03 Balsall Common - Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road

Showing comments and forms 181 to 210 of 226

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4571

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Elspeth Hamilton

Representation Summary:

site 3 objection

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4572

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs J Vernon

Representation Summary:

Development will add to congestion hotspots on A452 and delay drivers accessing the A452. Risk of accidents will increase. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".
Site 3 scores poorly for all accessibility criteria, apart from the Primary School. Journeys to shops, medical centre and station will be by car, adding to existing congestion and parking difficulties.
Altering the boundaries surrounding existing developments on Kenilworth Road would contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.
Council's assessment has overlooked Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building) and Great Crested Newts.
Site 3 should be removed.

Full text:

See Attachment

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4573

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Alexander Hamilton

Representation Summary:

site 3 objection

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4574

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr P Phillips

Representation Summary:

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4575

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs P Phillips

Representation Summary:

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4576

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs L Keene

Representation Summary:

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4577

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr R Vernon

Representation Summary:

Full text:

See Attachment

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4578

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Pam Marsden

Representation Summary:

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4585

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs J Bliss

Representation Summary:

Full text:

See Attachment

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4586

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr D Perks

Representation Summary:

site 3 objection

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4587

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Rita Perks

Representation Summary:

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4588

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs M Edmonds

Representation Summary:

Full text:

See Attachment

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4589

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr H Keene

Representation Summary:

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4590

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Frost

Representation Summary:

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4591

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr D Edmonds

Representation Summary:

Full text:

See Attachment

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4592

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr G Frost

Representation Summary:

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4593

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs C Cavigan

Representation Summary:

Full text:

See Attachment

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4594

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs J A Gledhill

Representation Summary:

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4595

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Clifford Gledhill

Representation Summary:

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4596

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr P Greasley

Representation Summary:

Full text:

See Attachment

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4597

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs E A Seal

Representation Summary:

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4598

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs G Elson

Representation Summary:

Full text:

See Attachment

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4599

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr T N Walton

Representation Summary:

Full text:

See Attachment

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4601

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs N Walton

Representation Summary:

Full text:

See Attachment

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4616

Received: 11/02/2017

Respondent: Carol Walker

Representation Summary:

Site 3 Objection.

Protest about Sites in Balsall Common.
Green Belt.

Full text:

Green Belt Issues Barratts Farm

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

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4735

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: The Occupier

Representation Summary:

object to housing site 3 as Kenilworth Road already afflicted with bad congestion and any further development will make situation intolerable.

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 5019

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Gemma Blanco

Representation Summary:

Site 3 Objection.

Understand need for additional housing in Solihull, but need more suitable locations.
Loss of Green Belt.
Brownfield sites are available or extend existing developments.
Proposal does not include provision of infrastructure. Would put pressure on school places. Balsall Common Primary is already at full capacity.
Congestion.
Oversubscribed schools and doctors.
Loss of local recreational land.
On wrong site of village. Too far from railway station, shops.
Will increase congestion around primary and secondary school. Danger to pedestrian safety.
Will set an unwelcome precedent.
Development not large enough to solve housing shortage.
Recommend one large site instead.

Full text:

Balsall Common - Frog Lane development proposal

Dear PSP and SMBC planning team,

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 5215

Received: 12/02/2017

Respondent: Michael Watkinson

Representation Summary:

Encroachment onto Green Belt, when there is brownfield land available.

Full text:

Local development and housing plan

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

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

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 5248

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Melanie MacSkimming

Representation Summary:

The site between Windmill Lane and the A452 Kenilworth Road to the South of the settlement is broadly a Brownfield site, BUT it is also proposed for a density of housing which is too high. This will generate traffic onto the narrow Windmill Lane that has poor visibility junctions at each end, or onto the A452 Trunk road with difficult North and South junctions.

Full text:

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

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 5258

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: N Birtley

Representation Summary:

Site 1 Objection.

Disagree with 1500 houses in Balsall Common.
Brownfield sites should be a priority as per government recommendations.
Generate high volume additional traffic. Already busy area. Inadequate parking in village. Would create congestion at/near station roundabout.
Traffic flow towards Coventry already restricted by the light controlled light underpass.
Pressure on station car park.
Pressure on oversubscribed schools and local health services.
Close to HS2 - impact of HS2 construction work and noise once operational. Impact on saleability of properties.

Full text:

Response to draft housing plan, with reference to the Barratts Farm site

1. I do not agree that approx. 1500 houses should be built in Balsall Common, with particular reference to the above site ( & also to the Windmill Lane site )

2. Whilst recognising that the borough needs to increase housing provision I believe that brownfield sites should be considered as a priority, rather than use green belt land contrary to HM. Govt. reccomendations.

3. The Barratts Farm proposal alone would generate a great deal of additional traffic in a busy area which already has inadequate car parking in the village centre with little or no opportunity to increase this provision.
Congestion could become a major issue at or near the station roundabout as many residents of such a site would inevitably travel to work, shops etc. by car. Traffic flow towards Coventry is already restricted by the light controlled low underpass.
Any additional traffic would also put further pressure on the already inadequate station car park, with many rail travellers cars already parked daily on Hallmeadow road, frequently stretching from the station roundabout to the Lavender Hall Lane roundabout, often creating difficulty for passing traffic.

4. There would be greatly increased pressure on local health provision, which is quite stretched at present., also on school provision.

5. The proximity of HS2's path could aso be a problem whilst rail construction work is in progress with the conflicting access needs of HS2 and house builders and may well have a detrimental effect on developers sales opportunities and marketability.( or is the housing proposal reliant on the possible dropping of HS2 plans? ) I cannot help but feel the two requirements are not compatible.

6. What possibility exists of redeveloping the HS2 construction sites for housing on it's completion?

7. I think that a new settlement or village to the north of Balsall Common should definitely be considered, with opportunity being taken to use the moving of existing roads
for HS2 purposes as a springboard for such development.