02 Balsall Common - Frog Lane

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

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

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

The reasons for my objection are below.
1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".
2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.
I live in Dengate Drive which joins onto the Kenilworth Road in the north of Balsall Common. I frequently struggle to get out onto this road at peak times and in the morning and evening especially there is a crawling line of cars coming into the village from down past the roundabout where the George in the Tree restaurant is all the way into the village. This would only be made worse with increased cars on the roads due to increased housing in this area.
The development of more sites on top of the one already being developed on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase.
3) There is already inadequate parking in the village centre and even driving through the existing parade of shops is an accident waiting to happen as cars pull in and pull out suddenly. Further development in Balsall Common is only going to add to the existing congestion and parking difficulties.
4) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."
In light of the above, I would support that:
1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

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

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

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

letter re: Call for Sites site 82

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMBC
To Whom it may concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update to the below:

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

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

thanks

Chris McDermott


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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Housing - Specific Site Objections

Barratt's Farm

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

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

Windmill Lane

I object to the proposed development of 200 new homes at Windmill Lane for the following reasons:-

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

Summary

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

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

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my views.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 15 Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included? No I don't think the volume or locations are correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategy

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

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

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

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

Specifically

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial institutions are increasingly closing their branches in BC.

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

SMBC need to reconsider use of brownfield sites where suitable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How are these issues to be addressed in your plan?

I have just spent over an hour registering and endeavouring to fill out the incredibly cumbersome online form for the above only to find that next to none of it has saved. So, whilst I wanted to respond in the way suggested I am having to redo it via email. I did hear complaints about the form from others but thought it was due to their technical limitations - I realise now its due to SBCs limitations!

I now don't have as much time but I want to oppose in the strongest terms the above residential proposal. It seems to contradict many of the aims in your plan and looks like a dash for cash rather than a considered response to the boroughs housing needs!

It terms of health and well being the playing fields and the allotments are planned to be built on - in any studies these are key contributors to health and well being, not to mention developing community cohesion and actitiy for the young and the old.

In terms of sustainability the development is out or walking reach of shops and employment so will mean at least 150 extra cars - in a part of the village already congested. It is a highly visible site so wont add to the value or sense of place for those living here.

I know that there has been a environmental study undertaken meaning that the land at the most western part of the Frog Lane development wont be built on as it is ancient meadow land (that assessment has not been made public to my knowledge or indeed available to SBC). I am concerned that there will be contamination of the biodiversity of life on that land if the development were to go ahead.

There is ground water flooding on this site which will, if developed will run off into surrounding houses and farmland.

I could go on.

I think the plan is largely quite good - disagreeing with it is like disagreeing with world piece but you have not followed your own principles here - and you really should think again.

Please find attached the response on behalf of the Governing Body of Heart of England School to the Draft Local Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

see attached letter

Please find attached a letter concerning proposed development in Balsall Common

As a local resident of Balsall common I am writing to you all with reference to the proposed development of two sites in Balsall Common which you are being contemplated for building, these sites are Frog Lane and an area of land off Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane.
These two sites have several things in common, therefore rendering them not a viable or appropriate for this development.
Both are green belt areas of land. There are several brown field sites more suited.
Both are situated on the south side of the village - this positioning means the increase in the volume of traffic would already compound an already overwhelmed road system, the area of which is close proximity to both schools. (This could potentially be a hazard to the pedestrian traffic, made up of a very high percentage of children)
At drop off and pick up times these roads are totally congested and there is very restricted movement on Balsall Street East (BSE), Alder Lane, Kelsey Lane, Holly Lane, Gypsy Lane and the Kenilworth Road. Of which this is the main transport route for all traffic, north/south and vice versa.
Both Holly Lane (and any other proposed entry/exit to Frog lane) and the Kenilworth road are not designed or suited to any increase in traffic. (With these proposed builds, that increase could be up to 300 just on BSE) The Kenilworth Road is, like BSE chronically saturated at peak times of the day. If there was ever a serious emergency the services would totally struggled to get through.
Both sites have an abundance of wild life living and visiting, at the moment the fieldfares are on the Frog Lane fields along with buzzards, muntjac deer, French partridge and bullfinches.
As the lollypop lady at the primary school, I am speaking with personal, hands on experience and I see unbelievable sights, volume of traffic and despair from drivers either bringing their children to school or trying to get to work, from Coventry/Solihull or vice versa. Only, one morning last week the local farmer was moving muck on BSE and he came through over 5 times during one session.
I would suggest that you visit these areas, spend time observing the roads, see what is going on with the traffic, how commuters are coping with their commute and see for yourselves how saturated this whole area is.
I conclude that these proposed builds are complete nonsense and Solihull Council needs to go back to the drawing board for development sites.

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

COMMENTS ON SOLIHULL DRAFT LOCAL PLAN
February 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ref: Solihull Council's draft housing plan

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

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

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

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

I submit for your consideration.

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

Regards

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

Green Belt Issues Barratts Farm

I am e.mailing to protest about the proposed development of land. 800 houses at Barratts Farm.150 houses Balsall St. And 200 houses Windmill Ln. Balsall Common.
Obviously as we live at 120 Meetinghouse Ln and the access to the Barratts farm Site is exactly opposite our house would not be an ideal choice for us! As we are in a Green belt area we felt this was an ideal site to live but not with this proposal on offer.

I am a Balsall Common resident Kelsey Lane.

I believe the Residents of Balsall common have already been subjected to a significant loss of our Greenery from the slow and drip like infill of the recent years. We are experiencing a significant increase in traffic from the general developments of the area more recently the Kenilworth road. My road, Kelsey lane used to have a very gentle rural flow of traffic and is now regularly at a complete gridlock. Both myself and husband are doctors who are required on-call to get to our hospitals within 25minutes for trauma cases - within the last 6months the traffic has increased so that on occasion we have been unable to exit our own driveway. The traffic flow this end of town particularly at rush hour times is not coping with the current flow. To increase this volume would be madness.

Furthermore:

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

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.

Letter of Objection to House building in Balsall Common

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:
"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"
I wish to object to the development of site 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 a 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.

On a personal note any development on the site adjacent to the "Doctors Surgery" located on Hall meadow Lane / Riddings Hill will result in a significant decrease to the already low levels of light available in my North Facing property and would therefore have a detrimental impact on my families right to light and general well-being.
I refer you again to the previously mentioned point 3 which states:
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.
Yours sincerely,

Site 3

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 BARRAGEaction 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 HS2and 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.

Site 3

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 BARRAGEaction 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 HS2and 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.

Local development and housing plan

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

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

Response to Solihull MBC 23 question extended consultation on the draft local plan
TO WHOM THIS MAY CONCERN
Responses to the questionnaire regarding extended consulatation on the draft local plan.
Question 1 are the right borough challenges identified
Will the impact of Brexit have a material effect on the total number of homes needed in the Borough?
Question 2 agreement with the Borough Vision
Only In a very small part yes, but it is clearly written from an urban Solihull-centric perspective, once more bringing into disrepute the belief that Solihull successfully combines a well-balanced combined Urban and Rural vision. Looked at from a holistic position, Solihull MBC in this draft proposal will not be satisfied with following their own policies until an urban jungle is built through the most vulnerable and narrow portion of the Green Belt between Balsall Common and Coventry City.
SMBC fought a huge battle at enormous cost to preserve this piece of land from a coal mine development; why is it now prepared to sacrifice this precious 'lung' between two major city conurbations?
Balsall Common is already a congested community with poor infrastructure and very poor public sector connectivity with the local economic centres which are primarily to the East and South ie NOT Solihull and this is the way traffic flows at peak times.
Further, no consideration has been given to considering sites to the South and West of the settlement toward the considerable economic development driven by JLR at their Fen End site, where they plan to site 2,000+ engineers. Many of these people will seek homes in Balsall Common and, therefore, to reduce cross-village traffic any major development should be on the West side of the village. Similarly, if a village bypass should ever be needed then consideration should be given to siting this on the West side.
Adding the proposed disproportionate housing and its resulting population to Balsall Common in sensitive and fragile Green Belt areas will simply make the problems worse and continue the belief that SMBC will ignore its own Policies when they do not suit political goals.
Question 3 agreement with Spatial Strategy?
The approach defined for sites being appropriate for development as written looks good with the right priorities, but unfortunately they have not been adhered to in this draft plan.
Barratt's Farm land is Greenfield land not Brownfield land and has significant drain off issues. Additionally, as stressed above, the village is virtually bereft of effective public transport.
The demolition of the Meriden Gap Green Belt and its impact on the local ecology of the green fields, ancient hedge rows and trees will directly affect the existing local residents and families who extensively use the area and its many crisscrossing footpaths for open air exercise and leisure activities. The additional traffic emanating from such a large increase in housing will add to the air pollution caused by poor control of the take-off and landing heights from Birmingham Airport, especially the northern turn over the settlement.
If this land is built on, then the drain off problem identified above will represent a risk to local adjoining properties to the north and south.
This area is already under severe threat of noise and Greenbelt erosion from HS2.
Piling in some 800 homes with shops, a school and other amenities with poor access to existing roads is a planning nightmare.
The site between Windmill Lane and the A452 Kenilworth Road to the South of the settlement is broadly a Brownfield site, BUT it is also proposed for a density of housing which is too high. This will generate traffic onto the narrow Windmill Lane that has poor visibility junctions at each end, or onto the A452 Trunk road with difficult North and South junctions.
Question 7 regarding sustainable Economic Development?
Good principles, but again not seriously considered in the draft plan with no consideration of the disproportionate building of houses on an already congested and ill planned village centre.
Question11 policy P2 providing homes for all
The total proposed housing numbers are grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing community and will have a very significant detrimental impact on the size, shape, character and environment of Balsall Common as a Rural Village. It is also noticed that while mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.
Question 15 appropriateness of draft proposed sites.
As mentioned throughout this response, Solihull MBC have failed to follow their own Policies in establishing the appropriateness of the chosen sites and yet proposals for a new village on a brown field site development to the north of the region have been ignored. This is also true of potential sites to the South/East of Solihull toward Hampton in Arden and Catherin de Barnes, these being closer to the proposed new High Speed HS2 interchange.
Question 16 completeness of required supporting infrastructure to complement the proposed draft development?
While Doctors and Schooling infrastructure is mentioned, no mention is made of shopping, banking etc and banks are currently withdrawing from Balsall Common. A lack of action on the site to the rear of the Co-op shop has caused it to be isolated from other retail outlets and has exacerbated the lack of any sense of a cohesive village centre. Car parking facilities in the Village are very limited and in some areas dangerous.
Question18 sustainable Travel
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport, apart from Birmingham focused rail, is very, very poor in the area.
Question 22 Delivery
CIL payments for local development should be focussed in the local area for locally requested and agreed infrastructure improvements.
Question 23 Any other comment
No explanation has been given to the fact that a grossly disproportionate number of houses are proposed to be built in Balsall Common in important and sensitive Green Belt land compared with elsewhere in Solihull Borough. Areas such as Dorridge, Knowle, Chadwick End and Fen End to the South are in less sensitive and less pressured areas of Green Belt land.
There is a very strong perception in the Balsall Common area that Solihull MBC have abandoned the Greenbelt and consciously discarded their own policies and values and have consequently lost what trust they had as a result.
It also appears from the draft local development plan consultation information booklet that land belonging to Lynda Beasley (Wyer) and Michael Cooper has been included in the proposed Barratt's Farm development. We assume this error will be rectified. In the event this development does proceed we would expect a barrier to be put in place to protect livestock on the above mentioned fields.