Draft Local Plan Review

Yes

Representation ID: 2089

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council

In general yes, but they are not addressed in an appropriate manner in terms of the location and quantum of new housing against the need to protect the Meriden Gap. The allocation of land to the east of Balsall Common conflicts with the challenge to safeguard key gaps between settlements such as the Meriden Gap.
Balsall Common is omitted from Challenge D. The improvement of Balsall Common centre should become a strategic objective for Solihull.

No

Representation ID: 2090

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council

Disagree with the Vision as it effects Balsall Common. A mix of housing needs to be provided but significant development on the edge of Balsall Common is inappropriate. Balsall Common is not a sustainable location. Protection of key gaps should be given great weight and a high planning priority.
The overall scale of development planned is not required to secure a thriving village centre.. Housing should be reduced to 300-400 homes in Berkswell Parish, plus an appropriate amount for Balsall Parish.
Object to the bypass, which is not justified and would impact on openness of the green belt and landscape.

No

Representation ID: 2091

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council

Balsall Common is not a sustainable location.
Significant new housing should be located in areas of high public transport accessibility to employment growth.
Need greater densities and more development in Solihull Town Centre, Shirley and UK Central.
Failure to investigate the potential for a garden village close to the A45.
Use of previously developed land (PDL) is supported but no PDL has been identified in Balsall Common.
There is a disconnect between the evidence and the sites chosen.
Growth is unequally distributed without justification. All parts of the Borough should take some new housing development.

No

Representation ID: 2092

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council

Not in a position to comment, but the spatial distribution is inappropriate with too much housing development concentrated in Balsall Common. The level of housing provision is unsustainable, it is located in the Meriden Gap, public transport is poor, there is limited access to employment opportunities and lack of social and community facilities.
Some new housing could be accommodated, but not at the level proposed. Site allocation 1 should be deleted.

No

Representation ID: 2093

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council

Balsall Common is the wrong location for such significant new housing development. The quantum of proposed new housing being directed to the village (19%) is wholly disproportionate, unsuitable and unsustainable. Whilst the village can accommodate some new provision, site allocation 1 makes it too much and it is unacceptable to build on the site for other valid planning reasons, not least the prejudicial effect it would have on the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, the adverse effect on the character of the countryside and the rural setting of Balsall Common and other settlements in the area.

No

Representation ID: 2094

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council

It is in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap.
HS2 will interfere with delivery of the site but would have little or no impact on the alternatives.
Alternative sites have no listed buildings.
Allocation is not supported by the evidence base.
Impact on landscape character and value. The historic field pattern is irreplaceable and part of the character of the area.
LCA does not support large areas of development in this area.
The Green Belt assessment is flawed. Site 1 extends into Broad Area 4 which performs highly in Green Belt terms.

No

Representation ID: 2095

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council

Agree with response from Barrage.

No

Representation ID: 2096

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council

New garden village on site 76.
Site 2016 - Marsh Farm truck Stop.
Lavender Hall Farm.
Wooton Green lane (site 240).
Springhill
Site 43.
Pheasant Oak Farm

There are lots of other sites across the Borough with lower Green Belt value than site 1 and with better public transport links.

No

Representation ID: 2097

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council

No need for a bypass. Would harm the vitality of the village centre, the openness of the Green Belt and the character of the landscape.
More limited development would not require major new infrastructure provision.
Bypass should not be seen as a justification for unacceptable and inappropriate large scale housing development.
Car parking capacity at the station should be increased.
For site allocations 1 and 3 green infrastructure and play areas should be provided, hedgerows and other important features should be retained.
Further suggestions for the concept masterplans are included.

Yes

Representation ID: 2098

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council

In general support. But disappointed the principles are not being applied to development on land to the east of Balsall Common.
Allocation 1 conflicts with Policy 10 as the Council's own LCA findings are ignored.
Need to protect the Green Belt, particularly the Meriden Gap.
In explanation to Policy P17 the importance of the Meriden Gap is highlighted but the Council has disregarded this by allocating site 1. There are no exceptional circumstances.