Question 44 Are there any other comments

Showing comments and forms 121 to 150 of 200

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9428

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr S C Howles

Representation Summary:

Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9432

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Tomkys

Representation Summary:

Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9443

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Open Spaces Society

Representation Summary:



Requirements for green infrastructure are missing from the UK Central Hub section.

Full text:

See attached letter. The Open Spaces Society is Britain's oldest national conservation body, founded in
1865. The Society's aim is to protect, increase, enhance and champion open spaces,
common land, village greens and public paths.
Consequently, sections 96 to 98 of the NPPF headed Open space and recreation are
seen of particular importance.
The questions addressed by the Society are those headed Do you agree with the
infrastructure requirements? for each area. These are Questions 3, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 29, and 31.
No equivalent question was asked about the UK Central Hub, so a comment has been made in response to Question 44.

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9447

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr G Wilkinson

Representation Summary:

Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9461

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Andrew Darby

Representation Summary:

Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,
Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common
I wish to register my objection to the on-going proposal, in the Draft Local Plan, to build 220 housing
units on the greenbelt, greenfield land between Windmill Lane and the Kenilworth Road in Balsall
Common known as Site 3.
I understand that the council has recently decided, in line with government policy, to develop three
brownfield sites in Balsall Common at Wootton Green Lane, Lavender Hall Farm and Pheasant Oak
farm. These sites were suggested by residents to the council as alternatives to site 3 (and also site 2,
Frog Lane) in the last consultation in 2017. However, rather than developing these sites instead of
the greenfield sites, they are to be developed in addition. Our village of circa 3900 homes is now
expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other
settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers (South
Shirley and Dickins Heath) and Dorridge has not been allocated any housing sites at all. This does not
seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of
HS2. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in
finding alternative sites to build on.
To manage any significant expansion of the village needs careful planning, in terms of schooling,
traffic, housing sites and amenities, alongside HS2. There is no timing plan within the Draft Local Plan
to give residents the confidence that any growth will be managed. The primary school is already full
at 4 form-entry. There is no capacity to take any more children until a new school is built. Public
transport is inadequate with infrequent bus services and there are only 2 trains every hour during
peak times, so people depend on their cars. As yet, there has been no assessment done of the
Highways to ensure the road network can cope, at least until such time that the bypass is built. The
Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. All this affects the air quality
in our village and the health of the residents. Given that many of the proposed sites are in open
countryside, it is also worrying that no Ecological Assessments have been made available to the
public. I understand that there is a proposal to build a new settlement to the north of Balsall
Common and I would urge the council to seriously look at that as an alternative to imposing any
significant level of new housing on Balsall Common, a village which is already clearly "bursting at the
seams".
Turning to site 3 itself, this is a greenfield, greenbelt site in the Meriden Gap. Mayor Andy Street and
Leader of the Council, Bob Sleigh, have both pledged to protect this precious area. The development
of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet so, as residents, we do not understand why the site is
being included. The council has also assessed the sustainability of the site and it scores very poorly (9
negatives and only 2 positives), not least because it stretches so far out from the village boundary
that you would need to drive to the village shops, the medical centre, the train station and the
primary school. Just because there are two housing estates now built in the vicinity should not
provide a "shoo- in" to build on the rest. The area is rich in wildlife - owls, red kites, woodpeckers,
deer, hawks, numerous insects, bats, amphibians and the protected Great Crested Newts, to name
but a few. As there are no plans to include nature reserves, unlike the other two greenfield sites at
Frog Lane and Barrett's Farm, the habitat and feeding grounds for these creatures will be destroyed.
There is also the danger of light pollution from street lights having a detrimental effect on nocturnal
creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads,
clearly putting the lives of the newts at risk.
Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane
opposite Hob Lane. Otherwise new residents will be expected to access their homes through the
Meer Stones Road estate. This means that drivers from 280 dwellings (including Meer Stones Road
residents) will be trying to access the road network from two points, one of which is the busy
Kenilworth Road and the other Windmill Lane. This lane is already turning into a fast "rat run" as
drivers try to avoid the congestion in the village. This is not sustainable.
Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the
magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local,
regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many
visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill,
but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is
one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this would be an absolute travesty. This is a
magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for
generations to come.
All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have
on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to
current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to
preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local
character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.
Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new
homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this
building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us
do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also
risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous
species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any
site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from
the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending
temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise
as well.
In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the
Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor
accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and
incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no need to build here.

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9467

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Derrick Walker

Representation Summary:

Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9471

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr K Hazelwood

Representation Summary:

Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9476

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: St Philips Land - Land at Smiths Lane Browns Lane & Widney Manor Road

Agent: Lichfields

Representation Summary:

Fulfilling the Duty to Cooperate will require the Council to reach agreement with the other authorities throughout the HMA on how it can assist in accommodating an appropriate portion of the unmet housing needs from across the HMA. Responses from North Warwickshire Borough Council/Coventry City Council to the Draft Local Plan consultation in 2016 raise concern over how Solihull are addressing their contribution to the HMA shortfall. North Warwickshire Position Statement demonstrates that concern over lack of agreement. Solihull well placed to deliver significant proportion, and failure to do so will result in unsound Plan.

Full text:

Please refer to attached document.

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9483

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs A Hazelwood

Representation Summary:

Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9487

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Representation Summary:

Fulfilling the Duty to Cooperate will require the Council to reach agreement with the other authorities throughout the HMA on how it can assist in accommodating an appropriate portion of the unmet housing needs from across the HMA. Responses from North Warwickshire Borough Council/Coventry City Council to the Draft Local Plan consultation in 2016 raise concern over how Solihull are addressing their contribution to the HMA shortfall. North Warwickshire Position Statement demonstrates that concern over lack of agreement. Solihull well placed to deliver significant proportion, and failure to do so will result in unsound Plan.

Full text:

Please refer to attached documents.
Lichfields is instructed by Heyford Developments Ltd ('Heyford Developments') to respond formally to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review supplementary consultation (January 2019 - March 2019).

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9491

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr P Phillips

Representation Summary:

Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9506

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

Representation Summary:

Severn Trent Water Response:
Sewage Strategy:
We will ensure that our assets have no adverse effect on the environment and that we provide appropriate levels of treatment at each of our sewage treatment works.
We will complete necessary improvements to increase capacity when sites are more advanced in planning process.
Surface Water and Sewer Flooding:
Expect surface water on new development to be managed in line with the Government's Water Strategy, Future Water.
For new developments we would not expect surface water to be conveyed to our foul or combined sewage system and, where practicable, we support the removal of surface water already connected to foul or combined sewer.
We believe that greater emphasis needs to be paid to consequences of extreme rainfall.
Water quality
Need to take account of EA Source Protection Zone (SPZ) and Safe Guarding Zone policy, EA RBMPs, and Water Framework Directive.
Water Supply
When specific detail of planned development location and sizes are available a site specific assessment of the capacity of our water supply network could be made. Any assessment will involve carrying out a network analysis exercise to investigate any potential impacts.
We would not anticipate capacity problems within the urban areas of our network, any issues can be addressed through reinforcing our network. However, the ability to support significant development in the rural areas is likely to have a greater impact and require greater reinforcement to accommodate greater demands.
Water Efficiency
We recommend that you consider taking an approach of installing water efficient fittings on new properties.
We would encourage you to impose the expectation on developers that properties are built to the optional requirement in Building Regulations of 110 litres of water per person per day.

Full text:

see attached document

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9527

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Roy Summerfield

Representation Summary:

SHLAA site 54
Land adjacent to Newby Grove and Clopton Crescent.

The land is covenanted for recreational purposes in perpetuity and is being used as such by local residents. The Council has not followed the proper procedures to release the land for development.

Full text:

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.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9649

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Williams

Agent: Oakwood Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

Should allocate small sites such as Site 127, to ensure that at least 10% of the housing requirement is met through smaller sites and given the reliance on windfalls and green belt sites, which may be inappropriate development. Particularly important as a number of the larger proposed allocations have multiple land ownerships and delivery may take longer.

Full text:

These representations have been prepared by Oakwood Planning on behalf of the owners of the property known as Woodford, Grange Road, Dorridge which is identified as Site 127 in the SHELAA/Site Assessments.
The comments predominantly respond to the Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation:
Site Assessments in respect of Site 127 and linked to that provide some comments on a number of the consultation questions posed in the Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9663

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Michael & Marion Joyce

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

St. George and Teresa School, site 155, capacity 31 dwellings, is in educational use and no evidence to show suitable alternative site. Should not be included in SHELAA sites calculation for housing supply.
Safeguarded land should be identified and removed from green belt to meet future need and avoid need to alter green belt boundaries in review.
Evidence behind Review flawed, no detailed landscape/ecological assessments of preferred/amber sites, additional/smaller parcels require assessment for GBA, no revision to IDP, no viability assessment, and no feasibility/masterplanning of SGS growth location recommendations.

Full text:

On behalf of our Client Mrs M Joyce, we now formally submit on her behalf representations in connection with the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation.

The key question raised in the DSLPRSC is Question 39, which offers
an opportunity for our client to confirm she wishes her site to be included and the
reasons for that. In addition, this representation also addresses the following
questions: 2, 7, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 39 and 44.

see letter attached

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9674

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: West Midlands Police

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

The absence of positive references to the need to provide Police infrastructure associated with the UK Central Hub Area and particularly the residential component at Arden Cross and the NEC undermines the delivery of safe and secure development. There should be express reference to the need for financial contributions towards additional expenditure burden placed on WM Police as a consequence of the proposed growth of the Hub Area and wider area generally. Seek engagement in preparation of Concept Masterplans and policy implementation and delivery once Plan adopted.

Full text:

We act for the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (CCWMP) and are instructed to make representations on local development documents in respect of securing policy reference in such documents
see details in attached letter

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9683

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

St. George and Teresa School, site 155, capacity 31 dwellings, is in educational use and no evidence to show suitable alternative site. Should not be included in SHELAA sites calculation for housing supply.
Safeguarded land should be identified and removed from green belt to meet future need and avoid need to alter green belt boundaries in review.
Evidence behind Review flawed, no detailed landscape/ecological assessments of preferred/amber sites, additional/smaller parcels require assessment for GBA, no revision to IDP, no viability assessment, and no feasibility/masterplanning of SGS growth location recommendations.

Full text:

We write on behalf of our Client, Kendrick Homes Limited, who have an interest in land to the north side of School Road, Hockley Heath - referred to as Land adjacent 84 School Road (Site Ref: 49) within the Council's current Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation (DSLPRSC).
see details in attached letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9696

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Belle Homes Ltd

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

St. George and Teresa School, site 155, capacity 31 dwellings, is in educational use and no evidence to show suitable alternative site. Should not be included in SHELAA sites calculation for housing supply.
Safeguarded land should be identified and removed from green belt to meet future need and avoid need to alter green belt boundaries in review.
Evidence behind Review flawed, no detailed landscape/ecological assessments of preferred/amber sites, additional/smaller parcels require assessment for GBA, no revision to IDP, no viability assessment, and no feasibility/masterplanning of SGS growth location recommendations.

Full text:

We write on behalf of our Client, Belle Homes Limited in respect of Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Numbers 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green, Solihull B90 4JE. This letter is submitted in response to the current Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation (DSLPRSC
See detail in attached letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9711

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Landowners Wootton Green Lane

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

St. George and Teresa School, site 155, capacity 31 dwellings, is in educational use and no evidence to show suitable alternative site. Should not be included in SHELAA sites calculation for housing supply.
Safeguarded land should be identified and removed from green belt to meet future need and avoid need to alter green belt boundaries in review.
Evidence behind Review flawed, no detailed landscape assessments of preferred/amber sites, no revision to IDP, and no feasibility/masterplanning of SGS growth location recommendations.

Full text:

We write on behalf of our various Clients, who jointly own land described below:
Proposed Allocated Housing Site 22 - Trevallion Stud, Wootton Green
Lane, Balsall Common CV7 7BQ
Also including consideration of land west of No. 32 Wootton Green Lane Site
Reference 160
see detail in attached letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9714

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: J H Barber & Son

Agent: Savills

Representation Summary:

New site promoted Land South East of Meriden.

Full text:

Savills is appointed by J H Barber and Son in respect of their land interests Land South East of Meriden, hereafter 'the site'. This submission is made in response to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council's (SMBC) Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation Document (January 2019) and promotes the site for residential
housing.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9744

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Representation Summary:

Need to address contribution to wider HMA shortfall, as current figure arbitrary and yet to be agreed, and carries little weight. Any change in numbers potentially requires change in range/number of sites, so additional sites likely to be required. Council should seek views on potential of sites currently discounted. May require change to spatial strategy to ensure sound.
Issue of safeguarded land not addressed. Further green belt land likely to be required in next review, so land should be removed from green belt and safeguarded for future needs to avoid future green belt changes and comply with NPPF.

Full text:

see letter
promoting land to the West of Diddington Lane HIA

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9747

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Hannelore Lloyd

Representation Summary:

The proposed new housing would almost double the size of the village and this combined with the construction of HS2 and the proposed bypass would change the character or the village.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9749

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr D Deanshaw

Representation Summary:

Housing growth in Balsall Common suggests need for Inset Study outside process of Draft Local Plan to provide long term planning and critical infrastructure.

Full text:

See Letters

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9750

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Arden Cross Consortium

Representation Summary:

Plan must support opportunity for major development provided by HS2 Interchange station in sound and evidential manner. Arden Cross preparing revised vision and master plan to provide further evidence of site's potential. Recognise need for significant level of up-front investment in infrastructure enhancements. Removal of land from green belt essential to achieve objectives. Whilst reasons for delay in Plan preparation recognised, hope that any future delays can be kept to absolute minimum so that development opportunity can be realised.

Full text:

see letter from Arden Cross ltd

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9751

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Nigel Cameron

Representation Summary:

SHELAA site 163 - The former Rectory & Glebe Land should be withdrawn from the local plan process. It is within a conservation area. Removal of existing occupants would cause great disruption and expense even if suitable sites could be found.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9752

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Angela Cameron

Representation Summary:

SHELAA site 163 - The former Rectory & Glebe Land should be excluded from Plan.
Site is fully developed, within a conservation area, and redevelopment will cause disruption and expense to existing occupiers. Lack of suitable alternative premises for existing uses.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9758

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

Representation Summary:

Overall IM is pleased that Solihull Council is progressing the SLPR and inviting comments on their proposed approach.
IM is keen to see a more holistic approach to and consideration of the key factors to be addressed within the DLP. In particular, a more comprehensive approach to housing
needs at both the local level and in terms of accommodating a proportion of unmet need from within the wider HMA.
Important that these factors are addressed so that the Council can be satisfied that the quantum of land they are seeking to identify and spatial strategy are sound.

Full text:

Please find attached representations prepared by Turley on behalf of IM Land in respect of Land at Earlswood Station in response to the Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation (January 2019).

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9765

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

Representation Summary:

Overall IM is pleased that Solihull Council is progressing the SLPR and inviting comments on their proposed approach. However, IM is keen to see a more holistic approach to and consideration of the key factors to be addressed within the DLP, including a comprehensive approach to housing needs (local and HMA), employment needs, the potential implications of HS2 on these needs, and the importance of the future role of the Town Centre.

Full text:

We write on behalf of our client, IM Properties Limited (hereafter referred to as 'IM'), in response to the Solihull Local Plan Review (SLPR) Draft Local Plan (DLP) Supplementary Consultation, which was published for consultation in January 2019.
IM Properties own and are actively promoting several sites and assets within the Borough, including Mell Square, Blythe Valley Park and Fore Business Park.
IM Land, the strategic land division of IM, also has existing and emerging land interests within the Borough; separate representations have been submitted
in relation to IM Land's interests.
see attached letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9835

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr James Hamilton

Representation Summary:

there is no mention of the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan for Berkswell - something we have worked hard on to maintain and preserve the rural character of this area

Full text:

To whom it may concern,

I wish to respond to SMBC's Draft Local Plan and, in particular, to the section on their intentions for Balsall Common - Barratt's Farm development.

I appreciate the need for additional housing in the borough and that Balsall Common will be expected to accomodate it's fair share of these. However, careful thought must be given to the preservation of the Green Belt in the Meriden gap to prevent further urban sprawl narrowing the areas of open land between Coventry, Solihull and Birmingham.

This is particularly an issue in the proposals for Site 1 - Barratt's Farm. Paragraph 96 of the Draft Plan states that the planned developments will enhance the Green Belt. How can this be the case when Barratt's Farm is the narrowest point of the Meriden Gap - only just over a mile wide at this point. Coventry have already made plans to build up to the Solihull Borough Boundary in Berkswell whilst Warwickshire are already building additional housing at Burton Green. SMBC's plans will further erode the Meriden Gap. Once land is released from the Green Belt (Paragraph 97) it can never be reclaimed and the benefit of the Meriden Gap will be lost for ever. SMBC's plan suggests the need for a strong defensible eastern boundary to the Green Belt which in effect narrows it. There are alternative sites for building rather than narrowing the gap at this point. Section 15 and Paragraph 405 for example show Sites - No.76 and No.212 at Cornets End Lane which could provide a new settlement without narrowing down the Meriden Gap.

Interestingly, there is no mention of the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan for Berkswell - something we have worked hard on to maintain and preserve the rural character of this area. Meriden's NDP and Hampton-in-Arden's NDP have been taken into consideration but not Berkswell's. Why not? The Riddings development is a prime example of how housing can be built so that rural character can be kept and the resulting traffic impact can be minimized by thoughtful road planning. The open park spaces are a great (and vital) amenity which are well used and bring together older and newer housing areas and people.

Relating to Paragraph 95 - The Concept Master Plan states an intention to develop a tract of open space running through the majority of Barratt's Farm to achieve the 'Riddings Hill' type of development. There doesn't appear to be clear evidence in the plan that this will be the case. The 'low density housing' proposals and the 'potential area for development' on the 'SMBC's Illustrative Emerging Concept Plan' (page 14) will completely fill the area between older and new housing - nothing like the exemplary Riddings Hill development. The proposed 'by-pass' runs right through the middle of this 'Tract of Open Land' too lessening it's recreational use. Unavoidable perhaps - more open parkland could be included in the development area to the west of the bypass to offset this.

Relating to Paragraph 95 - The Concept Master Plan also states the intention of incorporating the long-established use of playing field/recreational space into the broader aspect of informal and formal recreational facilities. Why then, for the Barratt's Farm proposal, has it earmarked the playing field behind the Catholic Church on Meeting House Lane as and area for 'low density housing'? On a personal note, this field (Very recently the Catholic Church has fenced it off) has been extensively used, for many years, by village residents for recreational activities - football, etc. I have lived in Balsall Common since 1996 (23 years) - my children (and many other local children) have grown up using and enjoying it. A real worry for me is that if the low density housing were to be built on the playing field, where would the access point to the site be. Suggestions I have heard show access through Oxhayes Close. This would be highly dangerous both for vehicles, pedestrians and residents. The junction between Oxhayes Close and Meeting House Lane has a very restricted line of sight making it extremely unsuitable for an increase in traffic. Detailed traffic analysis would need to be done on the junction?

Looking at the emerging concept plan for Barrett's Farm, it is insufficiently developed to enable a clear assessment to be made by myself as a resident. I find it difficult to fully assess it's impact and I have many concerns which it fails to address. I suggest that it is essential that any building work should be kept on hold until HS2 construction in the area is complete and the major access points (Station Road and Waste Lane) to the bypass constructed. With the massive disruption HS2 is likely to bring to this area it should be possible for SMBC to prioritize building in other areas within the Borough before development here. Any piecemeal development of Barratt's Farm must be avoided until a stronger concept plan for the whole site is in place.

It would make sense for all development on Barrett's Farm to only use access points onto the proposed bypass. Matching the Riddings Hill development and routing the bulk of additional traffic away from the con-jested Village Centre.

If the whole area proposed to be released from the Green Belt were to be developed fully it could result in over 2000 homes (stated in the SMBC 2013 Local Plan) being built on Barrett's Farm alone. A huge increase in cars in the village and overwhelming pressure on village infrastructure not to mention pollution worries.

Enhancements to the Village Centre are mentioned in the Plan but a thorough analysis of the impact of new housing on the centre and village as a whole needs to be undertaken to look at the effect of increasing the population of our village by 50% before committing to additional housing.

Finally, what is SMBC's justification for selecting Balsall Common for much of the Council's housing needs?

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9865

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Historic England- West Midlands Region

Representation Summary:

Appears to be no reference to the Historic Environment in the UK Central Hub.
The scale and location of development would affect the setting of a number of important heritage assets. E.g. Park Farmhouse (Grade II*)and numerous designated heritage assets within proximity including the Packington Hall Estate (Grade II*).
Important for the Plan to consider and positively address the direct and indirect impact on these assets and their setting.
The Council's Heritage Impact Assessment will help inform an appropriate design response to accord with national policy and legislation in relation to the historic environment and the delivery of sustainable development.

Full text:

see attached document