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 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 thecongestion 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.

Comments Regarding the Balsall Common/Berkswell Proposals


Barratt's Farm Site

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

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

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


General

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

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

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

Barratt's Lane Planning Application, Balsall Common

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

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

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

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

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

Solihull Draft Housing Plan - Balsall Commo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 bothinfrastructure 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."



11) Hallmeadow Road is utilised EVERY DAY as overflow parking for the Health Centre and Berkswell Train Station. This therefore reduces the traffic flow to ONE FUNCTIONAL LANE.
The additional volume of traffic along this access road will increase the likelihood of accidents, congestion and air pollution.



12) EVERY DAY the congestion on STATION ROAD (shops end), A452 KENILWORTH ROAD, BALSALL STREET, and ALDER LANE is extremely frustrating and results in poor driving discipline from exasperated commuters : children have been hurt, a cyclist knocked off his bike, and parked cars damaged.
Additional housing along these routes will add to existing problems.






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.

Objection : Draft Local Plan - Balsall Common / Berkswell
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 bothinfrastructure 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."



11) Hallmeadow Road is utilised EVERY DAY as overflow parking for the Health Centre and Berkswell Train Station. This therefore reduces the traffic flow to ONE FUNCTIONAL LANE.
The additional volume of traffic along this access road will increase the likelihood of accidents, congestion and air pollution.



12) EVERY DAY the congestion on STATION ROAD (shops end), A452 KENILWORTH ROAD, BALSALL STREET, and ALDER LANE is extremely frustrating and results in poor driving discipline from exasperated commuters : children have been hurt, a cyclist knocked off his bike, and parked cars damaged.
Additional housing along these routes will add to existing problems.






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.




Yours sincerely,

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 bothinfrastructure 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.

Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for land at and to the rear of 146- 152 Tilehouse Lane, Whitlock's End, B90 1PW.

The submission comprises the
* letter of representations (10463 HRW LPR APP);
* a site plan (ref.no. 10463-01A) with the site edged red;
* an Illustrative layout (10463(10)M-101 prepared by Tyler-Parkes Partnership
* a Transport Statement prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering Ltd
* An updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey prepared by Cotswold Wildlife Surveys
* Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy prepared by BWB

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the site at Tidbury Green Golf Club, Tidbury Green.

The submission comprises
* The letter of representations (10171 LPA3 LPR APP)
* An existing site plan (ref.no. 10509(EX)01) with the site edged red.
* Schedule of accommodation (10509(SC)01)
* Illustrative Site Layout (10509(MP)01)
* Ecological Appraisal prepared by Crossman Associates
* Environmental Noise Report prepared by Sharps Redmore
* Flood Risk Assessment prepared by THDA
* Tree Survey prepared by Abbey Forestry
* Transport Statement and Travel Plan prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering
* Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Landscape Matters
* Site Investigation Report prepared by Georisk UK

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for land at the rear of Bakehouse Lane and Wheeler Close, Chadwick End

The submission comprises the letter of representations (6439.LPA1.HMG LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 6439 site plan) with the site edged red.

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review on behalf of the landowners at the sites at Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common.

The submission comprises
* the letter of representations (10607 LPA2 JD LPR APP);
* Site plan (10607(OS)01) with the site edged red;
* Illustrative layout (10607(MP)01);
* Transport Assessment prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering; and
* Landscape character assessment response prepared by Landscape Matters

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land south of Hampton Lane, and west of Ravenshaw Lane/ South of Hampton Lane, Solihull.

The submission comprises the letter of representations (9263 SHL LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 9263 Site Plan) with the site edged red.

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

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

Sites 57, 6 and 11 in Balsall Common. You have planned to build 1150 houses, all on Green Belt land, ancient Forest of Arden and the Meriden Gap, all are protected and this is in breach of the governments white report, which specifies that building on greenbelt should be avoided when other sites are available. Balsall Common has 14 brownfield sites that were submitted and ignored by the council. Why? The above sites are farms containing footpaths, playing fields and sites of interest. Building is coinciding with HS2 and will turn the village into a building site for years.

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

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

There should be no building houses on green belt farm land. Where are we going to get our food from during the next war?
There is no extra provision for parking in the village centre.
How will the roads cope with the increase in pupil numbers at the local schools. Drop off and pick up time is terrible now.
Frog Lane development. We keep cattle in a field in the winter in Frog Lane and with all the extra traffic, lights and noise etc. we won't be able to use it. So that will be the end of our business!

Comments on sites specific to Balsall Common

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

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

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

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

Dear sir/madam,

I am writing to express my views on the proposed development in Balsall Common ( BC)I understand the need for more housing, I work with homeless teenagers. I also understand that when large developments are being proposed the infrastructure of the area needs to be considered, schools, access, health,etc. I am aware the potential building sites across Solihull have been weighted.

I am therefore confused as to why SMBC have chosen Frog Lane for development in BC given its lower scoring in relation to other sites around the borough.

Is there any awareness in SMBC as to the traffic congestion twice daily around the Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Alder Lane and Gypsy Lane junction? This junction is an accident hotspot and has been for the last 19 years. I have witnessed and helped casualties from these accidents on many occasions. I have voiced my concerns to SMBC in the past regarding this issue.

May I suggest SMBC visit this junction during school opening and closing times to witness the chaos. This area is a danger to the pedestrians and vehicle users at these times . Surely potential development sites need such matters to be considered. Please inform me of how this traffic/ accident hotspot is weighted in comparison with other sites?

Several potential sites (some partially brownfield) were identified to the north of the village, and they all scored more highly than Frog Lane in terms accessibility, so why were they excluded? As a matter of urgency, we ask you to consider them now.

Does the proposed development of Frog Lane still include the playing fields?

I am interested to hear where the children of primary school age will be accessing their schooling given that BC Primary School tends to run at full capacity most years ( I was a school governor in the past) following the proposed development in BC.


I look forward to your response.

I object to the Local Plan proposal for Balsall Common under references 1at Barratts Farm, 2 at Frog Lane & 3 at Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road.
All these plans for Balsall do not give sufficient consideration for the infrastructure of Balsall Common; the impact on the local primary school, GP surgery and village centre etc. I would support a plan where one housing site catering for all the housing needs and incorporating a school and shops is built. I understand that land is available to the north of the village for such a proposal.

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

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

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

Please find attached the detailed report compiled by the BARRAGE action group in response to the Draft Local Plan.

I believe you will have received many letters of objection already which make reference to this report.

Please note that the focus of the report responds to Q15 in the DLP in that we do not believe that sites 2 and 3 should be included in the plan and would propose that serious consideration should be given to the inclusion of site 240 instead.