Draft Local Plan Review
Search representations
Results for Balsall Common Village Residents Association search
New searchYes
Draft Local Plan Review
Q1. Do you agree that we've identified the right challenges facing the Borough? If not why not? Are there any additional challenges that should be addressed?
Representation ID: 325
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association
But we feel a major additional challenge is infrastructure.
Solihull MBC must ensure improved infrastructure addresses the increasing requirements of development and population growth in Balsall Common and Berkswell. In addition to the proposed massive increase in housing the area will be adversely affected by HS2 cutting the community in two.
But we feel a major additional challenge is infrastructure.
Solihull MBC must ensure improved infrastructure addresses the increasing requirements of development and population growth in Balsall Common and Berkswell. In addition to the proposed massive increase in housing the area will be adversely affected by HS2 cutting the community in two.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q2. Do you agree with the Borough Vision we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 338
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association
Does not include the vision that essential infrastructure improvements will be delivered for existing communities that will be affected by large scale housing development.
Does not include the vision that essential infrastructure improvements will be delivered for existing communities that will be affected by large scale housing development.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q3. Do you agree with the spatial strategy we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 339
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association
Para. 96.
Strategic objectives sequential approach should start with and include the development of Brown Field Land.
Para. 96.
Strategic objectives sequential approach should start with and include the development of Brown Field Land.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Q12. Do you agree with the level of affordable housing being sought in Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 341
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association
SMBC must ensure this policy is strictly adhered to by developers.
SMBC must ensure this policy is strictly adhered to by developers.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q16. 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 the
Representation ID: 342
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association
The 25% increase in housing stock in Balsall Common and Berkswell by the proposed developments proposed will result in a substantial population growth.The existing infrastructure is struggling to cope with the present population, and is certainly inadequate to meet the needs of the proposed increased population.
Improvements are essential; including more primary school places, additional village centre and train station parking, improved bus and rail services, updating existing drainage system, and better more modern sports and leisure facilities for all ages.
The 25% increase in housing stock in Balsall Common and Berkswell by the proposed developments proposed will result in a substantial population growth.The existing infrastructure is struggling to cope with the present population, and is certainly inadequate to meet the needs of the proposed increased population.
Improvements are essential; including more primary school places, additional village centre and train station parking, improved bus and rail services, updating existing drainage system, and better more modern sports and leisure facilities for all ages.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q18. Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Representation ID: 343
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association
None of the proposed sites in Balsall Common/Berkswell fulfil the criteria set out in policy 7. A lack of public transport means the proposed developments will be heavily car dependent, and do not encourage sustainable travel The present frequency of limited bus services does not meet the criteria for 100+ dwellings, and the poor rail connectivity of only two trains an hour Monday to Saturday and only one an hour Sunday means the public transport accessibility is inadequate for the three sites proposed. Policy P8 indicates SMBC are unlikely support these developments sites in such circumstances.
None of the proposed sites in Balsall Common/Berkswell fulfil the criteria set out in policy 7. A lack of public transport means the proposed developments will be heavily car dependent, and do not encourage sustainable travel The present frequency of limited bus services does not meet the criteria for 100+ dwellings, and the poor rail connectivity of only two trains an hour Monday to Saturday and only one an hour Sunday means the public transport accessibility is inadequate for the three sites proposed. Policy P8 indicates SMBC are unlikely support these developments sites in such circumstances.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Q19. Do you agree with the policies for protecting the environment? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Representation ID: 344
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association
But the three sites selected in Balsall Common/Berkswell contradict policy P10, particularly in protecting the Arden Landscape, green infrastructure assets and habitats, and should be withdrawn. Furthermore,policy P11, refers to Sustainable Drainage Systems, and we question whether the full impact of the proposed developments on the existing aging drainage system in the area has been fully assessed.
But the three sites selected in Balsall Common/Berkswell contradict policy P10, particularly in protecting the Arden Landscape, green infrastructure assets and habitats, and should be withdrawn. Furthermore,policy P11, refers to Sustainable Drainage Systems, and we question whether the full impact of the proposed developments on the existing aging drainage system in the area has been fully assessed.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Q20. Do you agree with the policies for quality of place? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Representation ID: 345
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association
But the three sites selected for development in Balsall Common/Berkswell does not meet the Council's ethos with regard to the Green Belt. Furthermore, it is imperative that any development in the Green Belt must be with clear, definable, and strong defensible boundaries to prevent urban sprawl and loss of this important 'quality of place' asset to future generations.
But the three sites selected for development in Balsall Common/Berkswell does not meet the Council's ethos with regard to the Green Belt. Furthermore, it is imperative that any development in the Green Belt must be with clear, definable, and strong defensible boundaries to prevent urban sprawl and loss of this important 'quality of place' asset to future generations.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Q21. Do you agree with the policies health and supporting communities? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Representation ID: 346
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association
Under these policies Balsall Common&Berkswell needs major investment in its public transport system,both road and rail, together with increased parking at the station in order to accomodate the demand from the proposed population growth, and past experience show this is not forthcoming. When the new medical centre was planned residents were promised a bus service to it, but that service no longer exists.
The policy recognises the importance of promoting healthy communities, yet despite recent large housing development the community still has no centralised sports facilities or all weather pitch, and these must be in any development plans.
Under these policies Balsall Common&Berkswell needs major investment in its public transport system,both road and rail, together with increased parking at the station in order to accomodate the demand from the proposed population growth, and past experience show this is not forthcoming. When the new medical centre was planned residents were promised a bus service to it, but that service no longer exists.
The policy recognises the importance of promoting healthy communities, yet despite recent large housing development the community still has no centralised sports facilities or all weather pitch, and these must be in any development plans.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q22. Do you agree with the Policy P21? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Representation ID: 347
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association
The wording is too vague and must be strengthened to be meaningful.
The first sentence reads 'Developers will be expected to...',and this should be strengthened to read 'Developers must...'
Furthermore, providing infrastructure and mitigation measures in a 'timely' manner, is too nebulous and open to interpretation and abuse. This must be strengthened.
We question the effectiveness of this policy, and ask how it will be monitored and enforced?
The wording is too vague and must be strengthened to be meaningful.
The first sentence reads 'Developers will be expected to...',and this should be strengthened to read 'Developers must...'
Furthermore, providing infrastructure and mitigation measures in a 'timely' manner, is too nebulous and open to interpretation and abuse. This must be strengthened.
We question the effectiveness of this policy, and ask how it will be monitored and enforced?
