Q4. Do you agree with Policy P1? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

I am concerned that the policy makes good points about the airport and JLR but no reference to the local parcels of green belt land also put forward for housing close to both. JLR is to be granted land in geenbelt, the airport has expanded both or which have noise and traffic impacts on local residents. I can confirm that the airport noise where I live is often disturbing. Surely if P1 is agreed then also agreeing green belt near solihull centre for housing should be considered inappropriate as residents will feel more than a little put upon.

1) By enabling JLR to develop the logistics centre and further on this site will probably reduce the number of people employed in the midlands within their supply chain, this has got to be a consequence of this proposal. Therefore there is no argument on employment benefits to the region.
2) By freeing up the land identified in allocation 20 will create an uninterrupted length of commercial land in excess of 5 miles from Lode Lane in the West to beyond the current NEC site in the East. I do not agree that this is acceptable under good planning design.
3) The buildings proposed by JLR for the logistic centre are totally disproportionate in terms of scale and height, they will be within a very short distance of the road, stand 18 m high being the tallest commercial building in the borough, will be visible from all major routes including the A45 and are totally out of keeping with what was a quiet residential area. It is abundantly clear to me that the authority will have little interest in the details of what they propose in the future, this has been demonstrated already.
4) JLR will take the cheapest solution as they have demonstrated by constructing that dreadful bridge over the main road close to gate D on Damson Parkway. This could have been taken under the road but it would have cost more. This reminds me of the sort of thing being built on the Jaguar Castle Bromwich site in the mid 1980's. The dispatch area should never have been approved, the traffic is a nightmare and when you approach the area you think you are driving into an industrial park. The only way to restrict this further is at a high level.
5) Justification for this proposal is partly reliant on the fact that consent has been given for other developments in the area however such consents should never have been given.
6) There appears to me to be only two parties benefiting from this and they are JLR and Solihull Council who will be able to benefit from an increase in non-domestic rates.
7) Several thousand homes East/North East of Lugtrout Lane will be negatively affected by this proposal with no benefit at all. As there is no mention of a compensation scheme to those residents the proposal should be omitted from the plan.

Any new settlements should be within the HS2 JLR area to reduce the need for car travel through the local real area

Obviously HS2 will have a major impact on this area and Solihull is right to maximise its potential even though this will have a detrimental effect on the rural landscape. However, it does make it all the more important to protect the remaining Green Belt.

see attached letter for full text . Generally supportive and the letter comments on each of the 23 questions.

Where I generally agree with most of the points highlighted in the consultation I do not agree with them all and post my concerns and suggestions.

I object to the amount of land that JLR are getting from the green belt. It appears excessive.

Th Hub should maintain its strength and opportunities for the area.

P1 should be a policy for Solihull overall, with the UK Central section set out in the Plan being Policy 1X. The Solihull-wide policy should recognised that workers for UK Central and JLR will come from 10 -20 miles around, including Knowle and Dorridge.

In Para 115 there is a bullet point which states "To work collaboratively with the land owners to inform the masterplan process to optimise financial, social and economic value." This statement is somewhat meaningless since it is generally not possible to optimise all three of these features at the same time. The following sentence should therefore be added. "The Council will seek to prioritise the social value of any scheme through the masterplan process."

Letter from Agent - Turleys - see attached

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

RESPONSES 1-YES
2-YES
Spatial Strategy
3- The size of the proposed developments around rural villages appears out of proportion to the size of the villages themselves. This is particularly exemplified in Balsall Common. The proposed by pass that would create an area of land between it and the A452 that would eventually be filled in with future housing developments.
The alternative options would be to concentrate future housing developments closer to the local areas of employment-JLR, Airport, NEC, Motor Cycle Museum, Birmingham Business Park and Hams Hall. There are sites available around Bickenhill, the junctions of the M6 AMD M42,Melbecks Garden Centre and even perhaps the site that was proposed for the new National Football Stadium before the new Wembley got the nod.
There are also areas around Water Orton and Coleshill which could be considered Sustainable Economic Growth
4-YES
5-YES
6-YES
7-YES
8-See previous answer to 3 9-YES
10-See previous answer to 3 PROVIDING HOUSES FOR ALL 11-YES
12-The principle of 50% affordable housing is laudable but judging by past local developments around Balsall Common this is never realised. The current Elysian Gardens Development is a case in point. The proportion of larger 2-5 bedroom detached houses always seem to dominate these development I suspect so the land owners and developers and landowners can maximise their profits.
13-No opinion
14-NO-Why should we have to take on a proportion of Birminghams number of development in the HMA. If you travel by train in from Berkswell to New Street their are plenty of unused brown field sites to be seen, are these not an option as green belt is cheaper to develop.
15-NO-Refer to answer to question 3.The main reason for the size of the "Barratts Farm" development appears to be to get funding from the developers to fund the proposed bypass to relieve congestion on the A452.As mentioned before this will inevitably lead to further infill development. The infrastructure of the village barely copes as it is, parking in the "thriving village centre" is already positively dangerous. Cars reverse out from both sides of the roads and there are frequents bumps and pedestrians being knocked over, I suspect a future fatality is inevitable.
16-As identified the infrastructure within Balsall Common is small. There is a lack of capacity at the primary and secondary schools. They are already over subscribed and have lack of space to expand into. Re-siting them would take them out of their central position where most pupils can walk to. If that were to happen additional school runs would be inevitable adding to the traffic congestion.
It is identified in the report that parking at the train station is inadequate, Hallmeadow road has become the unofficial overspill(part of the proposed bypass)
Extra parking is proposed but where. The only land by the existing car park is not being considered for the housing development because of recurrent flooding. As detailed in the report the number of car to house ratio at 1.6 is the highest in the borough so compounding the problem. As a regular cyclist I can assure you that adding cycle lanes on already narrow roads will not work.
The village centre is quoted as "thriving" in your report, the only useful development recently has been the addition of the Costa store where local people can meet up over coffee and socialise.
An obvious opportunity that has been lost is the development of the disused office block and
parking area for housing by the Co-op. This would have been an obvious site for a public funded facility for recreation and social needs-i.e. citizens advice, meeting area for the elderly/vulnerable and planned activities for the teenagers. Instead as before it has gone to the more profitable housing option. The village centre as it is has nowhere to expand to, and if moved would completely change the individuality of Balsall Common.
The only existing facility within the village that could cope with an increased local population is the new health centre. With an increase in patient number there will follow increased funding and an ability to employ more doctors and associated staff. The village badly needs a public funded development as previously mentioned that could provide recreational and social facilities
for the whole age range. The existing youth club is barely used for lack of activities leaving the streets and the park for the kids to fill their free time.
If the proposed developments do go ahead-3 in Balsall Common far more thought needs to be put into the impact they will have on theses small rural communities. The whole purpose of developing the concept of greenbelt and the greenbelt acts was to stop the creepage of large towns/cities into rural areas so they can keep their own unique character and charm. Increased urbanisation of the countryside between the cites of Birmingham and Coventry flies in the face of this agreed and accepted philosophy
17-YES
IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY AND ENCOURAGING SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL 18-YES
PROTECTING AND ENHANCING OUR ENVIRONMENT.
19-YES
PROMOTING QUALITY OF SPACE
20-YES
HEALTH AND SUPPORT OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
21-YES AND NO-There is an historic under funding of health care between Birmingham and Solihull as reflected by our local CCGs overspend and the combined Birmingham CCGs underspend. Perhaps this issue needs to be addressed at a Governmental level but it grates somewhat when we are expected to provide additional housing sites to make up for Birmingham's shortfall.
DELIVERING AND MONITORING 22-YES
ANY OTHER COMMENTS
23-I refer to my previous comments about the purpose of greenbelt and attach a document which I think is self explanatory.

it appears that JLR will be given a green light to develop all the land up to the A45 regardless of what all the local residents of Elmdon Heath and Damsonwood want . we will suddenly be on the edge of a huge industrial zone

Solihull has a wonderful opportunity to be part of the future. Lets take it there.

Let's build for our families, encourage young people and not end up a region for the retired.

Please make sure we include really good facilities for the arts. Could we have a Tate gallery or a Solihull artists community?

It makes sense to develop an area with major transport links, any future housing developments should be focussed on supporting this area.

It is important to sustain the attractiveness of the Borough for people who live, work and invest in Solihull/

This is where sprawl could really take effect as well as a huge growth in car dependency. This area is not well served by public transport BUT where the opportunity arise to curd traffic growth all the plan suggests is "Encourages modes of travel other than the private car." Where is the reduction in dependency upon the private car?

Agreed

see attached letter

Any redesignation of current green belt land should be purpose specific otherwise we will see developer creep for certain. The current natural frontiers to unwanted development will be destroyed.
In addition - development along or close to the planned HS2 line should be banned for environmental the reasons - not the least of which is noise and the disruption during the construction period. For this reason inter alia the development at Barratts Farm in Balsall Common should not go ahead .

see attached letter

I support Policy P1 but believe that the following should be added.

The introduction of new distribution or warehousing activities will be discouraged in view of the congestion of principal roads within the borough including the M6, M42 and A452 and the need to focus valuable land on jobs of high economic value

I agree that sustainable economic growth is important however I do not feel this will be achieved by development of the site at Barrett's Farm, Balsall Common.

One of the primary objectives of Policy P1 is to "Ensure that connectivity within and beyond the site creates an integrated approach to movement throughout the Hub area". Neither the Local Plan nor the associated HS2 Growth Strategy adequately explain how existing stations such as Solihull and Dorridge will integrate with the new rail infrastructure. Hockley Heath Parish Council note that there is no rail connectivity indicated from these stations to the HS2 link, driving traffic to these stations - hardly "...an integrated approach to movement through the Hub area...". As plans for Birmingham International are not clear from the evidence base it is uncertain how the development will allow commuters to reach HS2 from within the Solihull borough. There is insufficient detail here to ensure the Policy is compatible with P8.

Natural England broadly agrees with Policy P1.

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached report
Balsall Parish Council resolved at the Council meeting on 15 February 2017 to submit this report in response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Consultation ending 17 February 2017