see letter and report

see letter & Report
Please find attached electronic copy of my letter of objection to the Draft Local Plan.
I should like to protect the Berkswell Windmill a Grade Two Star Listed Building, for generations to come. There are 14 PDL - brownfield sites within the village of Balsall Common that should be considered . The Greenbelt countryside needs to be protected for residents and visitors. It provides important habitat for rare wildlife. Eg Site 3 is home to protected Great Credted Newts, Red Kites, Barn Owls, bats and also Tawny Owls, Little Owls, frogs, toads, hedgehogs, badgers and Swallows.

Please note that Site 3 regularly floods on an annual basis, frequently more than twice a year ;So is unsuitable for housing.
Please see attached photograph and attached letter of objection.

see letter

My Opinion on Dickens Heath.
1. The roads are not wide enough - Common sense would dictate this.
2. The apartments are built with 1.5 spaces per 2 bed apartment.... This will obviously cause an overflow of cars badly parked.... To which your answer is to put down double yellow lines to enforce people parking. E.G If there are 10000 cars and 7500 spaces it is not that hard to work out what is going to happen.
3. Despite the above 2 issues you continue to build more apartments/house's which are only going to make things worse - plus I imagine there will be more parking wardons as it is like a gold mine for them and for the council.
4. Who the hell approved 40% social housing allowance on the new build estate's yet in rundown area's such as Rowley Regis they have new build plots with just 5% social housing on.
5. The infrastructure does not support the village and yet you allow more building to take place without improving this first - you are clearly just milking the area for as much cash as possible with little or no thought given about the residents.

Solihull housing plan
To Solihull Planning,
I have attended several meetings concerning the building of 1350 homes in the area of Balsall Common and have concluded that no building should take place especially at the Barratt's Farm and Windmill Lane sites as no improvement of the infrastructure is being considered.
The centre of Balsall Common, the school, surgery and the surrounding roads are already at full capacity and by adding further housing is going to make the problems even worse. It will create an area of overcrowding and therefore make the quality of life for people in the area poorer not better.
The land at Barratt's Farm and the Windmill Lane sites are in Green Belt which should not be built on until other brown field sites have been developed. Green Belt is Green Belt which means no houses or development.
The Council should explore in more detail other possible building opportunities in the Borough before attempting any further development in Balsall.
The Meriden Gap must stay without development.

I'm writing regarding the proposed housing developments for Balsall Common and Berkswell.
We moved to Old Waste Lane just over a year ago (Nov 2015) in order to enjoy a village location. The proposed developments would completely change the look and feel of Balsall Common, and we feel are wholly inappropriate for a village.
Traffic is already a significant issue to the village, and adding 1350 more homes would be catastrophic in this respect. It's hard to imagine the increase from that being at all manageable in a small village. Parking in the village centre is scarce and difficult (someone reversed into me in October in the village centre). The village would be completely overrun.
Access to the Barrett's farm plot would be a complete disaster. Meeting house lane, one of the proposed access points is completely inappropriate for more traffic, being too narrow, and the junction of Windmill Lane/Kelsey Lane/Waste Lane is already dangerous which would be much multiplied with such an increase of traffic.
At our end of Old Waste Lane, which could be directly bordered by housing behind, even for a fit relatively young couple (we are early 40s) it's not really feasible to walk into the village centre to collect shopping etc. Any housing here, would be sufficiently far from the centre and public transport to preclude anything other than more traffic to an already overstretched area.
What would be the plan for the village centre? There doesn't seem to be one whatsoever.
We moved to this area because of its stunning natural beauty. The area of Barrett's Farm, and around the Windmill really are truly beautiful. These would be forever lost. Surely we could use all previously developed land before raping and pillaging our beautiful countryside and greenbelt?
When we visited The Church hall for a look at the proposals, the proposals all had more detail in them. Now, the boundaries of many of the sites have been changed and the details of what the developments would look like have completely vanished. It's impossible to have a fully informed view without significantly more knowledge of the proposals.
We already lack significant areas of park or green play areas. Taking away beautiful paths would further impacts on the quality of our family life.
We'd like to see the option to develop the formation of a new village, with new modern custom designed services, situated on previously developed land, rather than trying to bolt on and squeeze in massive developments on an already overstretched village. This was suggested in Berkswell Parish's response to the Solihull Housing Plan Review and a potential site suggested in reclaimed quarry land off Cornet's End Lane.
Or as a last resort, Oakes Farm or Pheasant Oaks farm would better balance the village, although many of the problems would still remain.
It is also our understanding that some of the landowners whose land would be needed for the extent of the developments have not even been contacted, and they've indicated that they would be unwilling to sell. Is this the best way to go about planning proposals? Proposing the use of land you don't know is available.
I would urge you to reconsider destroying this beautiful area (Barrett's Farm and Windmill Lane), which is enjoyed by all this side of the village and many outside and in Berkswell Parish. It is clearly not suitable for significant development due to the issues raised above.

see letter attached

see response from agent for the Governors of Solihull School

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

written response site 4 Dickens Heath

I write with reference to your published draft local plan review.

I agree that more houses are required in the Solihull area and that a Green Belt review is required due to a lack of brownfield sites.

My only concern with the current proposals is in relation to the loss of sports pitches to the west of Dickens Heath. I currently manage an under 10 team at Leafield where we are fortunate to have 5 teams at this age group and numerous other teams through from under 7 up to under 16 and there is a lot of current demand for the current sporting facilities. You also have to bear in mind that Wychall FC and Highgate United also have numerous teams currently using these facilities.

Clearly the pitches are extremely busy, and it strikes me as perverse that you are seeking to add to the local population yet are aiming to achieve this by removing well utilised sporting facilities which will be in greater demand in the future.

I would ask that the current football pitches are kept and upgraded if necessary and that greenbelt is released elsewhere.

Yours faithfully

see attached letter

See attached letter

two emails re: Balsall Common sites - both received 13th February
The Solihull Plan -Windmill Lane - Save its Greenbelt status

I would strongly recommend that you listen to the voice of the residents of Balsall Common and have the proposed building of new houses on Brown belt sites and not destroy what is left of the green belt in Balsall Common.

You have stated in this consultation that you are open to suggestions from the residents 'if not here where?' but there are strong beliefs amongst the local people of Balsall Common that the property developers are dictating the sites so they can get a 'bang for their buck'.

There are plenty of alternatives to Windmill Lane and Frog Lane so why cannot these be used to meet the build program ?

Balsall Common has had it's fair share of new builds in that last 20 years and the infrastructure -: schools/Doctors and the roads cannot cope with a further increase as suggested in the Local Plan.

Furthermore, to surround a iconic monument like the Berkswell Windmill with modern housing is sacrilege, we should protect our heritage not destroy it.

I do hope that common sense prevails, once we have destroyed our greenbelt and monuments it is the irreparable .

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.

see attached written rep

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 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.

see attached letter

see attached letter and supporting annotated map

see attached letter

Please find attached a response to the Solihull Local Plan Review consultation on behalf of Colchurch Properties Limited who are promoting land to the south of Station Road, Balsall Common.

This response comprises a 'Vision Document' which includes the following sections,

Foreword (inset)
1. Introduction
2. The Vision
3. Planning Background
4. Draft Local Plan 2016 Consultation Response
5. The Concept Masterplan (not including figures which are within the hard copy and CD issued separately)
6. Transport and Access

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.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am a teacher at St George and St Teresa School and I note in your plan that there is a need for education provision in Solihull. I am confused as to why there is no mention for Catholic provision. Our school is oversubscribed with Catholic families being denied the opportunity of Catholic eductaion.


As you know, our school is willing to grow and we have many options already on the table.

Why is Catholic Education omitted from your plan?

Yours

In accordance with the consultation deadline for the Draft Local Plan Review, please find attached the following sent on behalf of our clients Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd:

* Letter addressing our representations on behalf of our client Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
* Appendix 1 Proposed Allocation Plan Layout
* Appendix 2 Grove Road, Knowle Promotional Document

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review We would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my child at St George & St Teresa school and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not.

We have been forced to exclude children in the parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential from Blyth Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed.

Kind regards

Dear Sir/Madam,

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review we would like to highlight the need for an increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my child at St George & St Teresa RC School, & my youngest starting Nursery in September. We request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and, whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand, St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in the parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area, to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge, demonstrates a need which should be addressed.

Many thank in advance for taking on board our thoughts.

Kind regards,

(parents of two boys aged 7 and 3)

In response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review I would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in Item 4, 8 and 9. This directly impacts on the education of my child at St George and St Teresa RC Primary School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George and St Teresa has not. The school has been forced to exclude children in the parish with siblings in our school. The size of our catchment area included new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley as well as Knowle and Dorridge. This demonstrates a need which should be addressed.

Kind Regards

Views on Allocation 13

These are my objections and comments on Allocation 13. I am writing to register my formal objection to Allocation 13.
- The area is currently semi-rural. Building on Allocation 13 as well as the other proposed locations will make Shirley an urban area of sprawling housing.
- Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements". The Council have not explored all other options and have not considered all options across the Solihull borough.
- Traffic along the A34 is already problematic and this will only become worse. I live on Burman Road and that road together with surrounding roads will become busier and more congested.
- The addition of housing in Allocation 13 together with the other proposed areas totals in excess of 2000. Assuming that families are the main occupants there may be at least an additional 2000 children - where are the proposals for the new primary schools that would be required as well as at least one secondary school? There will also need to be more medical facilities.
- Allocation 13 is a popular recreation and amenity area and is an area of environmental importance and benefit. There will also be an impact on recreation areas.
Before developing greenfield sites, it is necessary to prove that all options have been explored - what about development on sites surrounding Birmingham airport, close to the HS2 link or spreading the housing provision across Solihull rather than impact in one defined area.
Please bear these valid points points when making your final decision.