In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I 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 children at St George & St Teresa RC School and I 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 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.

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I/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/children at St George & St Teresa RC 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 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

Please take note of these comments.

To whom it may concern,

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I 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 children at St George & St Teresa RC 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 the same has not been offered to St George & St Teresa RC School. We have been forced to exclude children in our parish and with siblings in our school; in particular my own child who does not have a place at St George and St Teresa's meaning she has to attend a different school to her siblings. This is personally damaging to us as a family as we are often forced to chose which school productions and assemblies to attend, prioritising one child over another. This has been heartbreaking and immensely difficult for us, something I wouldn't relish or wish other families now and in the future to have to put up with due to insufficient school places.

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.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email.

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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



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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I 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 Lucas year 1 at St George & St Teresa RC 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 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

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/children at St George & St Teresa RC 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 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 addresse

We currently have 3 children at St George & Teresa.

Draft local planning review - catholic primary education requirement
In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I 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 RC 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 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.

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,

Dear solihull council,

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

This directly impacts on my child at St George & St Teresa RC School and i 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. The school have been forced to exclude children in parish. My son, despite being in catchment was initially excluded from G&T.

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.

I would also like to note my concern at the potential removal of bus services to G&T. By doing this, the council are discriminating against my son's right to have a faith based education

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.

I am writing to voice my concern about how the new development proposals will effect school provision in the Knowle and Dorridge area.

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I/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 children at St George & St Teresa RC 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 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.

If large housing schemes are to be approved it is vital that schools and all amenities are improved to meet need.

In addition the road through Knowle high street is already struggling to cope with the current traffi,c a plan needs to be designed to cope with access to the new proposal.

To be clear I agree some development is needed to cope with the country wide shortfall but it is essential amenities upgraded to meet the needs of the growing community.

For the attention of Members

Further to public consultation with parents, staff and our local community, the governors of St George & St Teresa RC Primary School
would like to respond formally to the Draft Local Plan Review.

We would like to highlight the urgent need for an increase in local primary education places proposed in the infrastructure requirements
for Items 4, 8 and 9 and particularly, the desperate need for more Catholic primary education places.

Our catchment area includes proposed significant developments in Knowle, Dorridge, Bentley Heath, Hockley Heath (part of Rural South)
and Balsall Common (Rural East). We have the largest primary catchment area in the Borough and the only Catholic Primary School
on the eastern side of the M42. As such, we will be directly affected by the plans proposed by Solihull Local Authority.
We would ask to be involved in the scoping of the Masterplan as and when you undertake it so that we are fully involved in the infrastructure
planning that must support this level of new housing development.

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 been prevented from doing so. This, despite discussion with the Local Authority regarding proportionality.
We have seen a consistent increase in demand for places at our school but, as a single form entry school, we have not had sufficient places
available to accommodate this need. We have, therefore, had to turn away local Catholic children wanting to attend our school - excluding
those who live in the local catchment area and with siblings already in our school. This means we are denying Catholic children their right
to a Catholic education - a situation which can only get worse with the increase in new housing and subsequent increase in demand for
primary places.

On behalf of the children, teachers, parents and local community, the governors of St George & St Teresa RC Primary School formally
request that the infrastructure planning, accompanying proposed development, addresses the need to increase the number of primary
Catholic places available to meet the needs of the local Catholic community.



Respectfully yours

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 our children, and at St George & St Teresa RC 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 two children at St George and St Teresa but our third child is educated at Hockley Heath Academy because of a lack of places. This is a horrible situation for any family to be in and we would like Catholic education to be considered properly in the planning for our area. Whilst other schools in the borough have been expanded partly to prevent families being split up, Catholic families are not protected in the same way, this is unacceptable and appears to be discriminatory.

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.
Thank you

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 children at St George & St Teresa RC School.

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 were forced to send our third child with siblings at the school to a different school. Eventually we got a place for him but we had a taster of how stretched school places are.

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.

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I 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 children at St George & St Teresa RC 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 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

To Who It May Concern,

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I 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 children at St George & St Teresa RC 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 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.

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.

Objection to the Proposed Housing Development at Allocation 13, Shirley

I wish to register my objection to the proposed housing development at Allocation 13 in Shirley.

I strongly object to your plans on the grounds of loss of Greenbelt land, loss of amenity land for local people, loss of rich local wildlife, and minimal evidence of consideration for expanding local infrastructure to cope with the additional population.

Why does Solihull Council think it is acceptable to concentrate circa 41% of their new housing requirements in the Shirley South area? Have any brownfield sites even been considered?

We have already been subjected to recent new developments, including Cheswick Place off Tanworth Lane and further developments extending Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green (Dickens Manor and The Paddocks), yet nothing has been done by the Council to improve local facilities and infrastructure to accommodate a vast increase of people moving into the area. Local roads around the new Dickens Heath developments cannot cope - Aqueduct Road is appallingly surfaced and too narrow, as is Peterbrook Road, also Birchy Leasowes Lane (which is downright dangerous due to lack of lighting and potholes that continue to not get repaired) and Dickens Heath Road. All of these roads have now become major commuting routes, but haven't been updated since being built as small green lanes to handle the odd horse & cart.

I commute via Dickens Heath to Cranmore Industrial Estate along Tanworth Lane each morning, and the traffic is already at a standstill each and every morning, without the addition of yet more new homes. It now takes me almost 25 minutes to travel the 'short' 3 mile commute by car, which is simply preposterous. These roads will need some serious improvements in order to cope with yet more traffic coming through the area, especially at rush hour. The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion, which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Tanworth Lane onto Dog Kennel Lane onto the Stratford Road towards the M42 (which you should have noticed by now and at least attempted to improve!), Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane at the Dog Kennel Lane island, Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. Has Solihull Council even considered the unsustainable current levels of traffic, let alone in the future?

In addition, Allocation 12 next door also seems to direct all of its traffic onto the Dog Kennel Lane/Tanworth Lane pair of islands, and also onto the already saturated traffic of the Costa/Corus Hotel island... is it starting to become clear what a bad idea this Allocation 13 is?

At a recent drop-in meeting at Light Hall School, I overheard a gentleman asking the councillors about the issues of school places, GP surgeries, hospital and A&E admissions, and how these would be accommodated if the new housing developments including Allocation 13 were to go ahead. The answer given to the gentleman was, "It's too early to say." This is totally unacceptable. The vast majority of existing schools in the borough are currently oversubscribed as it is. Will you be building new schools? Will you be extending the existing schools? There isn't much evidence of any proposed improvements. What about the GP surgeries as well? It is already difficult to get an appointment without having to wait 4 days beforehand. In addition, we have all seen the recent news headlines about a crisis in the A&E departments across the region. How are Solihull Council proposing to accommodate the owners of an extra 2,500 homes, circa 10 THOUSAND people?

In terms of rail travel, I used to commute into Birmingham a couple of years ago via Shirley Station. There was never anywhere to park there. In addition, when boarding the train, it was next to impossible to get a seat, instead having to tolerate standing in the aisles for up to 25 minutes each morning and 25 minutes each evening. If any of the residents of the proposed new homes consider commuting to work via train, they will have an extremely disappointing experience.

Most importantly of all, however, Allocation 13 (amongst the other sites) is also designated GREENBELT land. Greenbelt means an area of open land around a city, on which building is restricted, yet you choose to ignore this!

The close proximity of this Greenbelt land to homes in the area, is a strong reason why homeowners choose to purchase their properties here - to enjoy the beautiful countryside and fresh air on our doorstep. Why should you be allowed to take this away, and concrete over beautiful rich, green land? Has Solihull Council done its utmost to select existing brownfield sites, for which the infrastructure is already in place?

This Greenbelt land separates an already high density housing area. I, along with my friends and family, use this area extensively for essential healthy walking exercise and enjoying the huge variety of wildlife, such as owls, foxes, bats, birds and more. The area is also used extensively by dog walkers and ramblers and I worry that you are not considering the impact that the loss of this will have on the local community. Development of this Greenbelt land will ensure that all recreational land between Shirley and the M42 will be practically lost, making the area a mass urban sprawl instead. Do you not value your local countryside?

What Solihull Council should be doing is not allowing the developers and house builders to conduct their own Environmental assessments, which I know goes on, as I work in the construction industry. These should be conducted by an independent third party, as it seems all too easy to bypass the 'exceptional circumstances' rule that currently prevents you from destroying the Greenbelt. Can Solihull Council explain and justify these 'exceptional circumstances'?

Whist you also extol the benefits of HS2, we are about as far away as it's possible to be from the proposed new line and stations in the whole area. Again, as HS2 is likely to generate even more visitors and commuters to the West Midlands, surely Solihull Council should be anticipating this and improving the infrastructure NOW, before deciding to sell off allegedly protected Greenbelt land for developers to clog up with substandard and undersized new homes?

I would like to remind you of Solihull's own motto, which is "Urbs in Rure", meaning "town in the countryside". There won't be much countryside left if you allow these 2,550 new homes to be built in our Borough, which is a deeply disturbing possibility.
I sincerely hope you renege on your proposals, and promise to honour our motto.

Dear Sir,

I wish to register my strong objection to the Council's Plan and support the detailed response to the Plan, which I have attached to this email.

Yours faithfully,

see letter - Objection to Solihull Draft Local Plan Review- Particularly Area 13.

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

Solihull's erosion of green belt.

Dear Julian MP , Solihull Planning team,

I note your lack of support for rejecting the local plan housing expansion sites.

Urbs-in-Rure; Solihull's motto. 'Town in country'. Not sure how much country(side) there will be left at the council's current proposals for green belt land release across the borough.

Firstly, allowing Solihull to 'take part of Birmingham's housing allocation' is ridiculous. Anyone knowing Birmingham can see acres of brownfield sites that could be successfully developed with mixed use, mid-rise buildings drawing in employment and sustainable communities in an existing urban centre. The strong core infrastructure is in place and ready for more housing and employment. Birmingham is well documented in leading in new employment and investment. Thousands of homes are planned already, but could take many more.
But I hear cries of "Birmingham needs family homes" - true, and this is a reason cited for outer lying more suburban areas needing more 'houses' for families. We daren't show the continent where families love in big lateral apartments with shared amenity spaces, play areas and the like - part of our problem is our very own desire to have the family detached idyll that we are force fed as the property ideal.
It is this idyll that has driven the demand for more homes and eating up of the green belt. It is inevitable that we will need to expand into the green belt in key areas; but is more (sub)urban sprawl really what is needed? Solihull's new land release proposals show more areas for growth. Can the infrastructure cope? Highway engineers will say yes, people living here say no. Hospitals? If you don't mind traipsing to Heartlands as our own service gets shrunken. Shirley edges being dumped with hundreds- thousands, of homes with no thought to creating proper places and with the council laying densities for development that show no attempt to soften the edges of the development, aid integration with existing or providing suitable buffer landscape zones to existing neighbours of for the land parcels viewed from the countryside. Hampton Lane parcels and those others dragging and expanding our surrounding villages further into countryside show a lack of thought and also it would be good to know who and which land owners are actively promoting their sites. Land promotion is a big valuable business with a lot of mouths at the trough. Are these the same land owners and developers who are sitting on thousands of housing planning permissions but refusing to release them quickly so as to avoid a glut of property on the market and therefore lowering the prices? We all know how the market is controlled to retain demand and therefore prices.

We desperately need some creative thinking about where and how to build new homes but if we simply release green belt land to private house builders, under our current system of planning and land ownership, the fear is that the suburban sprawl perpetuates, and the land will be wasted; low density, car-dominated, lacking social and physical infrastructure, and boring. We seem to have forgotten on how to build mixed communities with proper streets, corner shops, avenues, squares and places - places for people to enjoy and that look like Solihull.

Please see attached for my letter backing the objection of Allocation 13 and 11 and 12.

Please investigate all other options before destroying Shirley further and getting rid of any beauty it still possesses..

New developments & future school development.
Having been made very aware of the shortage of houses via the media in the past few months, I would like to make it very clear that I fully understand the need for new houses. However, everything needs to be kept in proportion. With new houses, approx 6000 in our local area, of which approx 3000 to be built in the catchment area of St George & St Teresa I feel we need to have a local Catholic School that has been equipped to be able to fully meet the needs of its ever increasing Catholic population.
As you are already aware, St George & St Teresa School is at present a one form entry school. This has, in recent years led to the situation of not all pupils who already have a sibling at the school being offered a place at the school. As you can imagine this has led to a logistical nightmare to the parents who find themselves dropping off pupils at different Primary schools, not to mention increased traffic & pollution. More importantly these children are being denied a Catholic education, of which having had 4 children educated at this wonderful school deeply troubles & saddens me.
It was suggested at our meeting that the most positive outcome would be to create a 2 form entry school in response to the huge increase of housing to be built.
Two solutions were put forward, either to remain on the same site & extend or to move to the " Arden Triangle" & build a new school. Either of these solutions would be acceptable if it meant the Catholic education could be assured for any future Grandchildren!( one on his way & in catchment!) I, therefore would ask that the council in their forthcoming planning with regards to education would make this a high priority in addressing the future needs of any Catholic child within the catchment of St George & St Teresa by ensuring adequate funding for these proposals to be carried out, in order to allow the continuation of the excellent standard of education being offered at present by the staff of St George & St Teresa to future children .
Thank you for listening to my point of view.

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.

Development Knowle and Dorridge

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I/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/children at St George & St Teresa RC 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 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

Dear Sir,

I have reviewed the draft local plan on your website and wish to comment on the planning proposals for the site West of Dickens Heath which in section 7, Providing Homes for ALL, shows an indicative number of 700 houses.

The following question on which I wish to comment is:
Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure[35] required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are they?

My concerns relate to the level of car parking at Whitlocks End Station and the additional level of traffic which will inevitably use Tile House Lane / Haslucks Green Road if this development goes ahead.

The likely infrastructure requirements listed in Appendix C does not include any expansion of the car park at the train station. This car park has already been extended once and is at capacity. The building of additional housing will inevitably result in more cars wishing to use the station car park. Whilst it might be expected that residents would walk to this car park the reality is people are lazy and, especially in bad weather, will wish to use their car. Plans should be included to extend this car park if the houses are to be built.

Inclusion of a pedestrian crossing would be necessary.

Infrastructure requirements indicate improvements to bus services but with no indication how frequently or where these will travel. There is currently one bus which services Whitlocks End Station which travels from Wythall to Hockley Heath via Solihull. This is an infrequent service and travels along Tilehouse Lane for a short section from its junction with Haslucks Green Road. This part of Tilehouse Lane is very narrow and as a frequent pedestrian I have been forced off the narrow pavement onto the scrub to avoid being caught by the bus. If more busses are expected to be a part of future plans how will the local roads cope with these types of vehicles?

If busses are expected to use Haslucks Green Road to access Shirley Train Station or the A34 junction are there plans to widen the section from Bills Lane to Drawbridge Road?

As the volume of traffic on Haslucks Green Road has increased bus lay byes should be included to reduce future congestion.

There have been recent developments to the junction with Tilehouse Lane and Haslucks Green Road and Haslucks Green Road (near the junction of Cambria Close) in an attempt to reduce the number of accidents. An increase in road traffic will increase this risk unless road improvements are made.

Please include my comments along with others for consideration by Solihull Council.

My comments are below are specifically related to the housing proposals in Balsall Common:-

Strategy

In the 21st century it is entirely inappropriate to use parish (council) boundaries as arbitrary measures for building proposals. Few of these boundaries directly relate to building developments in the last 50/75 years. In the case of Balsall Common, the parish boundary runs directly through the centre of Balsall Common (BC) which places much of the village in Berkswell parish albeit no one in full command of their faculties would recognise that much of Station Rd., Hallmeadow Rd and even the railway station are in Berkswell. Nor is the proposed Barretts Farm development. In fact, I can see NO proposal to build houses in the village of Berkswell! Why has there been no development in or directly adjacent to Berkswell village in over 30 years?

Similarly, Hampton in Arden proposal is for 100 houses and Meriden is for only 50. So why, is Balsall Common targeted for > 1,000?

This is nothing more than SMBC expediency which culminates in an unfair and disproportionate burden on Balsall Common. I was advised by a SMBC rep. at the BC "roadshow" on 7 January that the land proposed for development had been "offered" to SMBC for inclusion in the plan. Is this really the best SMBC planners can do? It is clear that this approach has been favoured by landowners with a clear vested interest and greedy developers who wish to build on green field sites all around the borough and as the easy & expedient option for the council. SMBC will reply by saying - "What alternative sites are there?" Well, of course, the truth of the matter is for them to know and/or find out. It is not the job of local residents to locate suitable sites for housing development and then have to object when SMBC produce some kind of hare brained plan. I cannot recall this approach being adopted for the route of HS2. Local and national government didn't accept "offered up" sites for this!

There seems little evidence of brown field sites being considered or targeted. There are 14 PDL sites in BC.

Specifically

The housing developments in BC in the past few years (Kenilworth Rd.x 2, Riddings Hill, Kelsey Lane) have already overloaded the existing infrastructure.

BC Primary school operates with > 700 pupils on a site designed for 300+. This expansion has already blighted the lives of local residents because of traffic and parking problems. There is little enforcement of restrictions by SMBC CEOs. Traffic also causes concern & chaos for residents in the vicinity of Heart of England school which "imports" children from outside the catchment area.

The rail service is overloaded and run by one of the worst franchises in the UK. Trains are late or often cancelled, dirty and overcrowded. The station car park is full and cars are parking in nearby roads causing obstructions.

The bus service is haphazard. Again, services are late, cancelled and staffed by drivers who don't know the routes. History shows that operators can and will withdraw services with little notice.

The main A452 is a continual queue of slow moving vehicles during peak times in both morning and evening. The road itself is an "escape route" for traffic delays on the M40, M42 &M6 with side roads becoming "rat runs".

BC is poorly served by public transport and is gradually choking by virtue of traffic on the A452.

There is virtually no employment within BC hence most people will commute by car adding to the pollution and congestion.

There is already inadequate car parking in the village centre for both long and short stay motorists.

Financial institutions are increasingly closing their branches in BC.

The proposed development at site 2 (Frog Lane) will completely spoil one of the finest landscape views in the village looking south west.. It covers an area of allotments which have only been open in the past few years and a sports field which is the only available sports field on the west side of the A452. This is currently used by village football teams, joggers, walkers, dog walkers and is one of the few "quiet" environments left in BC away from traffic noise and pollution.

In SMBCs rush to add to an already over-developed BC, there appears to have little or no consideration given to historical sites such as the Windmill. The undoubted mess and confusion due to be by HS2 will be a further burden.

The effect of building 1000+ houses with (say) 4000+ inhabitants will virtually double the size of BC. The whole character and heritage of the existing community will change out all recognition. What other community within SMBC area will suffer the same expansion?

Conclusion

There can be no justifiable reason to foist this level of development on BC when taking a view on the minimal levels proposed for neighbouring villages. It is neither fair nor proportionate.

SMBC need to reconsider use of brownfield sites where suitable.

BC is already at breaking point with much of its infrastructure. Where are plans to improve this?

Protection needs to be established for the heritage and history of BC. It is not acceptable to double the population and lose its essential character.

Remove site 2 from the DLP as a prime piece of community used land offering a totally rural & tranquil environment away from traffic & pollution enjoyed by residents of all ages.

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?