Policy BC2 need to be amended to ensure the Local Plan being positively prepared, effective and justified:
Criterion 1 should be amended to be “approximately” 110 dwellings.
Criteria 2(ii) and (iii) are capable of being combined. A single criterion saying “Subject to other masterplanning considerations, the western field is not proposed for housing but shall be retained and used for biodiversity improvements”
Criterion 2(iv) should be deleted.
Criterion 2(v) should be deleted
Criterion 2(vi) should be deleted
Criterion 2(vii) should be deleted
Criterion 3(iii) should be deleted. If a criterion is required then it should state “As part of any application a SuDS scheme shall be submitted”.
Criterion 4(i) - Justification of Policy BC2 it should be made clear that this off-setting approach is acceptable because the recreation ground is designated as Local Greenspace in the Neighbourhood Development Plan.
Concept Masterplan is broadly acceptable to Richborough Estates. However, Richborough Estates has an alternative access option to the one shown on the Concept Masterplan which cannot be included in this representation for commercial reasons. To avoid any future concerns associated with a “significant departure” then there should be recognition that the access location might change and some flexibility on this specific matter is required.
At Page 22 of the Council’s Concept Masterplan document a modification to text is required to state “Predominantly 2-storey medium density housing is appropriate in this semi-rural location. Approximately of 110 units can be accommodated on the site.”

1. Richborough Estates Limited supports the principle of the housing allocation at Frog Lane, Balsall Common (Policy BC2) and the timing of its delivery. It is an available, suitable and deliverable site for housing at one of the larger settlements within Solihull Brough which sits on a public transport corridor and has a range of facilities.

2. Although Richborough Estates has worked with the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council to assist the framing of the potential housing scheme indicated on the Concept Masterplan, objections are made to Policy BC2 related to the detailed requirements for the proposal. Alternative wording is proposed to provide some flexibility to ensure the policy is positively prepared, effective and justified.

Formal Objection to Policy BC2

3. The idea of Concept Masterplan for the proposed Frog Lane housing allocation is supported. However, the production of Concept Masterplan does create a strong expectation about how an allocation might come forward for development, especially with the local community.

4. It is recognised that Concept Masterplans are acknowledged by the Council to be the subject of change as further infrastructure survey work is carried out at the application stage. However, Policy BC2 is clear that any significant departure from the principles outlined in the Concept Masterplan will need to be justified and it will be necessary to demonstrate that the overall objectives for the site and its wider context are not compromised. The overall objectives associated for any of the Concept Masterplans are not specifically identified in either the relevant policy or the supporting document. Further, there is a lack of clarity about what significant departure might be defined.

5. Accordingly, although not seeking to materially dilute the drafting of the policy and the Concept Masterplan document to such a degree that it has limited value, there is a need to ensure some flexibility in how an allocation might come forward for development.

6. At Frog Lane the specific requirements of Policy BC2 need to be amended to ensure the Local Plan being positively prepared, effective and justified:

a) Criterion 1 should be amended to be “approximately” 110 dwellings. An absolute figure of the type drafted is too prescriptive, especially where the final capacity should emerge through a more detailed design process at application stage.

b) Criteria 2(ii) and (iii) are capable of being combined. Richborough Estates have no proposals to erect housing in the western field proposed to be removed from the Green Belt. Instead, the field has some biodiversity value at the moment and there is the opportunity to improve this value as part of the housing development. A single criterion saying “Subject to other masterplanning considerations, the western field is not proposed for housing but shall be retained and used for biodiversity improvements” would be appropriate and would provide some flexibility to improve the masterplanning process, for example there might be a need for an item of infrastructure such as SuDS or the access road to cross the field (i.e. as shown on the Council’s Concept Masterplan).

c) The detailed design of a SuDS system is a matter for a planning application taking into account the ground conditions and topography of the site. It is also worthy of note that there are underground features, such as soakaways or subbases, which are part of a typical SuDS scheme. To seek to restrict a potential optimum design of a SuDS system should not be included in a policy but flexibility should be retained. Accordingly, criterion 2(iv) should be deleted. This deletion can also be justified because there is an element of duplication with criterion 3(iii). However, if a criterion is required then it should state “As part of any application a SuDS scheme shall be submitted”.

d) Deletion of reference to “Retention of existing playing fields and allotments” because these facilities (i) do not form part of the housing allocation (nor the Concept Masterplan) and (b) they are Local Greenspaces as identified in the Balsall Common Neighbourhood Development Plan (Policy NE.3). Criterion 2(v) should be deleted.

e) The principle of facilitating easy access by walking and cycling to the rail station and other facilities is supported by Richborough Estates but it is unclear what this actually means for the purposes of masterplanning the allocation. It is assumed that this matter is already addressed in the infrastructure requirements under Criterion 3(iv). Accordingly Criterion 2(vi) should be deleted.

f) Richborough Estates have submitted an objection to Policy P4D. In respect of Frog Lane, Richborough Estates question is whether it is appropriate to provide 5% of the market dwellings as self and custom build plots on this site. Some 1,600 new homes are proposed at Balsall Common with the policies for each allocation seeking 5% self and custom build plots. Is there sufficient evidence of demand for these plots? Richborough Estates propose that the 5% requirement is deleted from Policy BC2 and the self and custom build plots are provided at the larger sites of Barratt’s Farm (Policy BC1), Trevallion Stud (Policy BC5) and Pheasant Oak Farm (Policy BC4).

g) The detailed design of a SuDS system is a matter for a planning application taking into account the ground conditions and topography of the site. To seek to restrict a potential optimum design of a SuDS system should not be included in a policy but flexibility should be retained. Accordingly, criterion 3(iii) should be deleted. If a criterion is required then it should state “As part of any application a SuDS scheme shall be submitted”.

h) Criterion 4(i) refers to the “Provision of improvements to Holly Lane recreation ground as part of the enhancements to mitigate the removal of the allocation from the Green Belt.” In the Justification of Policy BC2 it should be made clear that this off-setting approach is acceptable because the recreation ground is designated as Local Greenspace in the Neighbourhood Development Plan.

7. Subject to the suggested modifications to Policy BC2, the Concept Masterplan is broadly acceptable to Richborough Estates. However, Richborough Estates has an alternative access option to the one shown on the Concept Masterplan which cannot be included in this representation for commercial reasons. To avoid any future concerns associated with a “significant departure” then there should be recognition that the access location might change and some flexibility on this specific matter is required.

8. As has been identified to the Council previously, the majority of the houses are likely to be 2-storey. However, whether apartments or to assist with legibility, there should be the option to have buildings of up-to 3-storeys in height at selected locations, including towards the centre of the proposed housing allocation to allow design variation where appropriate. At Page 22 of the Council’s document a modification to text is required to state “Predominantly 2-storey medium density housing is appropriate in this semi-rural location. Approximately of 110 units can be accommodated on the site.”

Principle of the Allocation

9. Once established, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies of plans should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they can endure beyond the plan period (Paragraph 136).

10. Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, taking in to account whether the strategy makes as much use as possible of previously developed and underutilised land; optimises the density of development to make efficient use of land including higher densities in town centres and other locations well served by public transport; and informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development (Paragraph 137).

11. When reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account and where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land, plans should give first priority towards land which has been previously developed and/or is well served by public transport, and plans should set out ways in which the impact can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land (Paragraph 138).

12. Although there is no definition in policy or guidance of what comprise exceptional circumstances as envisaged in the Framework, Case Law has confirmed that any alteration to the Green Belt must be justified by exceptional circumstances rather than general planning concepts (Carpets of Worth Ltd v Wyre Forest DC (1991) 62 PCR 334). It is a matter for the Council to reach a sound planning judgment on whether exceptionality exists in the circumstances of an individual case (Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin)). The application of the exceptional circumstances test was also recently considered in the decision of Ouseley J. in Compton PC & Others v Guildford BC & Others [2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin) (Compton). Although this case related to the 2012 version of the Framework the commentary for this Case concerning exceptional circumstance remains relevant.

13. There is a recognised two-stage approach to which can be followed to provide the necessary evidence and justification to identify that exceptional circumstances exist to alter the Green Belt boundary through the preparation of a Local Plan. The first stage is the evidence gathering and assessment that leads to an in-principle decision that alterations of the Green Belt boundary may be justified to help meet development needs in a sustainable way. Such a need may relate to the significant benefits which would be associated with a specific development proposal (e.g. in the Compton case was found to have significant benefits in terms of affordability and delivery of affordable housing notwithstanding the objectively assessed housing need was being materially exceeded).

14. Stage 1 concerns the evidence gathering and assessment that leads to an in-principle decision that a review of the Green Belt boundary may be justified to help meet development needs in a sustainable way. It is set out at paragraph 137 of the Framework and requires the Council to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. .

15. There is evidence that there have been discussions throughout the preparation of the Local Plan with neighbouring authorities, under the Duty to Co-operate, to consider whether there is the opportunity for these areas to accommodate some of Solihull Borough’s housing need on non-Green Belt land. However, the authorities boarding Solihull Borough have a lack of land within their urban areas, the same Green Belt considerations and issues about accommodating the growth needs of an adjoining large urban area, whether Birmingham or Coventry.

16. The Overall Approach Topic Paper records the issues related to accommodating the unmet housing needs of Birmingham across the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (HMA). As at April 2019, there was still a shortfall of some 2,597 dwellings to be accommodated across the HMA even after Solihull agreeing to accommodate some 2,000 dwellings. However, it is also recognised in the Topic Paper that the final details of any contribution must be tested through a Local Plan process in accordance with national guidance. This is primarily associated with the need to release land from the Green Belt to support any contributions it makes. Equally, there is a question whether Solihull Borough might be able to accommodate further unmet housing needs to address the ongoing HMA shortfall.

17. Although Richborough Estates does have concerns about the assessed housing requirement, principally associated with the HMA shortfall, it is clear from the Local Plan’s evidence base that to accommodate the level of housing proposed does require land to be removed from the Green Belt. There have been extensive studies concerning what land might be suitable and available for housing development within the urban areas of Solihull Borough. Indeed, the Local Plan has sought to making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land within both the urban area and, in sustainable locations, the Green Belt. A significant number of the potential housing sites in the Site Assessments document are within the urban area.

18. Within the urban areas there is evidence the Council is seeking to optimise density compatible with local character. The justification for Policy P15 refers to “The appropriate density of residential development will be informed by the need to make efficient use of land together with the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting. Where it can be demonstrated that a higher density would improve the character and quality of an area, this will be supported.” Richborough Estates consider there is a legitimate question to be raised whether, in some cases, the development density of land released for housing from the Green Belt has been optimised, especially a locations well served by public transport. A specific objection to the assumed capacity of the land west of Dickens Heath (Policy BL1) has been raised in this context and refences has been made to Policy BC2 (and other similar allocation policies) having a minimum provision.

19. As a matter of principle, Richborough Estates concur with the Council that the necessary Stage 1 exceptional circumstances exist for alterations to the Green Belt boundary to accommodate the housing needs during the plan period.

20. Stage 2 of the exceptional circumstances approach then determines which sites would best meet the identified need having regard to Green Belt harm and other relevant considerations, including whether they are suitably located and developable. Stage 2 considers such as previously developed land or land well served by public transport together with ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be off-set through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. In the case of this Local Plan, Policy P17A allows for such enhancements to be secured through off-setting which is a pragmatic approach to adopt and supported by Richborough Estates.

21. The Site Selection Process Topic Paper usefully explains the approach of combining the various studies which were undertaken and form part of the Local Plan’s evidence base, including the Green Belt Study, the Sustainability Appraisal the Accessibility Study and the Landscape Character Assessment.

22. Balsall Common is amongst the most sustainable settlements outside the urban area of Solihull. The Overall Approach Topic Paper states that “The area around the settlement presents an opportunity for significant growth”. It also goes onto to say “The low to moderate impact on the Green Belt and the medium to high accessibility indicate that this settlement is suitable for consideration for growth. Development to the east of the settlement would be within walking distance of the rail station and could assist infrastructure provision, and development to the south and southeast would, although be less accessible, be on land that either preforms least well in Green Belt terms or provides strong defensible boundaries.”

23. Balsall Common has a range of local facilities, including secondary school, primary schools, shops, services, community buildings and employment opportunities. The settlement sits on a public transport corridor principally comprising the rail link between Coventry, the NEC/Birmingham Airport and Birmingham. However, there are also bus services to Coventry and Solihull.

24. The Solihull Strategic Green Belt Assessment identifies that the proposed allocation at Frog Lane as one of the lowest scores (or performs least well) in terms of the purposes of the Green Belt. There is a strong and obvious Green Belt boundary created by Frog Lane and Holly Lane which are well defined physical features. For recreation and biodiversity reasons all the land removed from the Green Belt is not proposed to be developed for housing. For Policy BC2, there would be some merit in considering enhancements to what would be non-Green Belt land contributing to the wider aim of compensating for the loss of Green Belt.

25. An element of caution is required in the interpretation of the Site Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal of the proposed allocation prepared by the Council. The reason being is that the Site Assessment (Ref 75) considered both the housing development area and the retained field rather than just the implications of the residential development site. This wider appraisal also appears to have been adopted in the Sustainability Appraisal (Ref AECOM ID 98) which may well have skewed the scoring.

26. The area proposed for housing is (apart from the boundary trees) devoid of any significant biodiversity interest, is located away from the setting of designated heritage assets, is outside any floodplain and is physically separated from the wider agricultural landscape to the south of Balsall Common by Frog Lane. The site is visually contained by the trees along the southern boundary with Frog Lane. The technical work undertaken by Richborough Estates demonstrates that access and utilities can be provided and a SuDS strategy implemented to comply with the current requirements for surface water drainage.

27. The Frog Lane housing allocation is well placed in terms of access to the facilities at Balsall Common, especially the education provision which is one of the highest trip generators at morning peak. Other facilities within the settlement are accessible on foot or cycle. There are public transport connections available to Birmingham, Coventry, Solihull and the area around the NEC/Birmingham Airport/UK Central. These locations have extensive employment opportunities and higher order facilities.