Draft Local Plan - North Solihull
Pages 276 and 287-288
Land adjacent to Newby Grove and Clopton Crescent
Consultation Period 29th January to 15th March 2019

I refer to the above matter and to the continual attempts by the Council to circumvent proper procedures when exercising its decisions over the future use of land for redevelopment.

I was a member of the Bacons End Triangle Group back in 2008/9 when, following conversations with Birmingham City Council concerning your then proposal to build on land covenanted by Mitchells & Butlers to the local residents for recreational purposes in perpetuity the plan was shelved as it was confirmed the covenant existed and prevented such development.

In 2008/9 it was confirmed by both Birmingham and Solihull that no applications had been made to remove the covenant and indeed that was factual by the mere absence of any notification to the "recipients" of the covenants (the residents of the immediate area surrounding the land) who under legislation they must do.

The land has, I presume, been appropriated for a different purpose (for building rather than recreational purposes) under Section 122 Local Government Act 1972.

My understanding is that under that Section "the Council may appropriate for any purpose for which the Council is authorised by statute to acquire land by agreement any land which belongs to the Council and is no longer required for the purpose for which it is held immediately before its appropriation".

The Act further states that procedural points to this type of acquisition are:-

a. The land must already belong to the Council
b. The land must be no longer required for the purpose for which it is currently appropriated; and
c. The purpose for which the Council is appropriating must be authorised by statute

Whilst a. and c. may well be satisfied certainly b. cannot be said to be so as the land is even now currently being used for recreational purposes (local children playing football and local residents exercising their dogs).

Section 122 Local Government Act 1972 also states that the Council may not appropriate land constituting or forming part of "open space" or land forming part of a common unless they:-

a. Advertise their intention to do so for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the local area; and
b. Consider any objections to the proposed appropriation which may be made to them

1. You have failed to advertise in the local area for two consecutive weeks.
2. You have failed to advertise in a newspaper circulating in the local area.
3. You have failed to consider the objections raised with you.

By way of proof of 1. The advertisement was a "one off", in the wrong edition should have been in Solihull edition of the Mail and not for two consecutive weeks only on Friday August 3rd 2018. The only other advertisement referred to "land in Smithswood" which obviously was done to deflect attention.

By way of proof of 2. The advertisement was on page 62 of the Evening Mail Birmingham Edition and not the Solihull Edition which circulates in our area.

By way of Proof of 3. You failed to respond to the 60 odd objections raised with you and had the audacity to say you had received no objections.

Incidentally Section 336(1) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which as you know was adopted by the Local Government Act states that "Open Space" is defined as "any land laid out as public garden, or used for the purpose of public recreation or land which is disused burial ground" this impliedly includes de facto open space land not dedicated under the Open Spaces Act 1906.

The residents of Newby Grove, Clopton Crescent (including the three cul de sacs running off) and Birmingham Road have been treated with total disdain and the council have attempted to railroad this proposed development failing to adhere to the Acts of Parliament placed their for their protection.

I am looking into other matters concerning the area which require explanation by the Council and will communicate with you further when I have the results of my research.

They include:-

1. When the Amey depot was first built it too was on the site of the covenanted land yet my enquiries of the Land Registry reveal no Deed of Release and certainly those residents who have ben in situ here since the estate was built cannot recall ever being notified of the intention for the Council to use the land for any other purpose than recreation.

2. You have stated in previous correspondence that West Midland Housing were the proposed developers yet they are not even registered at Companies House nor do they have a Business Names Registry entry. Are we to assume therefore that this is a fictitious company which is in fact either monetarily connected to members of the Council or is it another name for Belway Homes?

3. The Deed of Release of Covenant dated 14th August 2009 appears to have suddenly been produced yet when we were in correspondence in 2009 when the land was last in the Development Plan there was no such document either copied to us or indeed even mentioned. What evidence have you that this is a genuine document completed in 2009 especially as the attestation is incomplete?

In conclusion I believe the Council's actions on this matter are not only a disgrace but also ultra vires. The lengths the Council and their officers appear to have gone to in an effort to thwart the local residents is bordering on the criminal.