03 Balsall Common - Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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



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



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



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






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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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



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



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



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






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


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


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

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


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


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

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




Yours sincerely,

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

SMBC
To Whom it may concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update to the below:

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

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

thanks

Chris McDermott


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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Housing - Specific Site Objections

Barratt's Farm

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

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

Windmill Lane

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

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

Summary

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

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

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my views.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How are these issues to be addressed in your plan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

see attached letter

Please find attached a letter concerning proposed development in Balsall Common

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

see attached letter

see letter

see attached letter

The deadline for comments is later tonight, and I have contributed to discussions organised by Balsall Common and Berkswell Parish Councils, which I hope will make the appropriate points, but I would like to add a few comments. I do not have the plan to hand and so am commenting from memory.

It is hard to see the significance of the designation of "green belt", since it seems to be easily cast aside, and once development is allowed to start then it proliferates more and more. I once lived in West Swindon, at the time when it wildly mushroomed, which has given me a bad feeling about what might happen to Balsall Common. The whole nature of the place will change as it becomes concreted over, and that term is not an exaggeration if every green space around the village has been built on. People who have come to Balsall Common to enjoy its semi-rural nature cannot be happy if it becomes more town-like.

It is important to ensure that local services and facilities keep pace with increasing demand, this includes schools, doctors, dentists, water supply, sewage, power supply, public transport, car parking and road access. It is hard to tell from the plan whether the necessary upgrades and improvements are in hand, and whether they will be synchronised with changes in the village. No doubt roads to new housing will be laid down at the right time, but will knock-on effects nearby be taken into account? Earlier today I drove from Balsall Common south along the A4177 towards Honiley, and came across a vehicle trying to turn right from the main road (Meer End Road) on to Honiley Road. The vehicle was stationary in the middle of the road on a tight left hand bend. I have driven this route hundreds of times before and rarely come up on a stationary car at that place, but I note that there is a new roundabout a little way along this part of Honiley Road with a new road sign to Jaguar Landrover, so maybe this is attracting new traffic turning from the main road. This shows how a single modification to a road can create a potential hazard, and I am worried that the considerable traffic that must be generated by the proposed new housing in the local plan will cause problems at corners and junctions throughout the whole of Balsall Common. So will the Council pre-empt such problems by making improvements in advance? There are many narrow roads in the area and it can be awkward enough at the moment when several vehicles happen to meet. The situation must get worse.

Regarding the plan, there seemed little mention of the possible effects of the proposed new high-speed rail line, even though it passes close to Balsall Common and is to be elevated over the existing railway.

I have run out of time, and apologise for hurry, but it would be good to see positive plans set in place for necessary infrastructure improvements.
Yours sincerely,

Dear Sir/Madam,

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

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

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

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

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

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


Yours faithfully

additional email text to supplement online submission
With regards to the Solihull Draft Local plan, please could you consider the following points:

1. Balsall Common is already an overcrowded town, with a experiencing the strain on local resources (schools, traffic and public transport) of its current population. If the intention is to build 1350 more houses this will only increase the difficulties the residents already face.

2. Barretts farm has a proposal for the construction of 800 houses. This is in Green Belt, in direct opposition to the the Boroughs stated intention to protect the Green Belt. It will have an immense negative impact on the quality of life of the residents of NE Balsall Common. This area is physically constrained by the location of the current railway, the low bridge heading down to Truggist lane, and the proposed plans for HS2.
The architects who have designed a plan for the land owner have not taken into account the existence of HS2, which will mean any construction will have to take place further away from the railway line, and closer to the current village.

3. Whilst the borough does need homes, they also need to be located where the jobs are. This will not be in Balsall Common, as there is only limited employment opportunities in the town. Building 800 houses close to the railway Station will mean it becomes a dormitory for commuters heading to London on the convenient London Midland service, thus denying the Borough housing for its current residents.

4. Changes to green belt. This has a direct impact on the biodiversity of the flora and fauna in the area and to the health and well being of local residents who have used this land for recreational use for many years.

Ref: Solihull Council's draft housing plan

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

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

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

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

I submit for your consideration.

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

Regards

see letter

Dear Mr Palmer,

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

Regards

RE: SMBC's proposed developments in Balsall Common.

Dear Mr Palmer,

I am writing to you in response to SMBC's Draft Local Plan, as I am very concerned about how it will affect both the village and my property specifically. I have lived in Balsall Common for most of my life and have seen it grow enormously in that time. However, the infrastructure and facilities within the village have hardly changed and are already overstretched before there is any further development. Looking at a map of proposed development within the borough, it would seem that Balsall Common is being unfairly targeted, especially as the development allocated to Berkswell parish, actually impacts on Balsall Common village.

I am primarily concerned about the proposed development in Frog Lane. How can this site be considered, when there are 14 identified sites of previous development, which must surely be developed first, before there is any inappropriate development in the GREEN BELT (the government has always said that this was sacrosanct).

Balsall Street East, which borders the proposed Frog Lane development, is already a congestion hotspot, with a mixture of commuter traffic between Solihull and Coventry and local traffic to the schools. This will surely worsen with the extra traffic due to the 3,000 proposed jobs at the new JLR site in Honiley. The A452 and Balsall Street East will become even busier and Holly Lane/Frog Lane will become 'Rat runs'. The crossroads between Balsall Street East and Holly Lane has already been the site of several serious accidents in recent years and there have also been a number of accidents around the primary school. Any increase in traffic levels will increase the probability of a serious or fatal accident occurring.

There are limited employment opportunities in Balsall Common and therefore most people commute to work by car, as the public transport links are very poor. An extra 30% of houses within the village will only add to the congestion. Add to this the construction of HS2 in this area, with the huge number of lorry movements involved. Our present infrastructure is not suitable for this increase!

The Frog Lane development will be on the outskirts of the village, the majority of journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will be by car, only adding to the congestion and causing more parking problems in the village.

SMBC now proposes to put the entrance/exit into the Frog lane development, straight onto Balsall Street East, directly opposite my property. Surely it would make more sense for access to be gained from Frog Lane, which would mean that any travel towards Warwick/Stratford/M40/new JLR site at Honiley would avoid Balsall Common all together? This would also mean that the site, if it goes ahead, would use existing road junctions.

With the properties on the North side of Balsall Street East at this point, sitting below road level, we already suffer from localised flooding, along with our neighbours, after and during periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This development will essentially act as an elevated rainwater catchment area, which is then being pointed at our property via the proposed entrance road, what are the council's plans to protect the properties on the northern side of the road from increased flooding risk?

Our living room is on the front of our property - what protection will we be offered from the headlights of the 100+ vehicles that will be coming in & out of this new development?

There are currently a number of mature trees at the back of the property that is to be demolished which provide a nesting site to a breeding pair of buzzards. The buzzard is fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it an offence to kill, injure or take a buzzard, or to take, damage or destroy an active nest or its contents. Please can you confirm that these trees are not impacted by the proposed development.

Living in Balsall Street East, we know how close the planes are, as they approach Birmingham Airport, sometimes as late as 3am and how noisy they are as they take off at 6am. Now SMBC are proposing to build houses under the flight path, which will lead to many complaints once people realise the unhealthy atmosphere they are having to live in.

As I stated earlier, the existing facilities in Balsall Common are already inadequate for the present village size. If there is to be any future development, it is essential that the infrastructure be in place first. Schools, shops, medical facilities, leisure facilities and parking are all overstretched. Balsall Common cannot sustain the proposed developments. Surely there are other villages in the borough with better facilities already, which can share the burden, if greenfield sites have to be used. However, I stress again that Previously Developed Land should be used first.

Yours sincerely,

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment