Q7. Do you agree with Policy P2? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

The roads are already unbearably choked. There is no word of improving them or especially the dreadful island at the head of Blossomfield Road, streetsbrook to Warwick Road and High Street. Always an accident waiting to happen.
Very bad idea re using the Monkspath Hall Road car park as a centre for development. You are trying to smash the heart if Solihull and make a nasty glitzy brash new thing that in no way considers people and helping them live and move better.eg. The costly car park at Solihull Hospital

I agree with the plan but would like to highlight that this work is highly likely to have an ongoing travel impact on local residents to Solihull town centre. The A41, Hampton Lane and Yew Tree Land junction is a pinch point for traffic especially in the mornings and evenings when people travel to and from work. If major work is to be carried out near the centre that will get worse. Also to add to this plans have been put forward for housing near this junction. I dread to think what my commute will be like!

see attached letter from Tyler Parkes on behalf of the West Midlands Police Chief Constable

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.

Disagree about moving the train station, I don't see that it is significantly close to the town.
Added bus lanes and changes to road furniture has slowed if not halted the flow of traffic.
Removing the pedestrian crossings and adding invisible zebra crossings together with the u-turns outside the M&S carpark are not enhancing Solihull town centre.
SHIRLEY TOWN CENTRE is already gridlocked during peak hours, Saturdays and the addition of the already approved houses is only going to make this worse.

No comment

With the additional 1000 homes to be built in Knowle, Knowle and Dorridge will be larger than Shirley, and so should be included as a separate item within Policy P2. The pretence that Knowle and Dorridge is still a rural area should be abandoned so that a proper plan for the area can be made. Knowle and Dorridge should not be seen only as a place where more and more houses can be placed. The Council is aware of the high level of skills within the Knowle and Dorridge population and this feature should be harnessed, for example through the development of a high-tech business park in the area (possibly in the Brown's Lane area, or adjacent to the proposed new Arden school). This will avoid the need to travel, which would have enormous benefits since many people currently travel to London and Birmingham and beyond to find suitable work. Whilst UK Central will improve the job opportunities, if there are no new transport links then these are likely to be of little benefit to residents of Knowle and Dorridge.

see attached letter received via email

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

Balsall Common is not listed as a town centre requiring a master plan. The proposed development and subsequent size of the residential area requires major change to the centre.

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.

If over 1000 new homes are built in Balsall Common it will need a master plan

Balsall Common needs a plan for it's centre too

I agree with maintaining strong town centres, but I am objecting because a Master Plan is required for Balsall Common to ensure balanced planning and retail services. As examples, this would:
*have prevented the over-supply of supermarkets (3) (with associated congestion) in a small village
*have limited the excessive number of estate agents in the village centre
*help ensure moire cohesive planning decisions in the village centre (eg the new Tesco store/flats - it is COMPLETELY out of character with the other buildings in the village centre in terms of style and size.
A Master Plan is required.

Balsall Common town centre is not designated and must have a master plan to address it not being fit for purpose in its current state before 1300 new homes and 1000's of new residents results in unacceptable traffic congestion and fumes

Let's just get on with it now.

You are planning on building a very large number of additional housing in Balsall Common but have not considered the impact on the village centre. This must be included as part of the Policy if homes are to be built.

There is no reference the requirement to develop Balsall Common centre. Proposed build will fundamentally change the the locality and will overwhelm existing shopping and associated provision. Recent residential infill has exacerbated the problems.
As such the scale of development demands a strategic approach to the development of the centre and should be lead by SMBC (the local Balsall Parish Council having already shown itself as not up to the task given its recent actions in respect of the NDP).
Policy P2 needs to reflect this strategic need.

If additional development is going to be delivered in Balsall Common, then Balsall Common will need an improved centre to meet the needs of the population - the current centre, in terms of facilities, traffic, shopping etc is hardly fit for purpose

Potential relocation and development of new train station would be great waste of money and would reduce space available for badly needed housing. Much better solution would be to improve existing station and develop better pedestrian and cycling routes from the existing station to town centre.
Also reduction of congestion in town centre should be prioritised by ensuring better pubic transport, cycling and pedestrian routes.

Monkspath Hall Road should be allocated for housing and commercial premises. Relocating train station would be waste of money and use space which could be utilised for housing and commercial. No multistorey carpark should be built, it would increase congestion and pollution. Instead, cycle and pedestrian routes should be provided from the existing train station and between all areas.

There is no reference the requirement to develop Balsall Common centre. Proposed build will fundamentally change the the locality and will overwhelm existing shopping and associated provision. Recent residential infill has exacerbated the problems. As such the scale of development demands a strategic approach to the development of the centre and should be lead by SMBC (the local Balsall Parish Council having already shown itself as not up to the task given its recent actions in respect of the NDP). Policy P2 needs to reflect this strategic need

Chelmsley wood has no more space for housing. Develop the centre to bring in business but lack of space and school, health places means this region is full in terms of housing. Look elsewhere in Solihull where they clearly have more space. The region needs to be improved in terms of afluency, people in work etc and flooding the area with more housing without the infrastructure will cause more trouble including increased crime. To develop here means taking away what little green spaces the Chelmsley area has left

There is much to support here. The term sustainable economic growth is somewhat confusing. There should be a greater ambition for a larger number and variety of housing provision in these locations. This should cover for all age groups and abilities to create an enhanced churn with these areas.

Is it really of such high priority to relocate the station and for what purpose? Surely by taming the car and reducing car dependancy enhanced connectivity between the station and the centre could be achieved?

see representation on behalf of Ellandi LLP

Balsall Common seems to be ignored here, yet we are very close in proximity to the hubs you mention. Why is it not included? I strongly believe it should be included, BC will be impacted by the development and will need a better town centre

We support the general thrust of P2 but believe that the same principles should apply to smaller settlements such as Balsall Common where projected housing growth will turn villages into towns. "Master plans" for such subsidiary town centre should also be developed, particularly Balsall Common. This is not an NDP issue. The housing choice is not an NDP issue so managing the consequences is not an NDP issue but an issue for SMBC

There has been no mention of a master plan for Balsall Common centre. Already overcrowded and busy with plans to add more housing. Needs a complete review and overhall.

I feel there is no need to move the station, this would be an issue for those who are currently in walking distance to solihull station, it would then be to close to Widney Manor station which is not the idea for public transport to be available to as many as possible. Its not that far from Solihull and many are happy to walk why change. Monkspath car park is popular for workers, it seams to be an increase in offices and shops but no consideration to where people will park. If its not easy to park less people will come and shop in Solihull. Many offices are not rented out if we encourage more businesses to move to solihull it will decrees those on business parks around the outskirts of solihull. It would be nice to see some houses and apartments built in solihull.

P2 displays a bold vision for the future of Solihull, Shirley and Chelmsley Wood town centres. However, it is not clear to what extent SMBC will be able to realise this vision. The section "...The benefits that could be realised if the train station were to be relocated to an alternative site..." suggest dependencies on other parties, and we would expect SMBC to be clearer on its plan to realise the objectives of the masterplan with input from the relevant bodies (i.e. National Rail). The Local Plan goes further in the section "Solihull Town Centre Masterplan Opportunity Sites" but again it is unclear what SMBC intend to do to deliver this masterplan. There are numerous aspirations sections here - note "...this site provides the opportunity for large scale redevelopment, if the police station were to be relocated and developed along with the Magistrates Court which is currently being marketed...". We would expect to see more detail within the Local Plan on how SMBC intend to act to ensure the masterplan proceeds intact.