01 Balsall Common - Barratt's Farm

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land at Barston Lane/ Oak Lane, Barston B92 0JR

The submission comprises the letter of representations (10445 LA3 GC LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 10445-01A) with the site edged red.

I am in general agreement but am concerned that the focus of developments proposed in Balsall Common will have the effect of increasing car use in contradiction to the overall intentions of the policies. The only explicit improvement mentioned is a bypass route for the A452. Extensive new housing is proposed despite existing public transport being insufficient to comply with the criteria specified, and the mix of housing may not lead to adequate usage for any improvements such as an evening bus service or more frequent train services.

The Green Belt around Balsall Common is vital in preserving a distinct boundary with Coventry and plays a valuable role within the community both in supporting a vibrant range of wildlife and in providing many paths for recreation,walking etc. The major Barratts Farm development will severely impact this and plans must reflect this by 1. retaining trees and hedgerows 2. preserving green corridors for wildlife, potentially through the creation of substantial green buffers or tree belts to protect existing residents from new build 3. linking such spaces with existing green leisure provision such as the Lant Trust.

Selection criteria (Q3) have not been correctly applied in Balsall Common because all sites are in the Green Belt and the scoring for the different sites lacks clear criteria. The Borough needs to give details of brown field sites which have been rejected, and reasons for this. The selection of Barratts Farm is unmanageable.
800 houses will probably produce 1600 cars. Some access points are minor lanes and will not cope with this volume of traffic.

I don't agree with housing on Barretts Farm site. It is green belt, in Meriden gap and Coventry gap. HS2 is planned thru it plus extra road from Kenilworth. Traffic thru middle village causing even more gridlock! Other brownfield sites in village ignored, Wootton green Lane etc. I agree Frog Lane - Oakes farm site suitable. Traffic kept out centre village and numbers sustainable plus easy access to A45, Warwick, M40. Already sustained 2 large housing sites plus some presently being built. 1300 houses proposed would increase village by a quarter ! Ludicrous.

The green belt sites are the majority of the proposals. Recent government announcements are that green belt should only be used in exceptional cases. Solihull council is using green belt in exceptional circumstances. The site on Barrett's lane in balsall common is of particular concern linked to the construction of hs2 and the volume of houses proposed (800) which is disproportionate to the area and the green belt being proposed and the lack of infrastructure to support that number of houses. The existing road network will not cope with the changes proposed.

Comments on sites specific to Balsall Common

Allocation 1 - Barretts Farm
Overall view is in FAVOUR of this site.
This is the key site in BC, which has potential to shape the future of the village / settlement for years to come. As noted earlier the context of the proposed bypass line for BC is needed to fully exploit this opportunity - the bypass should be a dual carriageway to the North East of the proposed site along the corridor, blighted by HS2 development, and continue to rejoin the existing A452 where it forks to go to Kenilworth / Honiley, known as Gambols Corner.
Access to this development should be exclusively off the bypass route, connections to the existing village infrastructure should be by way of foot and cyclepath only. The most adjacent village road, Meeting House Lane used heavily by car traffic and narrow.
The appropriate development of this site gives a number of recreational amenity opportunities: the proposed provision of a new Junior School could enable shared an All Weather Sports pitch and Swimming Pool to be provided, as long as it was ensured that the school would provide community use on evenings and weekends.
The location of the sports / recreational amenities and associated school should be positioned on the western side of the site (known as the "Catholic Field"), as this could then be joined with the existing Village Sports Association site, the Lant, which hosts cricket, tennis running and hockey clubs. This would enable most of the village sports facilities to be concentrated and leverage / extend the existing Community Centre infrastructure, as well as providing a green hub to Balsall Common - parking for the facilities could also be extended on the developed site, as the current Lant provision is inadequate for the needs of four vibrant and expanding clubs. The provision of a Green centre to BC would also be supported by allowing this to span the current Meeting House Lane, by preventing through traffic on this route.

Allocation 2 - Frog Lane, BC
Overall view to OBJECT to this site
This site seems to only have got this far by virtue of erroneous analysis of the proximity to the primary school, and limited bus connections. The detailed plans currently being exhibited by the developer show no community amenity on the site whatsoever.
The site cannot benefit from a 100 score for accessibility (of a total of 225!) to primary schools when the school to which it refers is well known to be full to bursting point, and causes significant traffic issues. If as I have suggested elsewhere the BC bypass is finally put on the map to the North East, this site is a long way from it, and will only add to congestion within the village. Overall access to other village amenities is poor - station, shops and surgeries are all at the other end of the village, and so this location will add to short journey car traffic in the village, as well as having to cross the A452 artery to reach any of these facilities.
Access from Balsall Street East is also a concern, traffic on this route is already considerable at morning peak, and this will add to the West-East flows in the village. Access proposed is a single lane road on the apex of a bend where driving speeds are frequently in excess of the limits. If this site is seriously considered it should be mandated for the developer to provide a reasonable roundabout to calm traffic at this point.
The village can get far better benefits from developing elsewhere.

Allocation 3 - Kenilworth Road / Windmill Lane
Overall view on this site - OBJECT
This site also lacks the critical mass to contribute significantly to the village - either in terms of supporting a bypass, but also significant distance away from all of the key amenities - reiterate - the junior school is full so should not be considered! The current walking routes back to the shops / station in BC are all along the very busy A452, and are both unattractive as well as potentially hazardous.
If on the other hand the intention is that this development should be inhabited largely by commuters, there would be more sense to provide direct access to the proposed bypass line on the North East of the site, rather than further traffic on to the existing A452, and through the existing traffic lights.
I am somewhat at a loss to understand how permission was granted for the ongoing development of the adjacent site, it would be doubly unfortunate if the same "errors" were allowed to permit this further development of this site.

Alternative opportunities in Balsall Common
I feel SMBC should look again at the proposal in the Call for Sites to develop Grange Farm and land to North West of the village (principally sites 142/198 in the Call for Sites).
As stated in your Atkins Accessibility report, both of these sites are substantial, and score far higher at 310 and 285 than either Frog Lane (225) or Kenilworth Road / Windmill Lane (150!). They provide a far greater opportunity for contribution to much needed village infrastructure, and could both be mainly accessed from a Northern bypass route, which would in turn form a "defensible boundary" that these sites are currently deemed to lack. This provides SMBC with a means of meeting more than the existing 1150 or so units required in Balsall Common, but at the same time fulfilling the stated objective of providing a much needed bypass around the village.
As proposed in their current form, with access from Denegate Drive the sites are not attractive.

Building on Barratts Farm could cause significant drainage issues when coupled with HS2 and increase flooding risk which is already an issue at Berkswell Station

There is an inherent danger that large scale development of the kind proposed for Balsall Common and Berkswell in the rural east of the Borough risks making it a less attractive area in which to live, and this must be of major consideration in the Local Plan.
It seems that draft plan fails to fully recognise this, but instead simply sees areas of open countryside that it is happy to urbanise without fully considering the consequences.

At this stage, the proposals are a little vague. When I see the the thought and investment that has gone in to creating a fairly nice environment for villagers in Dorridge centre ( when the new Sainsbury's was approved/built,) I am not convinced that the Council is committed to giving the same degree of consideration to the transport infrastructure/environment and aesthetics for Balsall Common Residents:
- how will the additional traffic that new housing brings be routed/controlled - is a relief road for the Village planned?
- Where will increased numbers of train commuters park, when the station car park is already full to capacity and cars are already being parked along Hall Meadow Road? Why not use land behind GP surgery to provide more parking for commuters?greater variety of shops?
- where will shoppers park? are there plans to pedestrianise the shopping area as it is not always safe crossing the road in the Village centre (why not knock Shell garage down and build a car park for shoppers?)
- will there be more regular buses into Knowle, Solihull?
- you claim to be keen on encouraging sustainable travel - how do you intend to do this in a semi rural area where the car is a necessity for most families (most probably having at least 2 cars) due to poor alternative transport options?

Any significant expansion of rural villages/settlements should be directed away from other conurbations and not reduce the green belt between Coventry, Burton Green and Coventry.
No mention is made of using Brown field or previously developed Green field sites although this is said to be a guiding principle.
The LPR evidence base is flawed. Although it purports to use a pseudo-scientific method to identify sites the actual scoring is subjective and in some cases incorrect.
There are sites in Dorridge and Barston which may be more suitable and are further from the boundary with Coventry thus protecting the Meriden Gap.

You are planning to build FAR too many houses east of Balsall Common and I believe the plans are highly unfair to our already busy and stretched village. The schools can't cope, we don't have the roads capable of such an increase in houses and we don't have adequate facilities as it is. Please reconsider and spread the building of so many houses to other parts of the borough and share the burden. I understand houses need to be built, but I highly contest the number of them on our beautiful green belt farm land.