General Comments on SO1 Allocation
1. SO1 is within the parish of Catherine de Barnes and Hampton-in Arden. This proposal should recognise this relationship, and acknowledge that any new development could be part of the Catherine-de-Barnes community and impact that community. As an example, I note that bus stops along Hampton Lane which link the communities of Hampton-in-Arden, Catherine-de-Barnes and Solihull are not shown on the Illustrative Concept Master Plan whereas bus stops on Damson Parkway are clearly marked.
2. The status and significance of the BDG Masterplan Proposal is unclear. It seems to contradict the SMBC Illustrative Concept Masterplan. This is not at all helpful. There should be a statement that development will adhere to the Concept Masterplan
3. Green Belt – I understand that if the land identified for development in SO1 is released from green belt, the land occupied by existing houses on the northern side of Hampton Lane will remain green belt. This is perverse. It would be more equitable to use Hampton Lane itself as the southern boundary of SO1. There is some scope for infilling or redevelopment in this established ribbon development. If substantial housing development to the north of existing homes is approved, infilling and redevelopment opportunities should also become available to existing households on the northern side of Hampton Lane.

Detailed comments on S01 allocation and SMBC Illustrative Concept Masterplan (ICMP)

1. Retention of sports pitches, historical significance of Field Farm and the rural character of Field Lane are welcomed. However, the rural character of Field Lane could be further enhanced by
a) Designating the small SE area adjoining Field Lane currently ear-marked for development as public open space to retain continuous green space along Field Lane
b) Providing access to Field Lane for pedestrians and cyclists from SO1 which would give immediate access to the countryside, and also the amenities of Catherine-de-Barnes. There are many cyclists who commute along Hampton Lane and a number of the new residents of S01 would wish to do the same. Accordingly there should be direct access to the cycle route down to Catherine-de-Barnes and up to the airport and beyond.
c) Closing Field Lane to vehicular through traffic between Field Farm and the sports pitches entrances, but retaining access for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

2. Other open and green space – the ICMP suggests a reasonable amount of green and open space throughout the development, except where it borders existing dwellings some of which have small gardens. The ICMP shows green buffer zones within the proposed new development but not where it adjoins existing dwellings. To respect the existing properties, similar buffer zones should be provided using pathways or trees.

3. Pedestrian access to Solihull town centre. This is currently proposed along Pinfold Road which would give the shortest walking distance to the town centre. However, this appears to cross open space which would not feel safe after dark. For maximum use and to reduce traffic, the pedestrian access should be through housing development preferably via well-lit roadside pavements not quiet paths. Should the proposed open space in the south west corner leading to Pinfold Rd be developed instead of the remote field in the south east corner, which could then be used for access to Field Lane by pedestrians and cycles as suggested in 1a-c above?

4. Traffic management – additional local traffic generated by a development on this scale has not been competently addressed in 3.iii on P213 of local plan. The following needs addressing
a) the congestion that builds up around the Solihull bypass junctions with both parts of Hampton Lane will inevitably increase, so there will need to be considerable infrastructure investment to address this substantial shortcoming.
b) Field Lane is a “rat run” at busy times. Although I understand this single track lane may become one way at some time in 2021, this could lead to speeding traffic. It would be preferable to redesignate Field Lane as a no-through route. This may in turn reduce traffic on Lugtrout Lane.
c) Lugtrout Lane is not safe to walk along as only just wide enough for two way traffic and there is no pavement or verge along most of its length, and no space to create one. It also appears to be used as a rat run particularly by JLR commuters.
d) Although the local plan envisages local traffic travelling along Damson Parkway towards the airport to avoid Catherine de Barnes and Lugtrout Lane, will this actually happen in practice?
e) Suitable pedestrian routes, cycle routes and bus services may not have much effect on the amount of traffic from the development given the level of current car ownership.
f) How will excessive traffic on all the boundary roads be mitigated?

5. As the ICMP describes “low density housing with driveways” I can only assume all other housing will not have driveways. High density housing such as apartments may have some form of parking bays, but where will those in medium density housing park their cars? As most households will have one car and many two or more, will there be sufficient parking? The failure to provide sufficient parking for private cars is perfectly illustrated in the recent Dickens Heath development. The plan must make it clear how many driveways/parking spaces to be provided.

6. “Financial contribution for education provision” may be required from developers, but how would this be used? There is no proposal for a new school included in the plan. However the nearest primary school at Yew Tree school has little or no room for expansion and could be described as “cramped”. Do the children who attend Yew Tree not deserve a new school? Could a new school be developed within SO1 and the current Yew Tree school site be redeveloped for housing? Any primary school should be within a safe walking distance and the other schools in the area are too far for younger children to walk. State secondary school pupils living within the proposed development are likely to travel by private car unless an imaginative transport plan makes bus travel attractive. This will add further pressure on the already congested road network at peak times.

7. How would developer contributions for primary health care facilities be used? Would they be sufficient to create new facilities, or just to expand an already stretched facility?

I am not qualified to comment on legal compliance or duty to co-operate so my comments relate only to the soundness of Policy SO1 from the viewpoint of a local resident.
They relate to green belt , open space, access to the countryside and the town centre, traffic management, financial contributions for education and primary health care