Criterion 1 should be amended to be a “approximately” 610 dwellings.
Criterion 2(ii) should refer to “An enhancement to pedestrian connectivity along Tythe Barn Lane is proposed in order to provide a safer route to Whitlocks End Station.” Reference to the link across the canal can be retained.
Criterion 2(ii) should be deleted
Criterion 2(iii) increased to around 3.57 hectares based on 610 dwellings
Criterion 2(iv) should refer to “The potential for sports pitches to be provided on land to the north of Tythe Barn Lane.”
Criterion 2(v) should be amended to “Subject to other masterplanning considerations, the retention of Local Wildlife Sites, with potential for enhancement and an appropriate buffer to Tythe Barn Coppice ancient woodland provided.”
Criterion 2(vi) should be amended to state “As far as reasonably possible the retention of trees and hedgerows within the site and along Tythe Barn Lane to conserve the character of this approach into Dickens Heath”
Criterion 2(viiI) a 2½% target for self and custom build plots.
Criterion 3(v) should be deleted. If a criterion is required then it should state “As part of any application a SuDS scheme shall be submitted”.
Under Criterion 6, the Concept Masterplan is objected to by Richborough Estates because it fails to identify the full housing capacity of the land proposed to be excluded from the Green Belt, including because the floodplain is incorrectly identified on the Council’s Concept Master Plan Document. The capacity is approximately 610 dwellings with 470 dwellings on land south of Tyhe Barn Lane and some 40 dwellings on the Akamba site.
The Akamba should be removed form the Green Belt to recognise its future potential to be redeveloped for housing. There would be clear Green Belt boundaries, similar to those proposed for the land to the east, utilising the strong hedgerow which defines the western boundary of Akamba and the Stratford upon Avon Canal to the north.

1. Richborough Estates Limited supports the principle of allocating land to the west of Dickens Heath (Policy BL1) and the timing of its delivery. It is an available, suitable and deliverable site for housing and is well located relative to the public transport corridor between Birmingham and Stratford upon Avon and the existing settlement of Dickens Heath.

2. For clarity, Richborough Estates controls the land bounded by Tythe Barn Lane, Tilehouse Lane and Birch Leasowes Lane which, themselves, would provide robust and readily recognisable Green Belt boundaries.

3. 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 BL1 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 and a revised Concept Masterplan presented, including to identify another potential access location.

Objection to Policy BL1

4. The idea of Concept Masterplan for the proposed Dickens Heath 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.

5. 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 BL1 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 how a significant departure is defined.

6. 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 content, there is a need to ensure some flexibility in how an allocation might come forward for development.

7. At Dickens Heath the specific requirement of Policy BL1 needs to be amended to ensure the Local Plan is positively prepared, effective and justified:

a) For the reasons explained in more detail below, the capacity of the proposed allocation as a whole should be increased to about 610 dwellings. As such, Criterion 1 should be amended to be a “approximately” 610 dwellings. Notwithstanding the upwards capacity adjustment, 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) Criterion 2(ii) should have greater flexibility concerning the potential improvement to the footway connectivity along Tythe Barn Lane. There are different approaches available. The criterion should refer to “An enhancement to pedestrian connectivity along Tythe Barn Lane is proposed in order to provide a safer route to Whitlocks End Station.” Reference to the link across the canal can be retained.

c) The principle of facilitating the connection of Dickens Heath to Solihull town centre via a cycle route is supported but it is unclear what this actually means for the purposes of masterplanning the allocation. Criterion 2(ii) should be deleted because it is part of the infrastructure requirement associated with criterion 3(vi).

d) Subject to the acceptance of the increased capacity, the public open space provision should be increased to around 3.57 hectares in Criterion 2(iii).

e) As drafted, the relocation of the sports pitches is addressed in Criteria 5 and 3(iii) and is not required in Criterion 2(iv). However, as a masterplanning matter, there should be the ability to consider the potential for relocation of the sports clubs to the land north of Tythe Barn Lane. This is within land also controlled by Richborough Estates and was originally proposed as a Sports Hub. Accordingly, Criterion 2(iv) should refer to “The potential for sports pitches to be provided on land to the north of Tythe Barn Lane.”

f) There should be flexibility to enable to possible justified partial loss of the Local Wildlife Sites and this being off-set elsewhere. This is not intended to suggest that any or all of the Local Wildlife Sites should or would be lost but to enable some flexibility to improve the masterplanning process. For example, there might be a need for an item of infrastructure, or even a sports pitch, to be located on a Local Wildlife Site. Criterion 2(v) should be amended to “Subject to other masterplanning considerations, the retention of Local Wildlife Sites, with potential for enhancement and an appropriate buffer to Tythe Barn Coppice ancient woodland provided.”

g) A similar point applies to the trees and hedgerows along Tythe Barn Lane under Criterion 2(vi) because there may be examples where some vegetation removal might be required for accesses of whatever type, highway improvements (see Criterion 3(iv)) or the improved pedestrian link along Tythe Barn Lane. The criterion should be amended to state “As far as reasonably possible the retention of trees and hedgerows within the site and along Tythe Barn Lane to conserve the character of this approach into Dickens Heath”

h) Richborough Estates have submitted an objection to Policy 4D. In respect of Dickens Heath, 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 1,650 new homes are proposed within the Local Plan to be constructed in the Blythe Ward 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 a 2½% target is included in Policy BL1 for self and custom build plots.

i) 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 3(v) should be deleted. If a criterion is required then it should state “As part of any application a SuDS scheme shall be submitted”.

j) Alongside Policy P20, the principle of Criterion 5 is recognised by Richborough Estates as being appropriate to ensure the future of the relocated sports clubs. Richborough Estates is actively engaged with the Council in the identification of suitable land within Blythe Ward for the relocation of the Sports Clubs. For commercial reasons, it is not possible as part of these representations to provide details of these discussions at this stage. However, it is worthy to record that on 13 August 2020 the Council confirmed the potential use of compulsory purchase powers to acquire land for sports hubs within Solihull.

k) It is noted that the land north of Birchy Leasows Lane is not used for sports pitches and, as such, it would be possible to bring this part of the allocation forward for housing development at an early stage. Such an approach would enable appropriate financial contributions to be generated from land sales to facilitate the relocation of the sports clubs as sought by Criterion 5 and Policy P20.

8. Under Criterion 6, the Concept Masterplan is objected to by Richborough Estates because it fails to identify the full housing capacity of the land proposed to be excluded from the Green Belt.

9. The first matter is that the extent of the floodplain is incorrectly identified on the Council’s Concept Master Plan Document. The floodplain is not as extensive as is suggested and does not preclude the potential development of 2 fields as currently indicated. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment plans which had then been used to inform the Concept Master Plan for Dickens Heath have now been reviewed in further detail by BWB and it is common ground with the Council (and its consultants) that they do not accurately depict the extent of flooding constraints. A Preliminary Flood Risk Technical Note prepared by BWB and agreed with the Council and its consultants concerning the correct floodplain is included as part of these representations. The consequence of this is that the area of land within the allocation area affected by flood constraints has been reduced and the developable area significantly increased. Accordingly, this results in more land being with Flood Zone 1 and, as such, there is greater dwelling capacity across the site which is more in line with the development quantum suggested by the Council at the earlier (Regulation 18) plan making stage.

10. Secondly, reflecting the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), Dickens Heath is an allocation which is well related to a public transport corridor and is within easy walking distance of Whitlocks End railway station which provides a direct service to Birmingham (paragraph 137). There is also a bus service which provides a link to Solihull town centre. This is a case where, under paragraphs 106 and 123(a) of the Framework, there is the opportunity to optimise the density of development in a location well served by public transport. Further, an appropriate uplift in the average density of residential development at locations well served by public transport should be sought unless it can be shown that there are strong reasons why this would be inappropriate. No such strong reasons exist.

11. Thirdly, reflecting the Framework, where land is proposed to be released from the Green Belt then it would be appropriate for the optimum use of such sites to minimise the need for further Green Belt land releases.

12. Richborough Estates has undertaken a critique of the Concept Masterplan for the land west of Dickens Heath and have identified that the capacity of the allocation (as a whole including Akamba) at approximately 610 dwellings inclusive of the accommodation for older people, meeting the open space requirements and respecting the Local Wildlife Sites in line with the Council’s existing masterplan.

13. A copy of the updated Concept Masterplan for the land contained by Tythe Barn Lane, Tilehouse Lane and Birchy Leasowes Lane is included with these representations and also reflects the objections of Richborough Estates to the specific criteria of Policy BL1. This part of the allocation has the capacity to accommodate some 470 dwellings.

Green Belt Boundary

14. Tythe Barn Lane, Tilehouse Lane and Birch Leasowes Lane would provide robust and readily recognisable Green Belt boundaries. However, in seeking to redefine the Green Belt it would be appropriate to exclude the Akamba Garden Centre as part of the land proposed to be removed from the Green Belt to the north of Tythe Barn Lane.

15. The Akamba is an existing and extensive area of previously developed land. It is in commercial use at the current time but the Concept Masterplan Document recognises the potential for this site to be redeveloped at a later date. Although it is recognised redevelopment previously developed land in the Green Belt is not inappropriate development, this is a case where the exclusion of the land from the Green Belt would provide greater flexibility concerning how the redevelopment could be undertaken at a later date. The capacity of this parcel of land is circa 40 dwellings and has been included within the approximate 610 dwellings for the allocation as a whole.

16. There would be clear Green Belt boundaries, similar to those proposed for the land to the east, utilising the strong hedgerow which defines the western boundary of Akamba and the Stratford upon Avon Canal to the north.

Principle of the Allocation

17. 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).

18. 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).

19. 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).

20. 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.

21. 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).

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.”

27. 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. There is a separate point whether it is necessary to identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period. (Framework paragraph 139)? Richborough Estates have proposed such a site at Cheswick Green if it is not needed for housing purposes during the Local Plan period.

28. 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 also be secured through off-setting which is a pragmatic approach to adopt and supported by Richborough Estates.

29. For the land west of Dickens Heath, the allocation as a whole was not formally assessed in the Site Assessments document prepared by the Council. Instead, the eastern (Ref 176) and western (Ref 126) parts of the allocation have been assessed separately. However, Site Ref 176 also included land north of Tythe Barn Lane (not proposed for housing) which skewed the scoring concerning impact on the Green Belt. The Site Assessments recognised for both parts of the allocation that “Dickens Heath is identified as suitable for significant growth, although ensuring key gaps are protected and within walking distance to rail station.” This is what the allocation does by retaining a clear physical and visual gap between any proposed development and Majors Green in a similar manner to the current gap.

30. The Overall Approach Topic Paper states that “The moderate impact on the Green Belt and the medium to high accessibility indicate that this settlement is suitable for consideration for growth, although any development would need to take account of the higher performing Green Belt to the northwest and ensure that key gaps to adjacent settlements and the urban area are protected. Development to the west of the settlement would be within walking distance of the rail station, avoid the key gaps, and maintain separation to the settlement of Major’s Green in Bromsgrove District”. The proposed allocation accords with these principles.

31. An element of caution is required in the interpretation of the Sustainability Appraisal of the proposed allocation prepared by the Council. The reason being is that Sustainability Appraisal includes land north of Tythe Barn Lane (AECOM 87) not proposed for housing. Hence, the assessment about the allocation having a “Landscape with high sensitivity to change” needs to be reads within the context of the wider site and not just the allocation south of Tythe Barn Lane.

32. The area proposed for housing , apart from the boundary trees, only has local biodiversity interest, is located away from the setting of designated heritage assets, can accommodate development outside the confirmed floodplain and is physically separated from the wider agricultural landscape. The site is physically and visually well contained by trees, hedgerows and roads. 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.

33. The west of Dickens Heath allocation is on a public transport corridor and is well placed in terms of access to the facilities at Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green, including the education provision which is one of the highest trip generators at morning peak. Other facilities within Dickens Heath are capable of being accessible on foot or cycle via Tythe Barn Lane or Birchy Leasowes Lane. There are public transport connections available to Birmingham and Solihull and these locations have extensive employment opportunities and higher order facilities.