03 Balsall Common - Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road

see attached letter and report from BC BARRAGE action group

OBJECTION to site 3, Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane, 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) together with suitable brown field sites such as Site 1 which reduces the impact on true Green Belt fields, 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 are14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest thatdue 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 asGreat 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.

Do you agree with the Borough Vision?
The centre of Balsall Common will certainly not continue to thrive in the way that is sought if the developments along the Kenilworth Road (A452) and Frog Lane take place. These developments will mean hundreds more cars on the road along Windmill Lane, (a quiet rural lane with an historic Windmill), Kelsey Lane, Kenilworth Road and Balsall Street, leading up to the one and only school in the village. If you look on google maps you will see the existing severe congestion along the A452 already. My children go to Berkswell school and as it is I go right round the edge of the village to avoid the main road as it is frequently at a stand still or moving very slowly along at 9am in the morning. The people who would be living on the Kenilworth Road estate, in particular, would largely be using there cars to get anywhere, hence a massive increased congestion and parking problem for the village. Access to the village centre is much more difficult from this side of the village and most people in there daily lives would not walk that distance along a busy main road. The only option is walking along Meeting House Lane, down which for a large part, there is no pavement. I have been based in the village for over 30 years and can honestly say from my experience of living in the village that this is certainly the wrong side of the village to be developing. Firstly, it is green belt land (Government policy dictates that non-green belt land should be used first for development). There will be plenty of land to be developed nearer the sites allocated for HS2. Secondly, there isn't the infrastructure or services available on this side of the village to accommodate more housing and at the same time maintain the pleasant nature of the village. If 1200 are to be added to the village (I note the same number as in Knowle and Dorridge), the Council needs to make sure that services are provided at the same time. Knowle has a long High Street and small Mall with numerous shops and Dorridge has its own high street with large Sainsburys. How will Balsall Common's small village centre cope with this porportionally massive increase in numbers of cars and people? Housing shouldn't be developed in these locations as it will destroy the village. Rather, development should take place at a reasonable distance away from existing development with significant conditions being placed on developers to provide services, green areas separating new development from existing development and a new school. In addition, good walking access to the village and train station should be essential. As it is, the car park at Berkswell station isn't big enough to accommodate existing numbers of cars and people travelling by train park all along Riddings Hill. I understand that there have been proposals by Bryant Homes, which would satisfy a lot of the above and that these have not been taken up. In the site proposed (although it is also near the Kenilworth Road), new residents would be able to walk to a new school on the new development, walk to new amenities, and also walk through the existing Lavendar Hall Park to the existing shops and the train station. There would be much more connectivity with the village, without relying on the existing services in full and encourage more people to walk, as the means of doing so would be much easier. Just because the Kenilworth Road site is considered of slightly less greenbelt worth, does not automatically mean that it should be developed first. There are so many other social considerations (many of which you may be unaware of as you probably have not lived here) that must be taken into account in ensuring that Balsall Common maintains its vibrant and more rural nature and a place where people continue to choose to live. These are surely your objectives.

Developing the Kenilworth Road and Frog Lane sites is the wrong side of the village to be developing. There aren't the services nor the infrastructure to accommodate such a development. It would lead to massive increased congestion and parking issues. There would be no connectivity with the existing village nor services, (such as the shops and the train station), which would mean that car usage would be essential by these residents. The proposed Bryant homes site, for example, would be much better as new residents would be able to walk to existing services and new services would be provided.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed building of houses between Kenilworth Rd and Windmill Lane, Balsall Common
I would like to draw your attention to the importance of Berkswell Windmill in Windmill Lane, Balsall Common and to the undesirability of compromising its setting and air flow by the proposed residential development nearby.

I have detailed knowledge of the windmills (and watermills ) of the midland counties, having been interested in the subject for many years, and I am secretary of the Midlands Wind and Water Mills Group, which I helped to found in 1976.

The windmill, as you say in your proposals, is a listed building. It is in fact listed grade 2*, a grade which is given to only a small proportion of listed buildings, and is an indication of the importance that English Heritage attach to it.
The mill is a rare surviving example of the once common Warwickshire style of tower mill (basically with a small neat tower, and a boat shaped cap turned by a winch). It contains all of its internal machinery - in fact it is by far the most complete example of a tower windmill in the counties of Warks, Staffs, Worcs and West Midlands (Far more complete and more historically representative than Chesterton Windmill). The owner has in recent years, using her own money and grant aid, done a lot of repairs to the mill and brought it to complete working order.

The proposed development would appear to compromise the mill in three ways in particular:
(1) blocking the distant view of the mill. (how often can you see a windmill across fields?)
(2) compromising the rural view of the mill close by and
(3) making it impossible to run the sails, which is already difficult because of nearby trees. Whilst multistorey flats would be a particular problem here, even houses quite a way back from the mill can have the same effect - as sadly has sometimes happened in the Netherlands.

I greatly hope therefore that another site can be found for the development.

(On behalf of self and Midland Wind and Water Mills Group)

Solihull Draft Local Plan
I would like to add my support to the BARRAGE Response to Solihull Draft Local Plan 2017.

In particular I would like to query why 3 Green Belt sites have been chosen above the 14 brownfield sites in and around the village.

Whilst I appreciate that more housing is required I feel that Balsall Common, which is still a village as far as its amenities are concerned, cannot accommodate the 1150 houses suggested.

Our services are already over stretched as are the schools. Traffic is a problem particularly near the two schools. Houses on Frog Lane would certainly add to the congestion at peak time on Balsall Street East and Alder Lane.
The Jaguar Land Rover site to the south of the village will also increase traffic when it is occupied.

In addition we are to have the disruption of HS2 and all the construction traffic that will entail.

I ask that you reconsider the sites and number of proposed dwellings in order to maintain our Green Belt for the benefit of all.

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:
"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"
I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.
The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.
1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".
2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.
3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.
4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.
5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".
6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties
7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.
9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.
10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."
In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:
1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport
2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots
3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2
4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development
5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged
6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

I don't consider that the criteria for selection have been correctly applied:
*This is GREEN BELT LAND and this should have over-riding priority over all other criteria.
*It will MASSIVELY increase the size of the village causing unresolvable problems in traffic congestion, parking, overcrowding of the secondary school (and hence further lowering academic standards), and service provision.
*It will inevitably and permanently ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE VILLAGE, which would be completely at odds with the Borough's policies.

There should therefore be NO BUILDING on Windmill Lane, AND IT SHOULD BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO A LARGE CONURBATION - SOLIHULL

see attached vision statement

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


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


I wish to object to the development of site 2 (Frog Lane, Balsall Common) and 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 sites 2 and 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 causedelays 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) Sites 2 and 3 score 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 2 and 3. Given that the area is larger than site 2 and 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 2 and 3.



10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time asHS2 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."


Further to the above


11) Loss of public open space by removing Holly Lane Playing fields from the greenbelt and adding it onto site 2 at Frog Lane. This public space is used by the whole community. Dog walkers, families with children, joggers, walkers and the Girl Guides and Brownies from The Scout Hut on Holly Lane, Local football teams and the nearby Holly Lane Nursery.


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

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

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

I wish to object to the development of site 2 (Frog Lane, Balsall Common) and 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 sites 2 and 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 causedelays 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) Sites 2 and 3 score 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 2 and 3. Given that the area is larger than site 2 and 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 2 and 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time asHS2 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."

Further to the above

11) Loss of public open space by removing Holly Lane Playing fields from the greenbelt and adding it onto site 2 at Frog Lane. This public space is used by the whole community. Dog walkers, families with children, joggers, walkers and the Girl Guides and Brownies from The Scout Hut on Holly Lane, Local football teams and the nearby Holly Lane Nursery.

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

I am writing to show my strong disapproval for the planned 1150 new houses in the Balsall Common area in which I currently live. Why are you contravening the latest government White Paper directive recently published that states that green belt land should only be used in exceptional circumstances and when there is no alternative. Yet your current proposed development under consultation has proposed building on 3 green belt sites HA1, HA2 and HA3 when there have been 14 brownfield sites in and around Balsall common already submitted. Why have these sites been ignored and green belt sites given precedence

see attached letter

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

There must be areas within Solihull Borough that have areas of derelict building wasteland that could be built on before Green Belt once again is targeted. We cannot keep building in this area, for conservation reasons. We should not using this land as we will be ruining our environment. People in the urban city areas need to be able to come to the countryside away from the city life.

email & see attached report
Please find attached my objection to site 3 (Balsall Common) proposed for allocation in the Draft Local Plan.

This objection is in response to Q15 in the DLP and recommends the removal of site 3 from the plan and that site 240 be allocated instead.

You will note that this report is co-authored my myself, Jeanette Mcgarry and Wendy Wilson and is focused solely on site 3.

I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss this report further with yourself, Cllr Courts and the co-authors of the report.

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

see agents representation

Re. Draft Local Plan of Solihull Borough Council

The SPAB Mills Section would like to comment on the above draft Plan in light of its impact on Berkswell Windmill in Windmill Lane, Balsall Common.

Berkswell Windmill is listed Grade II*, a category described by Historic England as 'particularly important buildings of more than special interest' and reserved for just 5.5% of listed buildings. The windmill is described in the list entry as 'the most complete example of a west midlands tower mill'. It is an irreplaceable resource, a rare surviving example of the local style of tower mill retaining all of its internal machinery. Following a recent period of extensive repairs - a substantial share of which were publically funded - the mill has successfully been returned to full working order.

Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 requires that:
'In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting [...]'

The NPPF (paragraph 126) enjoins local authorities to recognise that designated heritage assets are irreplaceable resources and to conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. Paragraph 132 states:

'When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a Grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.'

In addition to concerns about the likely visual impact of development on the setting of Berkswell Windmill, the Mills Section is concerned that development on the scale indicated in the Plan could damage the mill's ability to function fully in the future. The current capacity to turn the sails may be reduced by the construction of new buildings, which would diminish the wind strength to the extent that the sails would be almost impossible to turn. This is because new buildings positioned in the path of the oncoming wind, even those set some distance from the mill, create turbulence which can deflect the wind away from it. This reduces the amount of power the windmill's sails can develop.

If a designated heritage asset of the highest significance, recently returned to full working order at major public expense, should be made to become no longer operable as a consequence of development, then that development must be regarded as causing substantial harm to the heritage asset. As such, approval for such development would need to be wholly exceptional.

We therefore hope that full consideration be given to the likely harmful impact that development would have on this Grade II* listed windmill as a working mill, and on its setting.

see attached response

Objection to site 3 in Balsall Common (Windmill 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. 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.

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 unwanted 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, roads are 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 is extremely limited and it is difficult to actually get to the amenities due to volume of traffic.

The addition of new housing on the Kenilworth Road has resulted in traffic jams and extra pressure on an already burdened infrastructure. To add to this on this side of the village seems absurd. 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 main employment centres.

The local primary school has already had to expand to take in more students and is already oversubscribed and bursting at its seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing.Traffic around the school is a huge danger to the young children. Cars park all the way down Alder Lane towards the traffic lights, down Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Gypsy Lane and throughout all of the housing estate near the school, resulting in cars being damaged and grid locked roads. There is often no crossing patrol and to cross the Kenilworth Road and Holly Road as an adult, you take your life into your own hands!

As site 3 is a considerable distance from the schools and amenities, 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. 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.

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". The volume of traffic already using Windmill Lane as a cut through is high and the speed of this traffic is also already dangerous. Living where I do, each week, I witness near misses on this road and I have been concerned with the increase of large lorries now using it as a main access to and from the A452. Lorries coming in different directions often have to mount the verge or pavement to squeeze past each other, creating a huge danger to walkers, cyclists and other road users. The development of site 3 will increase this many fold.

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

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.

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."

Since moving from Coventry, I have been appalled at the lack of provision and access to the NHS at our local doctors. To get an appointment within a week is virtually unheard of and getting care for my three children has been extremely difficult. The difference in accessibility to this care in comparison to Coventry has been eye opening. My parents were turned away from Balsall Common doctors when my one year old daughter became lifeless and drowsy as they were told there were no appointments and they would be taking up a valuable emergency appointment for someone else. It was suggested that they visited a walk in centre with her instead to alleviate pressure at her own doctors. On arrival at Coventry walk in centre, she was rushed to Walsgrave and then to Birmingham Children's Hospital where she underwent 3 major stomach operations and spent the next five weeks hospitalised. Her consultant explained that the delay could well have been fatal and they spent several hours stabilising her before she could be operated on. Whilst in hospital caring for her, my middle daughter got a chronic ear infection and my parents were again refused an appointment as there were none available. From my experience, this is not a doctors with capacity to expand as they are unable to treat the patients that they have got.

I live two fields away from the current development on the A452 and have been astounded by the constant noise from the construction. The vibrations from the pile drilling can be felt and heard in the house with the windows closed and I can only imagine what this noise would be like if it was right next door. The quality of life for my family through this proposed building period would be greatly damaged.

Since I moved here 4 years ago, I have had the pleasure of being able to show my children all kinds of different wildlife. The field is constantly used by a range of birds of prey, owls, herons, deers, a family of foxes, rabbits and bats along with many others that we haven't been privileged enough to see, I am sure. It is both disappointing and outrageous to hear that the developers are informing potential buyers that the conditions of planning to protect the Great Crested Newts on the current Kenilworth Rd development no longer need to be adhered to as they have made a financial arrangement with the Council. This makes a mockery of the planning process and laws surrounding protected species. The abundant wildlife in site 3 will be damaged under this proposal.

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.

Expanding Balsall Common this much will result in an increase in factors detrimental to our health and quality of life, with increased traffic, road noise and poorer air quality. The beauty of the village with its open countryside and fantastic greenbelt would be destroyed by these proposals.

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.

Much of the appeal of living in Wellfield Close, is the open countryside views and feeling of space and tranquility that one gets at the edge of the village. Having the field next door was a huge attraction to us when we purchased the house and we were pleased to learn that it was protected greenbelt. I chose a house that wasn't overlooked or part of a housing estate to give ourselves and our three young children the best quality of life growing up. Building houses right next door would greatly affect our way of life. Our house is situated so close to the boundary hedgerow that the new houses would be in close proximity to us. Whilst I really hope that you remove site 3 from these current proposals, should the council choose to ignore the protection of greenbelt and the views/knowledge of the local community and go ahead with building work at site 3, then I hope that you would consider greatly reducing the impact of these buildings on our home and be open to discuss possible strategies that might alleviate our concerns.

Objection to site 3 in Balsall Common (Windmill 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. 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.

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 unwanted 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, roads are 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 is extremely limited and it is difficult to actually get to the amenities due to volume of traffic.

The addition of new housing on the Kenilworth Road has resulted in traffic jams and extra pressure on an already burdened infrastructure. To add to this on this side of the village seems absurd. 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 main employment centres.

The local primary school has already had to expand to take in more students and is already oversubscribed and bursting at its seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing.Traffic around the school is a huge danger to the young children. Cars park all the way down Alder Lane towards the traffic lights, down Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Gypsy Lane and throughout all of the housing estate near the school, resulting in cars being damaged and grid locked roads. There is often no crossing patrol and to cross the Kenilworth Road and Holly Road as an adult, you take your life into your own hands!

As site 3 is a considerable distance from the schools and amenities, 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. 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.

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". The volume of traffic already using Windmill Lane as a cut through is high and the speed of this traffic is also already dangerous. Living where I do, each week, I witness near misses on this road and I have been concerned with the increase of large lorries now using it as a main access to and from the A452. Lorries coming in different directions often have to mount the verge or pavement to squeeze past each other, creating a huge danger to walkers, cyclists and other road users. The development of site 3 will increase this many fold.

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

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.

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."

Since moving from Coventry, I have been appalled at the lack of provision and access to the NHS at our local doctors. To get an appointment within a week is virtually unheard of and getting care for my three children has been extremely difficult. The difference in accessibility to this care in comparison to Coventry has been eye opening. My parents were turned away from Balsall Common doctors when my one year old daughter became lifeless and drowsy as they were told there were no appointments and they would be taking up a valuable emergency appointment for someone else. It was suggested that they visited a walk in centre with her instead to alleviate pressure at her own doctors. On arrival at Coventry walk in centre, she was rushed to Walsgrave and then to Birmingham Children's Hospital where she underwent 3 major stomach operations and spent the next five weeks hospitalised. Her consultant explained that the delay could well have been fatal and they spent several hours stabilising her before she could be operated on. Whilst in hospital caring for her, my middle daughter got a chronic ear infection and my parents were again refused an appointment as there were none available. From my experience, this is not a doctors with capacity to expand as they are unable to treat the patients that they have got.

I live two fields away from the current development on the A452 and have been astounded by the constant noise from the construction. The vibrations from the pile drilling can be felt and heard in the house with the windows closed and I can only imagine what this noise would be like if it was right next door. The quality of life for my family through this proposed building period would be greatly damaged.

Since I moved here 4 years ago, I have had the pleasure of being able to show my children all kinds of different wildlife. The field is constantly used by a range of birds of prey, owls, herons, deers, a family of foxes, rabbits and bats along with many others that we haven't been privileged enough to see, I am sure. It is both disappointing and outrageous to hear that the developers are informing potential buyers that the conditions of planning to protect the Great Crested Newts on the current Kenilworth Rd development no longer need to be adhered to as they have made a financial arrangement with the Council. This makes a mockery of the planning process and laws surrounding protected species. The abundant wildlife in site 3 will be damaged under this proposal.

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.

Expanding Balsall Common this much will result in an increase in factors detrimental to our health and quality of life, with increased traffic, road noise and poorer air quality. The beauty of the village with its open countryside and fantastic greenbelt would be destroyed by these proposals.

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.

Much of the appeal of living in Wellfield Close, is the open countryside views and feeling of space and tranquility that one gets at the edge of the village. Having the field next door was a huge attraction to us when we purchased the house and we were pleased to learn that it was protected greenbelt. I chose a house that wasn't overlooked or part of a housing estate to give ourselves and our three young children the best quality of life growing up. Building houses right next door would greatly affect our way of life. Our house is situated so close to the boundary hedgerow that the new houses would be in close proximity to us. Whilst I really hope that you remove site 3 from these current proposals, should the council choose to ignore the protection of greenbelt and the views/knowledge of the local community and go ahead with building work at site 3, then I hope that you would consider greatly reducing the impact of these buildings on our home and be open to discuss possible strategies that might alleviate our concerns

Solihull Housing Plan for Balsall Common

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

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

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

I live off Windmill Lane, Balsall Common, and the fields are abundant with woodpeckers, buzzards, cookoos, plus a wide variety of small mammals. Please do not chase them out of their natural habitats.

Site 3

I wish to object to the proposed inclusion of Area 3 between Windmill Lane and Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common, for development as housing. The proposal fails to take into account the effect on the adjacent historic Berkswell Windmill, Listed Building grade II*, which is located immediately adjacent to the east of the site.
I have been involved with this windmill for 43 years, initially from 1973 assisting the then owner with its care and maintenance, and more recently assisting English Heritage (now Historic England) and the current owner as project manager to complete the recent restoration work, which was largely funded by public money. The mill which dates from 1826 is an outstanding example of a small south midlands tower mill, and is the only complete windmill in the West Midlands Metropolitan Area. It is in full working order, and fully deserves its high grade listing, putting it into the top 9% of all buildings of outstanding historic interest in England. Solihull Policy P16 requires the safeguarding of heritage assets, and requires the assessment and demonstration of how an asset can be conserved in a manner appropriate to its significance prior to any development. SHELAA ref 138 relating to Area 3 ignores the mill and does not satisfy this requirement.
Conservation requires that top historic buildings retain their original context, and for windmills this includes maintaining their status as valuable features in the landscape. It requires distant views to be retained, and obstructions to windflow to the mill to be minimised. Although a few houses were built nearby before the mill was listed, and some trees have been allowed to grow, the area to the southwest of the mill remains clear. Importantly, this is the direction of the prevailing wind, and the proposed housing development could seriously interrupt the airflow and create difficulties with operation of the windmill in the future. The trees are of relatively short life varieties and can be cleared where necessary, but houses and flats would create permanent obstructions and should not be allowed.
A major related problem is the amount of traffic already in the area making entry and exit to the mill hazardous. Congestion on the A452 rapidly spills over into Windmill Lane past the windmill. Amazingly the draft local plan review paragraph 266, while explaining that an increase in traffic on the A452 trunk road is expected resulting from the future HS2 interchange and also from further developments in adjacent parts of Coventry, states that safeguarding a route for a by-pass road is no longer justified. Para. 267 confirms that there are no proposals for a bypass which would reduce the traffic on the adjacent sections of the A452. This situation makes any additional traffic from new housing in the area completely unacceptable.

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:
"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"
I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.
The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.
1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".
2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.
3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.
4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.
5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".
6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties
7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.
8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.
9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.
10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."
In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:
1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport
2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots
3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2
4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged
6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable. I feel this site is totally inappropriate for any more housing development for a number of personal reasons.
I would ask SMBC to please listen to the residents comments and take these on board. At the end of the day, the residents are the people who live and know the area well, they are not trying to be difficult, just realistic. I would request that SMBC look at the suggested brown field sites as an alternative, especially for Site 3 for the reasons given above, which should definitely remain part of the green belt!

OBJECTION to site 3, Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane, 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 an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

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

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

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

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




I also wish to add that the building of the houses on the Kenilworth Road has bought me the following:

1) two cars that are permanently dirty due to the dust from the building site
2) the windows to my house and window sills are again permanently dirty, from all the dust from the building site
3) my guttering has clumps of grass, mud and debris that were thrown into it when building work commenced in the field adjacent to my house
4) my back lawn looks like a building site from all the mole hills in it. Since all the building work disturbed it's natural home, it has moved into my back garden.
5) the traffic has got considerably worse, as has the speed of the drivers that use the Kenilworth Road. I have had two near misses where I have pulled out of Welsh Road onto the Kenilworth Road and the car behind me, has nearly driven into the back of my car.

Every day now, the traffic regularly goes all the way back from the traffic lights on the Kenilworth Road, all the way down to Eveson's.

The new white gates with the 50 speed limit signs look very nice, but that is not much consolation to those of us who live on the Kenilworth Road and have to use it day in, day out.

Although my points 1 to 4 are temporary and will cease once the building work has finished, my traffic concerns unfortunately will not be.

OBJECTION to site 3, Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




I also wish to add that the building of the houses on the Kenilworth Road has bought me the following:

1) two cars that are permanently dirty due to the dust from the building site
2) the windows to my house and window sills are again permanently dirty, from all the dust from the building site
3) my guttering has clumps of grass, mud and debris that were thrown into it when building work commenced in the field adjacent to my house
4) my back lawn looks like a building site from all the mole hills in it. Since all the building work disturbed it's natural home, it has moved into my back garden.
5) the traffic has got considerably worse, as has the speed of the drivers that use the Kenilworth Road. I have had two near misses where I have pulled out of Welsh Road onto the Kenilworth Road and the car behind me, has nearly driven into the back of my car.

Every day now, the traffic regularly goes all the way back from the traffic lights on the Kenilworth Road, all the way down to Eveson's.

The new white gates with the 50 speed limit signs look very nice, but that is not much consolation to those of us who live on the Kenilworth Road and have to use it day in, day out.

Although my points 1 to 4 are temporary and will cease once the building work has finished, my traffic concerns unfortunately will not be.