Question 34 - Washed Over Green Belt Settlements for Potential Removal

i do not want any of our sports ground lost -your own rules prevent this P20
you were building on 4 and only replacing 2
we should be encouraging our kids to play sports

The green belt serves an essential purpose which has not changed since introduction. No exceptional circumstances exist for any development

As a resident of 182 Widney Manor Road I strongly object to the GREEN BELT status as proposed under question 34 of the proposal being changed. My reasons are:
1. Conservation and preservation - the area provides natural habitation to a number of protected species of animals including bats and badgers.
2. Environmental - it would cause damage, linked to point 1 above, to an area of natural beauty.
3. Increased levels of traffic and congestion close to an accident hot spot that is the cross roads by Widney Manor Station. With that would come increased pollution.
4. The council has a legal and moral duty to protect green belt areas which are diminishing rapidly within the borough.
5. It would not increase provision for social housing as the cost of any such properties would be unaffordable.
6. There would be access issues affecting one of the main feeder roads into and out of Solihull - Widney Manor Road.
7. It is against the will of the people who seek to preserve the character and beauty of the area instead of corporate and individual financial gain.
8. Other more appropriate build sites exist within the borough.
9. Too much green belt area has been given up already and is irreplaceable.

Whitlock's End - Frontage developments on Tilehouse Lane and Houndsfield Lane that accommodates around 30 dwellings and the park & ride station just to the north. I would support the removal of the green belt status for all of this site including the surrounding properties in Tilehouse Lane and Houndsfield Lane.

This area does not have an open character that makes a contribution to the openness of the Green Belt. A number of our neighbours also support this and are also considering submitting some of their land as part of the extended call for sites.

Cheswick Place development has already led to problems in Cheswick Green with unsociable behaviour and an increase in drug dealers/users so any further developments would add to this problem. Our village has a true village feel about it and needs to be kept as such. We need to keep what green belt land around us as it is to retain a village status and the village community that we have.

I object to the removal of Green Belt Status for land to the rear of 184 Widney Manor Road.
The site provides nesting for a large variety of birds and sanctuary for animals including deer, foxes, badgers and bats.
The mature trees within the site reduce pollution levels from the high volume of nearby traffic.
The site is not appropriate for development as access is extremely close to the busy Widney Manor Road/Widney Lane Junction and adjacent to the entrance to Widney Manor Station Carpark. I believe the use of this access for vehicles would be potentially dangerous.

The Green Belt status of this land should remain because:
1.The land in question is a wildlife corridor that supports badgers, bats, foxes, muntjac deer etc. These animals are picked up regularly by our wildlife camera.
2. The road infrastructure cannot take the additional traffic congestion and access issues which would result, particularly the junction at Widney Lane/Widney Manor Road and railway station access. Accidents at this spot are a regular occurrence and there is not enough room to add a traffic island.
3. Additional light, noise and environmental pollution would add to the current incessant road and rail pollution.

I comment only on the Widney Manor Road site as I am not familiar with the others. This area is very close to the M42 and I feel that it has less value as green Belt..

We believe these washed over boundaries should be removed. The area 13 between Shirley, Dickens heath and Cheswick green should be made public open space and nature reserve with cycle tracks and paths for the residents to enjoy.

Please see attached letter

Tilbury Green should be washed over by green belt. It has been developed more disproportionately than other areas. Serious issues with coaelecing areas. Significant flooding risk, particularly as climate change accelerates. Country roads are now more like main roads, unable to manage with volumes and safety for other road users, pedestrians cyclists etc. Negative impact on wildlife, and landscapes. There is a serious question about why Tidbery Green has been developed more greatly than other areas, in order to meet affordable housing needs, with the lack of infra structure and employment?

No Green Belt status should ever be removed. Are we to return to pre war days when people existed in tenements?

Impact on wildlife- rare birds and topography
Highways and access - already extremely busy road that cannot take any more traffic from further local developments. Repeated traffic incidents on junction Widney Manor Road/ Lovelace Avenue/Widney Lane often unreported due to non injury with regular excessive speeding traffic.
Obvious devaluation of existing properties with potential loss of privacy to rear of property
Inappropriate development in green belt

Please see attached letter

Yes. However it is essential that special circumstances should prevail to justify this - either in the form of a roll back of the Green Belt to facilitate provision for infilling to enable achievement of housing targets, or to accommodate specific allocations of development sites such as the land at the rear of 114 to 118 Widney Manor Road.

Allowing further residential development to the rear of 114-118 Widney Manor Road would set an unwelcome precedent for further green belt land lost in the surrounding area. solihull would then be joined with Bentley Heath, Knowle and Dorridge
Solihulls motto URBS IN RURE, town in the countryside, will no longer be valid.

We strongly object to the possible inclusion of land behind 114-118 Widney Manor Road. This land clearly does contribute to openness of the Green Belt and there are important reasons behind the aesthetic to preserve it: there are plants and wildlife that will be lost if we do not protect this. One of the most valuable and unique characteristics of Solihull as a suburb is that there is greenbelt so near to the centre of town where bats, slow-worms, badgers and deer reside. Damaging this ecosystem would set a very dangerous precedent, as previously agreed by the Council.

The Solihull Ratepayers Members Forum and AGM on 8th March considered a presentation on the Solihull Local Plan Review Consultation and the presentations of our views are set out in the attached letter

See letter and attachments.
Reference Sites 134, 205 and 308 (Amber Site A7)
Questions Nos 2, 34, 37 and 38
I am attaching a Summary and Response to the above questions. I add my name to this. In addition I am attaching three supporting copy documents:
* The Planning Inspectorate: Appeal Decision dated 19 April 2011
* Assessment of Green Belt Submissions, October 2011
* Agreement between Mar City Developments Limited and The Metropolitan Borough of Solihull
I confirm my strong objection to the removal of these areas from the Green Belt. Site 134 was the subject of a Planning Application (2010/2) which was refused. The Appeal which followed was dismissed at the Inquiry. Nothing has changed which would now justify the removal of these sites from the Green Belt.

No more building on Widney manor road at all between the station and the 6th form college

Whilst I support this planning item, it should include a better means of access to the station car park as there are many delays in that section of road.
Also, there needs to be much better room for bus stops along that busy road where many children congregate when waiting for school buses.

6. Richborough Estates is supportive of the Consultation Document's reference to removing Cheswick Green from the Green Belt, particularly where there is the unusual situation of Mount Dairy Farm not being within the Green Belt but all the other properties in the settlement are. It is clear planning sense that a settlement of some 900 dwellings, together with a good range of local facilities, ought not to be washed over by the Green Belt because it makes little contribution to openness of the Green Belt.

7. However, in removing Cheswick Green from the Green Belt the opportunity should be taken to identify either at least one housing allocation or, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework, safeguarded land to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period.

8. The need to identify additional allocations, including at Cheswick Green, arises from Richborough Estates' answer to Question 1. It is considered inevitable that further housing allocations will need to be identified in the emerging Local Plan. Cheswick Green is a settlement where no allocations are currently proposed notwithstanding the settlement being served by public transport and having local facilities and services, including a primary school, parade of shops, public house, community hall and sporting facilities. The accessibility and sustainability credentials of Cheswick Green were recognised by the allocation and subsequent housing development at Mount Diary Farm (Cheswick Place).

9. These same accessibility and locational credentials, alongside the first opportunity to define a boundary, provide the basis for the identification of safeguarded land at Cheswick Green to meet longer-term development needs.

10. Promotional Brochure is being prepared by Richborough Estates for the land fronting Tanworth Lane which lies between the recent housing development at Mount Diary Farm and Highleys Farm. The land is referred to as Site 99 in the Borough Council's Site Assessment document.

11. The Brochure will be submitted to the Council and will identify how the site could come forward for housing development for circa 130-140 dwellings. Based upon the content of this Brochure, and consideration of the wider evidence based published by the Council, an up-date assessment of this site has been undertaken upon the Site Assessment's criteria and this is included at the end of this representation. Also attached to this representation is the draft illustrative master plan which shows how the site could come forward for development. The approach adopted will be explained in more detail the Promotional Brochure.

12. A landscape-led approach to the master planning of the site has been adopted as a key principle with the existing boundary vegetation being retained and creation of a physical and defensible Green Belt boundary. Areas of open space are identified which provide the opportunity for biodiversity benefits of the type of compensatory improvements to environmental quality and accessibility sought by the Framework when land is released from the Green Belt.

13. Other than Green Belt, there are no policy or insurmountable physical constraints to the development of the site for as illustrated in the Promotional Brochure.

14. There would be the opportunity to provide for a range of dwelling types and sizes at a density that respects the adjacent pattern of development and the site's location on the edge of Cheswick Green. Housing on the site would not be visually intrusive within the wider landscape setting of Cheswick Green when viewed from the surrounding countryside, nor would it pose issues of wider coalescence.

see attached representation

- We object to the possible removal of the Green Belt status of Widney Manor Road. We do not see how the land at Widney Manor Road could provide any compensation provision, given its shape and size. We also strongly object to the possible inclusion of the land at Widney Manor Road and in particular, the rear of 114 to 118 Widney Manor Road, Solihull. Paragraph 378 of the consultation document refers to Widney Manor Road as being a washed over settlement/ area which has been identified for potential removal from the Green Belt as it does not have an 'open' character that makes a contribution to the 'openness' of the Green Belt. This conclusion is in contrast to, at least, the following:

1. Solihull Strategic Green Belt Assessment - Assessment Report, July 2016. This was prepared by Atkins for the Council and did not include the land to the rear of Widney Manor Road (RP42) as one of the Refined Parcels which do not perform against any of the four assessed purposes of Green Belt, in Section 5 Summary and Conclusions. The Report does not recommend that the parcel is taken forward. In fact, the Report concluded that overall RP42 was a 'parcel or area which is more moderately performing' in two of the assessed purposes (and lower performing against another).

This evidence base/ assessment carried out on behalf of the Council appears to have been ignored.

2. Solihull LDF Core Strategy Assessment of Green Belt Submission October 2011. This Solihull Council evidence based document assessed land to west of Widney Manor Road (2-218 evens only), Solihull for deletion from the Green Belt (please see Document 1). In particular, in terms of 'impact on the fundamental characteristic of openness the assessment concluded the land contains a thin line of houses fronting Widney Manor Road, with a substantial largely open character to the west, consisting of the gardens to the houses and the railway cutting, which contributes to openness'. The assessment also concludes the land forms part of the Meriden Gap between Birmingham/Solihull and Coventry, as well as the smaller gap between Solihull and Knowle. The Conclusion states that 'the land contributes to openness and to prevention of urban sprawl from the urban area to the west. This is supported by an Appeal decision relating to 114-118 Widney Manor Road dated 19th April 2011'.

This Council assessment and evidence base to the Core Strategy has been ignored.

3. Document 2 comprises the Appeal Inspector's decision relating to the land at 114-118 Widney Manor Road, Solihull (APP/Q4625/A/10/2133554). The Inspector concluded at paragraph 12 that 'the Council's inclusion of the appeal site within the Green Belt are the stronger, and I attach little weight to the appellant's criticisms of it'.

In terms of the effect on the openness and other attributes of the Green Belt, the Inspector concluded 'whilst the extent to which openness can be appreciated from the public and private viewpoints is a material consideration, openness is an intrinsic quality of the land itself, relating to the absence of the build development, and this quality is not dependent on whether it can be seen by the public. As openness is the most important attribute of the Green Belt, the loss of openness in this case would result in serious harm and would conflict with Policy C2 of the Solihull Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2006, which deals with control of development in the Green Belt'.

We have checked and Policy C2 has in effect been carried forward in to Policy P17 of the Solihull Local Plan 2013.

The Inspector's overall conclusion is that the significant harm that would be caused (which includes through loss of openness) would not be outweighed by provision of housing on this site. We do not consider the planning policy position or the circumstances on the site have changed since this Appeal decision.

4. Solihull Council Planning Committee in July 2010 refused a planning application for residential purposes. The Officer's report to Committee concludes on openness that 'the emerging Core Strategy does not show any alterations to the Green Belt boundary at this part of Widney Manor Road. The site was discounted for reason that the release of the site would have a significant impact on the green belt functions and openness and would set an unwelcome precedent for further green belt land release from surrounding sites. Instead, housing allocations are centred around main urban areas supporting urban renaissance, including areas of greatest accessibility whilst avoiding over intensification of development in mature suburbs'.

The officer reports goes on to say 'This part of the Green Belt was first designated in the 1970's as part of the Solihull Structure Plan. Its retention was then, as it is now, to provide a green belt corridor between Solihull town centre and the settlements of Knowle and Dorridge, thus to prevent coalescence of the two. The Monkspath estate that has now been developed to the west side of the railway line and the applicant asserts its existence should warrant the removal of the green belt boundary from the application site. This argument although presented in previous development plan reviews has never been supported by any Inspector during the Inquiry or examination. There has been no material change in circumstance to warrant an alternative approach today'.

Solihull Council's Planning Committee refused planning permission for two reasons, including the harm the development would cause to the openness of the Green Belt.
It is also misleading to refer to 114 -118 Widney Manor Road having been the subject of a previous planning application, and to not set out that the application was refused by the Council and their decision was later upheld by an Appeal Inspector.
We also refer you to the Section 106 Agreement dated 16 January 2001 made between (1) Mar City Developments Limited and (2) the Council in respect of the Spinney development (planning ref 00/577) which deals, amongst other things, with the management and protection of the embankment and wildlife corridor (shown edged and hatched in green on the s106 plan) to the rear of the Widney Manor Road properties (Document 3). One of the purposes of the scheme was 'to retain the embankment and spinney in their current state'. A large swathe of this protected embankment and wildlife corridor has been recently cleared by the present owners of that land. It is assumed this has been carried out in consultation with the Council and/or a qualified ecologist, but we fear that it may not have been. Perversely, the removal of this embankment and wildlife corridor would add to the openness of the land, rather than detract from it.
We consider the potential inclusion of Widney Manor Road and/or the land to the rear of 114 - 118 Widney Manor Road would not create a logical roll back of the Green Belt boundary, as land to the north and south on Widney Manor Road would remain in the Green Belt.
We do not consider that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to the Green Belt boundaries, as required by paragraphs 135 and 136 in the NPPF (2019). We further note the definition of previously developed land excludes land in built-up area such as residential gardens. This is relevant, given it is included at paragraph 138 in the NPPF (2019). But this does not support the land's removal from the Green Belt given the purpose the land performs in Green Belt terms (which has been consistently concluded to be the case by Solihull Council, the Core Strategy Inspector and the Appeal Inspector). This position has not changed since assessment of the site in 2010.
We consider the potential inclusion of this land would be another example of 'garden grabbing', which does not create good places. We support the Stop Garden Grabbing in Solihull campaign

We object to the possible removal of the green belt status of Widney Manor Road and strongly object to the possible inclusion of the land at the rear of 114 to 118 Widney Manor Road. The consultation document paragraph 378 refers to WM Road as being a washed over settlement/area as it does not have an open character. This is goes against the findings of Solihull Strategic Green Belt Assessment July 2016, Solihull LDF Core Strategy. Assessment of Green Belt Submission Oct 2011 and the Appeal Inspector's decision relating to the land at 114-118 WM Road.

please see the attached letter

Please find attached Tidbury Green Parish Council's response to the Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation, along with the appendices referred to within our response.

Please see attached letter.

Cheswick Green parish has very strong green belt boundaries. It is all washed over with the exception of Blythe Valley and the anomaly of Mount Dairy Farm.
Removal of green belt wash over status, together with site 12 development, would leave a very patchy bit of green belt with vague boundaries that could not fulfil the main green belt purposes.
In practice this would make it much easier for Cheswick Green to be engulfed by the conurbation in future, contrary to current green belt policy and that expressed in the draft plan.
Infill sites must be considered on merit.

See attached letter