01 Balsall Common - Barratt's Farm

The deadline for comments is later tonight, and I have contributed to discussions organised by Balsall Common and Berkswell Parish Councils, which I hope will make the appropriate points, but I would like to add a few comments. I do not have the plan to hand and so am commenting from memory.

It is hard to see the significance of the designation of "green belt", since it seems to be easily cast aside, and once development is allowed to start then it proliferates more and more. I once lived in West Swindon, at the time when it wildly mushroomed, which has given me a bad feeling about what might happen to Balsall Common. The whole nature of the place will change as it becomes concreted over, and that term is not an exaggeration if every green space around the village has been built on. People who have come to Balsall Common to enjoy its semi-rural nature cannot be happy if it becomes more town-like.

It is important to ensure that local services and facilities keep pace with increasing demand, this includes schools, doctors, dentists, water supply, sewage, power supply, public transport, car parking and road access. It is hard to tell from the plan whether the necessary upgrades and improvements are in hand, and whether they will be synchronised with changes in the village. No doubt roads to new housing will be laid down at the right time, but will knock-on effects nearby be taken into account? Earlier today I drove from Balsall Common south along the A4177 towards Honiley, and came across a vehicle trying to turn right from the main road (Meer End Road) on to Honiley Road. The vehicle was stationary in the middle of the road on a tight left hand bend. I have driven this route hundreds of times before and rarely come up on a stationary car at that place, but I note that there is a new roundabout a little way along this part of Honiley Road with a new road sign to Jaguar Landrover, so maybe this is attracting new traffic turning from the main road. This shows how a single modification to a road can create a potential hazard, and I am worried that the considerable traffic that must be generated by the proposed new housing in the local plan will cause problems at corners and junctions throughout the whole of Balsall Common. So will the Council pre-empt such problems by making improvements in advance? There are many narrow roads in the area and it can be awkward enough at the moment when several vehicles happen to meet. The situation must get worse.

Regarding the plan, there seemed little mention of the possible effects of the proposed new high-speed rail line, even though it passes close to Balsall Common and is to be elevated over the existing railway.

I have run out of time, and apologise for hurry, but it would be good to see positive plans set in place for necessary infrastructure improvements.
Yours sincerely,

Dear Sir/Madam,

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


Yours faithfully

I strongly object to the fact that 19 out of 21 of the proposed housing development sites across Solihull Borough are greenbelt sites. I particularly object to the development of land at Barrett's Farm in Balsall Common.
The land at Barrett's Farm prevents neighbouring villages merging into one another and it safeguards the countryside from encroachment. The land is incredibly water locked in places and the ponds across this land are vital to land drainage and protect against surface water flooding. The plants, trees and grassland are great absorbers of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which helps combat climate change and is important when you consider the proximity of Balsall Common to the motorway network and the increased air traffic and route changes at Birmingham airport. Interestingly, HS2 is not marked on Christchurch Properties proposals for the development of this land. This land is also essential in providing a buffer from HS2.
There is also a great deal of biodiversity in the ponds, hedgerows and fields covering this area which provides a safe haven for birds (such as herons and kingfishers), animals (such as polecats, shrews, voles, bats) amphibians (such as frogs, toads and newts). This diverse local nature reserve with its permitted access, public footpaths and access to the Kenilworth/ Berkswell Greenway therefore gives people a chance to tap into the natural capital on their doorsteps. It therefore has social and environmental benefits for the health and wellbeing of local residents and the wider community and is one of Balsall Common's greatest assets.
The government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, in the National Planning Policy Framework, is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
The Governments principles states that Green Belt serves five purposes:
* to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
* to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
* to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
* to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
* to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
The government policy states "Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances". Demand for housing is not in itself an exceptional circumstance that should pave the way for Green Belt development. Housing needs can be met while sustaining our Green Belts for future generations by using suitable brownfield land - previously developed land. This not only protects the Green Belt but encourages the revitalisation of these brownfield sites. Solihull Council's draft proposal does not provide any evidence that these local brownfield sites have been assessed and if so why they were found unsuitable.
Solihull Council have cited the transport links from Balsall Common as a reason for the proposed development at Barrett's Farm. The proximity of the site to the motorway network and the rail and bus links have been cited as advantages of the location. However, Christchurch developments have misrepresented the facts and Solihull Council are now misguided. The 800 proposed new homes on this land are likely to provide homes for middleclass families who commute to work via car and roads. Building a bypass to this site merely promotes the dependence on car and road travel. Increasing the number of cars joining the motorway network at Birmingham airport. This will have adverse consequences on congestion to an already grid locked area which is likely to worsen with the arrival of the HS2 hub to Birmingham International in years to come. The council should be making every attempt to divert traffic from this area and instead examine the motorway network and look at new points to access the current motorway network.
The current rail service from Berkswell Station offers a local service, twice an hour in each direction which is only used by a very small minority of residents. Advantages of a housing development in close proximity to this station are misguided as the majority of local residents do not use the service. The current 87 bus service linking Solihull to Coventry is also ineffectual. This service runs hourly during peak times and is rarely used by local resident. Nor is the weekly bus service to Kenilworth which runs twice on a Thursday.
Solihull Council should not be mis lead by property developers and should undertake their own assessment of current transport needs and local provision. Transport clearly needs to be addressed across the Borough before any housing developments can be planned and a long term transport plan made. Rather than building more roads and bypasses and encouraging road use, thus adding to carbon immissions and the ever increasing problems of climate change Solihull Council should be forward thinking and proactive. Local communities such as Kenilworth and Balsall Common should be linked. Transport links should be made from Warwick University to Birmingham international/NEC/HS2 hub/The Resort Centre to promote local businesses and economic growth.
New housing should be created closer to areas of industry and work. The HS2 hub, Birmingham International Airport, The NEC, Jaguar Landrover and The Resort Centre are to be the big employers of the future. New housing across the Borough therefore needs to be considered more carefully and sited closer to local industries and the employers of the future. If cycle ways and trams then connected these new communities built on brownfield land to areas of industry and work road travel will then be reduced dramatically. Congestion to local roads and the motorway network would be reduced dramatically, as would carbon immisions and as such Solihull Council would address the thus ever increasing problems of climate change.
I would therefore strongly oppose the development of greenbelt land at Barrett's Farm in Balsall Common, and kindly request that Solihull Council reconsider their plans for housing and work more closely with local communities to address the housing crisis and source suitable Brownfield development sites for new housing. I would also like to recommend that Solihull Council undertake a thorough assessment of local residents views and needs particularly with regards transport needs, local transport provision and viable options for alternative modes of transport as part of their draft proposal.

Kind Regards,

Please find attached my letter of objection to proposed housing developments in Balsall Common.

Regards

See Attachment

See Attachment

see letter

See Attachment

See Attachment

Dear Mr Palmer,

Please find attached my letter of objection to proposed housing developments in Balsall Common.

Regards

RE: SMBC's proposed developments in Balsall Common.

Dear Mr Palmer,

I am writing to you in response to SMBC's Draft Local Plan, as I am very concerned about how it will affect both the village and my property specifically. I have lived in Balsall Common for most of my life and have seen it grow enormously in that time. However, the infrastructure and facilities within the village have hardly changed and are already overstretched before there is any further development. Looking at a map of proposed development within the borough, it would seem that Balsall Common is being unfairly targeted, especially as the development allocated to Berkswell parish, actually impacts on Balsall Common village.

I am primarily concerned about the proposed development in Frog Lane. How can this site be considered, when there are 14 identified sites of previous development, which must surely be developed first, before there is any inappropriate development in the GREEN BELT (the government has always said that this was sacrosanct).

Balsall Street East, which borders the proposed Frog Lane development, is already a congestion hotspot, with a mixture of commuter traffic between Solihull and Coventry and local traffic to the schools. This will surely worsen with the extra traffic due to the 3,000 proposed jobs at the new JLR site in Honiley. The A452 and Balsall Street East will become even busier and Holly Lane/Frog Lane will become 'Rat runs'. The crossroads between Balsall Street East and Holly Lane has already been the site of several serious accidents in recent years and there have also been a number of accidents around the primary school. Any increase in traffic levels will increase the probability of a serious or fatal accident occurring.

There are limited employment opportunities in Balsall Common and therefore most people commute to work by car, as the public transport links are very poor. An extra 30% of houses within the village will only add to the congestion. Add to this the construction of HS2 in this area, with the huge number of lorry movements involved. Our present infrastructure is not suitable for this increase!

The Frog Lane development will be on the outskirts of the village, the majority of journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will be by car, only adding to the congestion and causing more parking problems in the village.

SMBC now proposes to put the entrance/exit into the Frog lane development, straight onto Balsall Street East, directly opposite my property. Surely it would make more sense for access to be gained from Frog Lane, which would mean that any travel towards Warwick/Stratford/M40/new JLR site at Honiley would avoid Balsall Common all together? This would also mean that the site, if it goes ahead, would use existing road junctions.

With the properties on the North side of Balsall Street East at this point, sitting below road level, we already suffer from localised flooding, along with our neighbours, after and during periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This development will essentially act as an elevated rainwater catchment area, which is then being pointed at our property via the proposed entrance road, what are the council's plans to protect the properties on the northern side of the road from increased flooding risk?

Our living room is on the front of our property - what protection will we be offered from the headlights of the 100+ vehicles that will be coming in & out of this new development?

There are currently a number of mature trees at the back of the property that is to be demolished which provide a nesting site to a breeding pair of buzzards. The buzzard is fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it an offence to kill, injure or take a buzzard, or to take, damage or destroy an active nest or its contents. Please can you confirm that these trees are not impacted by the proposed development.

Living in Balsall Street East, we know how close the planes are, as they approach Birmingham Airport, sometimes as late as 3am and how noisy they are as they take off at 6am. Now SMBC are proposing to build houses under the flight path, which will lead to many complaints once people realise the unhealthy atmosphere they are having to live in.

As I stated earlier, the existing facilities in Balsall Common are already inadequate for the present village size. If there is to be any future development, it is essential that the infrastructure be in place first. Schools, shops, medical facilities, leisure facilities and parking are all overstretched. Balsall Common cannot sustain the proposed developments. Surely there are other villages in the borough with better facilities already, which can share the burden, if greenfield sites have to be used. However, I stress again that Previously Developed Land should be used first.

Yours sincerely,

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment