision for delivery vehicles to the shops in the centre, particularly the recently opened Tesco store, where articulated vehicles arrive frequently and totally block traffic.

Hall Meadow Road (originally considered to be the northern section of a possible By-pass) regularly has upto 40 vehicles parked between Station Road and Riddings Hill and beyond. Some of these vehicles belong to train commuters (parking at the station is inadequate) and some to visitors to the new medical centre, where parking provision appears to be insufficient. Did the planning experts assume that people seeking medical attention would walk, ride their bike or catch a bus to the centre?

Some of this parking takes place on the grass verges, and with a solid line of 40 vehicles parked on one side of the road, when larger vehicles travelling in opposing directions meet in the middle, one vehicle is forced onto the grass verge opposite.

The proposed new homes for Balsall Common will only exacerbate the existing parking problems in the area generally, and specifically at the station and in the centre around the shops.

How are these issues to be addressed in your plan?

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.

SOLIHULL COUNCIL'S DRAFT HOUSING PLAN
Dear Sir
We wish to make the following comments concerning the above for you to consider.
GREEN BELT
At a time when government are announcing through many avenues of media that GREEN BELT land must be preserved at all costs it seems that SMBC have totally ignored this announcement and in doing so will close the ever decreasing gap between Balsall Common and Coventry and given the continuation of this policy along with the proposals Coventry have suggested, it appears that the GREEN BELT gap will be obliterated completely, which is totally unacceptable.
BALSALL COMMON CENTRE
While your plan intends to increase the dwellings in Balsall Common by well in excess of 30% there is absolutely no mention of your intention of increasing the facilities of the centre of Balsall Common. It is a fact that while the number of dwellings in Balsall Common has drastically increased over the last twenty years there has been no attempt by SMBC to increase the facilities. In fact most recently yet another bank has announced it intends to close its branch. The parking situation even with the increased parking facility behind the shops is still not enough and there are times now when it is very dangerous to try and get out of a parking position onto Station Road.
There are nowhere near enough variety of shops to service the existing residents of Balsall Common let alone an increase of the magnitude you intend and there are no public toilets, which one would think is a necessity with the increase of people your plan will attract.
TYPE OF HOUSING
We understand that you aim to make 50% of the new homes "affordable" even though one of the new sites under construction in Balsall Common has already found great difficulty in selling the "affordable" housing on the site because of the price. Surely it is common sense to position "affordable housing" in an area with in the borough where the surrounding properties and therefore the new properties fall into a price range that make the price affordable, rather in an area like Balsall Common where the prices are not conducive the "affordable" market
TRAFFIC
The largest site for Balsall Common is obviously the Barretts Lane Farm development but at this time no mention of how the site would be accessed is available. We would ask you to consider that Meeting House Lane must not be used in any form either directly or via Oxhayes Close or Sunnyside Lane or Barretts Lane, because it is already used as a bypass to the A452 even though you have had a number of speed bumps installed. Meeting House lane does not have pavements on either side of it other than a very small section of approximately 100metres and in fact it only has one pavement on one side of the Road from Station Road down to Sunnyside Lane which makes it a very dangerous road on which to encourage a very large percentage increase in foot traffic, a very large amount of which would be school children, if your if your plan comes to fruition.
If permission for the Barretts Lane site is given please consider the access to the new site to be a feeder Road off the current island positioned at the junction of Station Road and Hall Meadow Drive and taking it through to at least Kelsey Lane. This would not only eradicate any further problems along Meeting House Lane but also complete the extension to Hall Meadow Drive which would provide a complete bypass to Balsall Common Centre if it were extended to the island at the junction with the A452 and A4177.

I am writing to give my views on Solihull Council's draft housing plan and its impact on Balsall Common - my location.

* In planning to locate 1350 homes in Balsall Common, I'm not convinced that consideration has been given to developing brownfield sites elsewhere or that building on the green belt constitutes 'exceptional circumstances'
* I am extremely concerned about the lack of consideration for infrastructure improvements. These should include the impact on schools and the doctors' surgery as well as provision of services - water, electricity, gas etc.
* I also feel that public transport links are insufficient which will necessitate a huge increase in the use of cars in and around the village.
* The centre of Balsall Common will certainly require improvement to accommodate a massive increase in the number of people using it. Currently parking in the centre is a nightmare and by June we will only have one bank left. These are things which need to be considered before starting to build more homes.
* I am very concerned about the a proposed access to the Barratt's Farm site being on Meeting House Lane. For a lot of its length, the lane has no footpath and an increase in traffic along the lane will certainly constitute a major hazard to pedestrians and other users.

Letter of opposition to proposed development of Barratts Farm in Balsall Common and construction of by-pass.
I would like to start this letter with highlighting that there is enough brown field sites to fulfil the housing requirements needed by the council. There is no valid reason to take greenbelt land in order to build these houses and the 'bypass' will simply serve to provide an access road for the houses and nothing else.
Without clear access from the South neither Hallmeadow road or Station Road could cope with the increased traffic this development will bring.
Whilst traffic levels are higher during peak commuter periods it has already been accepted that the village does not require a 'bypass' in order to sustain the levels of traffic, there is currently not enough demand for this. The real reason for the proposed bypass is simply to fulfil future road links for HS2 expansion. In the current proposal this 'bypass' is not a 'bypass' it is an access road for the 900 houses which will only add further pressure to the commuter traffic within the village.
There is already a clear lack of car parking spaces in and around the village. Hallmeadow Road is consistently used for general parking for Berkswell Station and the medical centre. The only other two car parking sites in the village have now been turned into Shops or houses (the spaces directly behind the shops leading to the Co-op supermarket and behind the new shops of Tesco and Costa). Parking for any of the shops, library and Jubilee centre are extremely hard to come by. In this area there is an average of 1.6 cars per household with 2.5% of households having 4 or more cars/vans. It is fair to assume that there will be upwards of an additional 1500 cars in the village and the pressure these additional 1500 cars would bring would be immense.
It is already difficult to obtain a doctors appointment at the clinic directly opposite us. Despite raising no objections to the build of the clinic, as it was a much needed requirement for the village, and although I don't have official figures, the feeling locally is that it is already at capacity in terms of providing an acceptable level of service. With an average of 2.4 people per household locally another 1900 patients will do nothing to ease this problem.
Building more houses in this location will create more unsustainable car traffic by encouraging more car commuters to live in Balsall Common. It is accepted that Balsall Common is an area where there is little in the way of job creation and many residents have to commute by car to work around the West Midlands. Only 6% of residents of this area travel to work using public transport (information from solihull.gov.uk). This is contrary to planning policy. Routes to exit the village to the east is very restricted under the low bridge at Station Road and the narrow bridge on Lavender Hall Lane with no room for expansion on these. To the west Balsall Street East is not a major thoroughfare and does not have the capacity to cope with a large increase in traffic, so virtually all traffic will be travelling north on the A452. Brownfield sites to the north of the village would be far more suited to cope with this without adding strain to the village centre.
Within the plans for using this land you are earmarking reclassified greenbelt land which simply does not make sense, and its legality can be brought into question.
The NPPF identifies the 5 key Purposes of Green Belts as the following:
1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and,
5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
It is our understanding that there are adequate brown field sites which could be used without using greenbelt land in order to fulfil the housing requirements.
With the above 5 points in mind it is clear that the availability of these brownfield sites would bring into question the adherence to the NPPF guidelines. The development would bring outlying areas of Solihull even closer to the outlying areas of Coventry.
The development of these houses in the site we are objecting to will do nothing to benefit the village, only to ruin the community feel of this village and put further strain on capacity. With 73% of people travelling to work by car in this area that means in the region of 1100 cars will be commuting to work each day.
The bypass is not a 'bypass' it is an access road to serve the 900 proposed houses. This would not help in easing pressure on the village it would put much more strain on the village and Station Road due to the sheer amount of extra traffic therefore irrelevant where it is placed. The 'bypass' needs to be moved fully away from our boundary perimeter, at least 50 metres from our boundary border.

In response to your draft housing plan I have several concerns regarding Balsall Common, Barrett's Farm site.

Balsall Common seems to have had a huge amount of housing built over the last 30 years, with large housing Estates on Kemps Green , The Grange and Hall Meadow .

I am sure this is more than other villages around Solihull. This is also without the huge amount of infill as well.

It is the proposal of 800 houses on Barrett's Farm ( Green Belt ) that concerns me the most however.

The village road network will struggle to cope with possibly 1600 extra cars just from this one development. ( 2 cars per house hold ).

I live in Sunnyside Lane were every house hold has a minimum of two cars so the new estates will be no different.

Sunnyside Lane and Barretts Lane at the moment provide the only access to this site.

Sunnyside Lane is already a rat run with cars speeding up the road and some even going round the roundabout the wrong way in their haste to get to their destination.

I am worried that for ease and cheapness these roads will be used as the access point.

We already have the HS2 planned for just down the road as well.

Please find attached my comments in response to the invitation to comment upon the Draft Local plan.

COMMENTS ON SOLIHULL DRAFT LOCAL PLAN
February 2017

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the current consultation on the Solihull Draft Plan. My comments are specifically regarding the proposals for Balsall Common and focus upon:

1) The issue of the disproportionate allocation of new housing to Balsall Common, compared with both Knowle and Dorridge, both of which have well established town centres, unlike Balsall Common.

2) The need to develop a comprehensive Plan for Balsall Common which considers improvements to the infrastructure necessary to support any proposed increase in population.

3) The clear logic and evidence for accommodating all proposed housing on the Barrett's Lane site and not developing any of the other suggested sites.

It appears that the number of houses allocated to Balsall Common is disproportionately large given the size of allocations to other locations within the Borough, which have a greater capacity to accommodate sizable developments and which also have better infrastructure to support growth than Balsall Common. Both Knowle and Dorridge have sizeable and well established "town centres" which are cap.able of supporting additional demands, unlike Balsall Common which has a small, restricted and inadequate centre. Parking at Balsall Common centre is also significantly limited and the opportunity to utilize the former Partco site at the rear of the existing shops has been lost with the development of housing, which is currently under construction.

Similarly the transportation and public transport links to are vastly superior to Balsall Common, with the former being much better served and more frequently served by trains and both have more frequent bus services. Also proximity to the M42 is better at both Dorridge and Knowle.

The exercise currently in hand is clearly focused on housing allocations and there appears to be very little evidence of any rigorous or conclusive thought having been given to the broader planning issues and consequences of potentially increasing the housing stock by, up to 1150 new homes, in terms of the impact on existing services and infrastructure within Balsall Common. There needs to be a more comprehensive approach to the future planning and development of Balsall Common alongside the current single focus upon housing allocations. It is essential that the current process include, simultaneous to the consideration of optional housing sites, appropriate discussion and a comprehensive examination of the improvements to infrastructure necessary to support any growth in the housing stock and population, as well as securing improvements for current residents.

I am aware that there has been consideration within some of the developers early schematic plans of location of "open space' and "additional schools" and the like, but again, a much more strategic and comprehensive contextual approach needs to be adopted. There is a danger in the presumption that the impact of additional housing can be met within the finally designated housing areas as many of the impacts will be felt well beyond the boundaries of the new housing sites. Developers will obviously offer planning gains within their proposals, possibly to minimize expectations placed upon them by Section 106 agreements and planning approval conditions, but again such altruistic offerings are likely only to benefit their own proposal and we need to return to the consequences of additional housing upon the whole and entire settlement both existing and proposed.

Unless the issue of the impact of the proposed developments upon the existing and projected infrastructure is properly analysed and solutions identified and detailed, enlargement of the settlement, at the scale envisaged, will be rather like building an inverted pyramid, the base of which is ever increased whilst the grounded apex becomes ever more unstable, with inevitable and predictable consequences.

Thirdly, regarding the sites preferred by the LPA, I'd offer the following comments:

The Barrett's Lane site (Reference 33 /244 Barrett's Lane Farm, BC Meriden 50.65 Forms part of amalgamated site 1002) is easily the most appropriate and feasible site to accommodate the entire allocation. It scores well in terms of its development potential in the Green Belt Assessment: Appendix F : Overall Score Map. Similarly, it is supported by development potential in terms of proximity to transport links, (particularly if the Balsall Common by-pass is completed) as well as access to other existing facilities. The location close to the railway station is consistent with the views expressed in the current 2017 White Paper on Housing and rational regarding the current thinking and policy on sustainable housing, which Balsall Common desperately needs.

Reinforcing the appropriateness of development at the Barrett's Lane site, the Landscape Assessment of Sub-Area 5 (The Balsall Common Eastern Fringe) (on page 42) and the locus of the Barrett's Lane proposals, identifies the area as being lower in landscape quality, with an overall assessment of only "medium".


The Frog Lane proposal (Reference 75 /12 Land at Frog Lane) scores similarly in Appendix F : Overall Score Map. However some aspects of the Green Belt Assessment: Appendix G : Highest Score Plan identifying site RP59 with a score of 3 (the highest category) for certain categories of assessment.

However, the location of the site, which is some significant way from the current village centre and even further from the railway station and other key facilities, raises additional questions about its suitability. Presumably the existing road (Frog Lane) would need to be upgraded and given the relatively small number of houses (the site is only 5.44 hectares) this may not justify the investment? It is also presumably, because of its isolated location, not an ideal location for affordable housing and would generate extra and vehicular movements on inappropriate roads.

Also any development in this direction opens the probability of further incursions into the Green Belt in a direction which is counter-intuitive to development around rail stations.

The proposal to develop 800+ houses at Grange Farm is fundamentally flawed in a number of respects. In the Green Belt Assessment Appendix F: Overall Score Map the Grange Farm site scores 7, which is higher than the Barrett's Lane, Meeting House Lane and Windmill Lane Sites. Together with fact that the Grange Farm site is further from current facilities makes it difficult to understand why it would be considered. At the exhibition by potential developers (held at St Peters Church Hall) much was made of the intentions to offer "infrastructure" alongside the development. The attraction of "infrastructure" at Grange Farm needs to be very closely examined and rigorously tested within the context of the entire village (as discussed above), in so much as a sub-centre at a location which is isolated from current infrastructure, could create additional problems for both the existing facilities and the transport network. It would simply be providing facilities in the wrong place.

In addition, the commentary contained in the Landscape Assessment (page 38) on Sub-Area 4c (which is the area to the west of Balsall Common) describes the Landscape Character Sensitivity of this sub-area as High. It goes on to state: "The sub-area has clear legibility and is an attractive rural landscape with distinctive landscape features including the several historic areas that are intimate along with the well treed River Blythe corridor. The landscape is generally in good condition".

The Report goes on to note: "This sub-area would typically have an overall very low landscape capacity to accommodate change. Overall, this character area would be able to accommodate only very restricted areas of new development, which would need to be of an appropriate type, scale and form, and in keeping with the existing character and local distinctiveness of the area. Any new development should not result in the loss of the inherently rural character and should maintain the dispersed settlement pattern of the area".

As an aside, it's interesting and understandable that "busy roads" are identified as a landscape detractor, but it serves to reinforce that fact that additional development in this area would aggravate the traffic issues to the west of the village, which would not benefit from the by-pass.

Clearly the Landscape Assessment rates the quality of the western fringe (including the Grange Farm site) as higher than the eastern fringe (and the Barrett's Lane site). Also, the Assessment rates the western fringe as being more sensitive to change than the eastern fringe. Consequently the conclusion must be that of the two sites, the eastern fringe (including the Barrett's Lane) site would be preferred for development.

Beyond the Landscape Assessment and back to the issues discussed above regarding infrastructure and the need for a comprehensive planning approach to the development of Balsall Common, I would strongly reiterate the need to debate the capacity of the existing village in terms of infrastructure, alongside the consideration of the housing locations, which needs to be expressed in a village masterplan as (part of) the context for the new housing proposals! I've not found any debate about the fundamental questions, for example, about what sort of village / settlement Balsall Common wants to be in the future? The danger exists that we are deciding significant detail before we have determined the overall context or product! It's interesting to note that included in the Evidence Base is the masterplan for the central area of Solihull, which is clearly being used as both the context for future developments as well as providing instructions to the detail decisions that will be made.