02 Balsall Common - Frog Lane

see attached letter

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

Richborough Estates Limited support the proposed allocations at Frog Lane, Balsall Common (Potential Housing Allocation 2) and West of Dickens Heath (Potential Housing Allocation 4) which fully accord with the sequential approach adopted in the Local Plan Review towards the identification of suitable sites. Further comments are made in site-specific representations attached.

Richborough Estates endorse the master planning approach towards Potential Housing Allocations and have already sought to engage with stakeholders in the formulation of proposals for the sites at Frog Lane, Balsall Common and West of Dickens Heath. Richborough Estates will continue to engage with the Council and other stakeholders prior to the submission of any planning application.

Riddings Hill would not be suitable for additional housing. The area is already affected by excess parking from the railway station. additional houses would mean more commuters on trains leaving cars at train station that already cannot cope. Worst a possible bypass on top of the hS2. More Greenbelt being taken away.

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

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

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

I wish to object to the development of site 2 (Frog Lane, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane,Kenilworth Road), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below:

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

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

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated. In light of the recent white paper on the future of house building across the country in which it is stated that Green Belt land should only be used in exceptional circumstances and when there is no alternative, surely the council must now look again at the 14 brownfield sites in and around Balsall Common that were submitted in the call for sites.

4) Solihull Councils latest transport strategy publication,Solihull Connected, acknowledges that the south of Balsall Common is the most congested part of the village. The development of site 2, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 and B4101 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres. Several of the 14 PDL sites available including site 240 (Wootton Green Lane/Kenilworth Road) are located in the less congested north of the village.

5) The development of site 2 (150 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units) and the proposed site 3 Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road (200 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452 particularly past Balsall Common Primary School on Balsall Street East. In this area at school drop off and pick up times the congestion is severe at present with traffic often in grid lock. Accidents have already occurred due to this situation and with the additional traffic caused by these sites in the south of Balsall Common the risk of accidents will only increase.

6) Site 2 being 1.5 miles from local amenities 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.

7) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 2. Given that the area is larger than site 2, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 2.

8) 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 request

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) Site 2 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

My view on the Proposed sites for Balsall Common is that ..... : We are totally opposed to Frog Lane being development because the loss of playing fields. If housing has to come, amenities need to be built and Oakes Farm scheme is the lesser of two evils.

Solihull Housing Plan for Balsall Common

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

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

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

RE: SMBC's proposed developments in Balsall Common.

I am writing to you in response to SMBC's Draft Local Plan and the affect it will have in the village of Balsall Common. My predominant concern is with the proposed development in Frog Lane and would propose that serious consideration be given to other PDL sites existing within the area and other areas in the borough, such as Dorridge as mentioned in point 8) of this correspondence.

1) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common when there are 14 PDL sites available in the village, suggests that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the green belt HAS NOT been demonstrated by SMBC.

2) 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. (SMBC's recent confirmation that the A452 is the most congested road in the borough at certain times. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing need 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".

3) Balsall Common is a settlement with very limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. (SMBC's own statistics state 80% commuter rate of Balsall Common residents). Any significant expansion will add unnecessarily to the road network as well as adding to the carbon footprint created by the additional traffic flow.

4) In addition to the above point 3), the 3,000 proposed jobs recently announced at the new JLR site at Honiley, although the site being in Warwickshire, SMBC will have the bulk of the traffic issues, with massively increased traffic flows, morning and late afternoon. This will add considerably to both A452 and that Holly Lane will become a "rat run", for the employees.

5) The proposed phasing of Balsall Common developments to take place over the next 15 years, at the same time as HS2, will add considerable 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 and unsustainable. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth".

As stated above, the existing facilities in Balsall Common are already inadequate for the size of the existing settlement. During any planned future development, the infrastructure HAS to be "put in place", before any further housing development is allowed. Your existing proposed plan has the Primary School to be developed in the third phase 10-15 years, this is "totally irresponsible of SMBC planners".

6) The proposed development of Frog Lane site, being in the south west of Balsall Common, will add to the existing congestion hotspot on Balsall Street East caused by the existing traffic congestion (mainly at school times) by commuter traffic travelling from/to Coventry/ Solihull, these being the main local employment centres.

7) I do not understand the logic of SMBC planners with regard to the proposed Frog Lane development, your draft document stated that the cottage and allotments are "protected" from any development, but the current school playing fields are not covered by this statement of intent. Elsewhere within SMBC's local plan document there is emphasis made of the importance of recreational facilities, so why is this omitted, in this instance? If SMBC planners are to be trusted, why this "double standard"?

8) Frog Lane site must score poorly in relation to all accessibility critieria, 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 made by car, adding to the existing congestion and very poor parking facilities.

9) As a general note, it is noticeable that Dorridge, which has a far superior railway station facility along with a more "open plan and spacious shopping centre, with plentiful car parking", appears to have no planned housing development in SMBC's proposed local plan. The cynic in me must ask the question of your council, "Who are the senior SMBC councillors living in this area?" who have protected it in the plan and should have "declared an interest", as Dorridge meets most of the SMBC's search criteria for future development.

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

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

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

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

two emails re: Balsall Common sites - both received 13th February
The Solihull Plan -Windmill Lane - Save its Greenbelt status

I would strongly recommend that you listen to the voice of the residents of Balsall Common and have the proposed building of new houses on Brown belt sites and not destroy what is left of the green belt in Balsall Common.

You have stated in this consultation that you are open to suggestions from the residents 'if not here where?' but there are strong beliefs amongst the local people of Balsall Common that the property developers are dictating the sites so they can get a 'bang for their buck'.

There are plenty of alternatives to Windmill Lane and Frog Lane so why cannot these be used to meet the build program ?

Balsall Common has had it's fair share of new builds in that last 20 years and the infrastructure -: schools/Doctors and the roads cannot cope with a further increase as suggested in the Local Plan.

Furthermore, to surround a iconic monument like the Berkswell Windmill with modern housing is sacrilege, we should protect our heritage not destroy it.

I do hope that common sense prevails, once we have destroyed our greenbelt and monuments it is the irreparable .

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

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

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

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

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

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

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction 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 as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 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

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) 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) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

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

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

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

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

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

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

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction 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 as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 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

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) 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) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

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

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

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

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

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

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

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction 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 as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 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

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) 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) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

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

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

Responding to Solihull Council's draft Housing Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no infrastructure to support intense development.

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

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

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

see attached documents

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

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

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

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

Please find below our thoughts on the draft housing plan.

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

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

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

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

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

We hope you will take our objections into consideration.

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

Site 2

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

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

I wish to object to the development of site 2 (Frog Lane, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane,Kenilworth Road), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below:

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

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

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated. In light of the recent white paper on the future of house building across the country in which it is stated that Green Belt land should only be used in exceptional circumstances and when there is no alternative, surely the council must now look again at the 14 brownfield sites in and around Balsall Common that were submitted in the call for sites.

4) Solihull Councils latest transport strategy publication,Solihull Connected, acknowledges that the south of Balsall Common is the most congested part of the village. The development of site 2, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 and B4101 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres. Several of the 14 PDL sites available including site 240 (Wootton Green Lane/Kenilworth Road) are located in the less congested north of the village.

5) The development of site 2 (150 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units) and the proposed site 3 Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road (200 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452 particularly past Balsall Common Primary School on Balsall Street East. In this area at school drop off and pick up times the congestion is severe at present with traffic often in grid lock. Accidents have already occurred due to this situation and with the additional traffic caused by these sites in the south of Balsall Common the risk of accidents will only increase.

6) Site 2 being 1.5 miles from local amenities 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.

7) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 2. Given that the area is larger than site 2, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 2.

8) 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 request

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) Site 2 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

see attached letter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Housing - Specific Site Objections

Barratt's Farm

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

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

Windmill Lane

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

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

Summary

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

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

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my views.

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

Balsall Common - Frog Lane development proposal

Dear PSP and SMBC planning team,

I am writing to you to regarding the proposed development plans for Balsall Common and in particular the Frog Lane proposal.While I understand there is a need for additional housing in Solihull area, I strongly urge the SMBC to select a more suitable plot to Frog Lane and to consider the following issues;

* Frog Lane site is on green belt land and has been chosen in favour of brown field sites and extending existing developments. Green Belt should only be developed on in exceptional circumstances according to planning guidances
* The development proposals do not include the provision of infrastructure and would put increased pressure on school places, at both primary and secondary level;
o Balsall Common Primary has been pressurised to accommodate an additional 4th reception class for the last two years running and is already operating at full capacity
o As stated in the LA regulations introduced in 2015, Balsall Common Primary schools 'free space' is not sufficient to accommodate their current pupil numbers and will only be further impacted by these additional homes
* The Frog Lane and Windmill developments are on the wrong side of the village and too far away from the railway station and the village shops, increasing congestion around the primary and secondary school. There have been several incidences reported to the school in 2016/17 of children having near fatal accidents while walking to school. I strongly urge SMBC to visit these areas during peak times and to consider the safety/lives of children in their bid to fill their housing quota.
* The development proposals are on Green Field sites on the outskirts of the village so approving planning permission will set a precedent and promote additional erosion of the green belt.
* Frog lane is a small development - it will not solve the housing shortage problems in the village and only add to the infrastructure challenges we already face (congestion, oversubscribed schools, doctors)
* Frog lane proposes to include the development of the local recreational land owned by the council, and suggests this proposal has been put forward for commercial/ profiteering reasons over protection of green belt and local green spaces

Based on the comments above, I would urge SMBC to select a more suitable alternative plot to Frog Lane and Windmill Lane that will benefit both SMBC and the Balsall Common residents and to consider ;
* One large development with vital infrastructure needed to accommodate the expansion included (shops, gym, community centre etc) funded by the developers
* Develop a site that is near to the railway station and existing amenities so people can walk to the station and shops, reducing congestion in the village
* Consider alternative brownfield sites available/long term strategy planning. Development plans on greenbelt are negatively impacting the countryside long term and once gone the damage can not be reserved

The selection of a single large site based on the criteria above will keep SMBC and the Balsall Common residents happy and satisfy the need for additional housing whilst minimising the negative impact on the existing residents of the village.

I urge you to reconsider the Frog Lane and Windmill lane proposals on this basis.

Best regards

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?

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.