Question 44 Are there any other comments

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft Local Plan. As Chelmsley Wood ward Councillors, we would like to comment on the proposals in Chelmsley Wood and North Solihull specifically
COUNCILLOR C WILLIAMS
COUNCILLOR K MACNAUGHTON
COUNCILLOR J BURN

see detail in attached letetr

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft Local Plan. As Chelmsley Wood ward Councillors, we would like to comment on the proposals in Chelmsley Wood and North Solihull specifically
COUNCILLOR C WILLIAMS
COUNCILLOR K MACNAUGHTON
COUNCILLOR J BURN

see detail in attached letetr

see attached letter

See Letters

letter asking for constituents concerns to be taken on board regarding the development of land at Clopton Crescent / Newby Grove

Reference Site 163: The Former Rectory and Glebe Land
Before making my response I would refer to the drawings made of this site. I am confused by them. Whilst all references are made to 'The Former Rectory and Glebe Land' the drawings include:
*The Rectory and its outbuildings, garage, storerooms and undeveloped land around.
*The Oliver Bird Hall and car park.
*The St.Alphege Infants School, the Nursery and playground areas.

The drawings do not represent Site Ref.163 'The former Rectory and Glebe Land' and misrepresent the area actually under consideration.
I should appreciate your response to this apparent confusion.
Relevant Planning Statements
Quotation from Introduction Para.6: 'The Local Plan - - - - - will also identify land where development would be inappropriate because of its impact on, for instance, environmental or historic assets.'
and
Quotation from Site Hierarchy Para. 69: 'Sites - - - - - should generally be considered suitable for inclusion in the plan ('green' sites). However there may be some exceptional reasons why they shouldn't and these will be identified where necessary.'
Within LP terms Site 163 is assessed as 'Priority: 2, Category: Greenfield in urban area or settlement', shown as a green coloured rectangle with the letter G in it.
Responses
My objections to the inclusion of Site 163
The site is within the Solihull Conservation Area. The crowding of a number of houses into this area would effectively destroy the character of this area, the most historic within the whole of Solihull.
The complete site is intrinsic to the group of buildings associated with the church which would be irreparably damaged by its loss and its conversion to a housing estate.
There has been a rectory in that area since 1180. The land has been acquired over many centuries. To allow a developer ( interested only in the financial profit ) to replace them by, say, 17 houses would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the owners, the Diocese of Birmingham, and of the officers and congregation of the church.
It is an important site for essential Parish Activities - Garden Parties, Fêtes. A Rectory and its grounds should be available there for a wide variety of church needs and usages.
Car parking near to the church and the Oliver Bird Hall is essential.
Oliver Bird Hall car parking is essential for its functioning.
There is a Badgers' sett in the area.
The additional traffic generated by a housing development would be intolerable both to existing residents of St.Alphege Close, to congregation attending church services and to user of the Oliver Bird Hall.
For all these reasons I believe most strongly that Site Ref: 163 should be removed entirely from the Town Plan and that housing development should never be permitted.

St George & St Teresa School
In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I/we would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my child/children at St George & St Teresa RC School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed

I live in cheswick green and have just read about the possibility of the council allowing developers to build on site 12. I think it's an absolute disgrace. Please try driving down creynolds lane or dog kennel lane. The traffic is horrendous today I left the village and I was stuck in stationary traffic at the traffic light junction to join the Stratford rd for 20 minutes this was at 10.30. There was no accident just sheer number of cars on the road. The area simply can not cope with anymore houses or cars/traffic were bursting already. Cheswick green has already done more than enough for housing for the borough. With cheswick place Blythe valley the horrendous toy town of Dickens's heath. Something needs to be done to stop them joining cheswick green to Shirley. This plan 12 is a joke. I understand filling in the Stratford rd site which I think is plan 11. But that's enough. And a possible service station off junction 4 really?? Does anyone ever drive around these areas from the council the Stratford rd is horrendously congested all the time let alone more traffic to use a service station. The thing is there is a Tesco petrol station just off the island so what is the need for a full on service station?? Also a macDonald's!!! Plan 12 needs to be scrapped completely!! There's no infrastructure in cheswick green to cope with anymore. Surely the best solution to developing more houses has to be around the airport and the new Birmingham interchange hs2 station!! Where the infrastructure can be built from scratch roads big enough etc plus people won't need cars as much around there because of the 2 train stations and more than ample bus services. Surely building as many houses apartments around the Birmingham nec complex is the answer specially with all the leisure activities and transport options. Places like cheswick green knowle dorridge are been destroyed by building too many houses with not enough infrastructure. Build as many and as much around a transport hub as possible. For Blythe valley and cheswick place to get permission to build over a 1000 homes with a single bus service is crazy. Solihull will just become a traffic nightmare even more. Surely maximising the housing supply around a transport hub makes sense. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Just hope the council sees sense and stops the plan 12

Please refer to attachments.

National Grid has appointed Wood to review and respond to development plan consultations on its behalf.
We are instructed by our client to submit the following representation with regard to the current consultation

I would like to register my concerns and objections to the current draft local plan.
Shirley and Blyth Valley has now 38% of the proposed housing which is more than the lions share and will link many areas together i.e. Cheswich Green, Dickens Heath, & Tidbury Green. All will become just another hugh conurbation with no identity.

I believe the council has based it's calculation on the 2014 Office of National Statistics figures and there is a clear case that the 2016 figures could be used which shows a lower calculation.
There has been no consideration of increase of traffic on the current road system and public transport system, the Mott Macdonald plan was not obtained. The council state that public transport will be improved, however if there is no public transport now how can that be improved.
There is already a lack of local GP's and pupils are already travelling far and wide due to lack of schools in the appropriate areas. There are no plans in the current draft for extra GPs and schools.
With the current proposals the council would need to build 885 homes per year, a target that has never been obtained.
Site 4 an extension of Dickens Heath, proposed as it is near a station. Dickens Heath which won best village was based on all houses being within a 10 minute walk to shops, this is something which is already null and void. Site 4 states that improvements will be made to the infrastructure however roads cannot be improved as there are ancient hedgerows, which again the council appeared not to have done their homework. The council has asked for alternative sites, if being near a station is all that is required, have the fields to the east of Widney Manor Station been considered. Widney Manor Station is much better linked.
Site 26 I have no objections providing that the level of housing is kept as per the plan however the increase in traffic on Bills Lanes would need the Mott Macdonald plan being obtained prior to any permissions being granted.
However with this development then site 13 is the mitigation against the loss of green belt and would be beneficial for the community if this was designated a Village Green/ Nature Reserve.
What is quite frightening is that the HSR report into the historic past of Blyth Valley has not been acknowledged by Solihull Council, A report that was widely available and already printed. A Report that could have considerable bearing on future housing.

I find the site selection process to be fundamentally flawed due to:
1. A failure to consider the aggregate impact and loss of green belt amenity from additional Coventry build and HS2.
2. Selection of greenfield sites in preference to a number of brownfield sites
3. Insufficient weight given to the poor transport links in the Balsall Common area
4. The rationale for the excessive burden of development for Balsall Common is not given (1690 new homes vs 3900 existing) when only 900 homes ( vs 8000 existing) are proposed for Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath.

See Letter

South Shirley where i reside is part Blythe valley.

My family and l are GRAVELY concerned about the councils plans to build on the green belt land near our home.

The council is looking to build 38 percent of new housing stock on my doorstep - which will mean a HUGE increase in the number of cars on our already congested roads. where will always these extra cars go? Furthermore, we will exhaling all the fumes from these vehicles and the area's pollution will significantly increase,which may have a detrimental affect upon our health.

i already struggle to get a parking space at the train station and the trains are always FULL.

Our local schools are all full, where will all the new families school their children?

We will also use our local sports grounds, green land so our children can not play football and other sports locally...where will they go? ...will they be on the streets, fed up..committing crime?

l already wait weeks for a GP appointment, get more strain on our local resources which are already stretched meeting the demands of the current population.

The area is prone to flooding. we have seen significant flooding of new builds in dickens heath. will our homes

What we need and the way forward:

Please do not build on our local fields...please protect our wildlife and open spaces for future generations. it is criminal to build in this area!!!!

We have lovely open fields, which the local community use for recreational purposes promoting good mental health and active lifestyles, which helps people remain well and healthy. This area needs to be PROTECTED AND TURNED INTO A NATURE RESERVE TO PROTECT IT FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.


we also require cycle lanes and improved public transport to improve our highly congested roads.

I wish to object to the proposal to develop for housing, Site 4, west of Dickens Heath, I have attached my objections as they are over 100 words.

The Plan demands a huge 45% increase in size of Balsall Common (1750 habitations on top of 3900), which will have a disproportionate and damaging effect. The green belt will be severely reduced, while the quality of life, well-being and lifestyle of existing residents will be greatly changed. It is not clear that sufficient and timely resources will be in place for the benefit of such an influx of population (who will need extra amenities for health, education, transport, jobs, shops, living-space etc etc). I once lived in a place massively-expanded under a Plan, and things did not work out as expected. Sustainability, accessibility, effect on the environment are difficult to quantify, but what effectively the concreting-over of an already-full village pressurise the infrastructure to the extreme.
I have elaborated these points in the attached file, which also covers my answers variously to Questions 4 to 10

The representations of the Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Heath KDBH) Neighbourhood Forum (NF) to the 2016 DLPR raised objections, inter alia, on the basis that;
* The Council's spatial strategy is not clear or coherent.
* There were inconsistencies in the site selections with the Spatial Strategy, the Strategic Transport Strategy and with the Council's own evidence base, particularly the Landscape Assessment, the Interim Sustainability Appraisal and the Green Belt Assessment.
* There was inadequate consideration of infrastructure impacts, particularly traffic impacts.
These comments still apply. In addition:
Spatial Strategy: The Supplementary Update does not revisit the Spatial Strategy. Both the HMA shortfall contribution and the alternative considerations raised by the Strategic Growth Study necessitate revisiting the Spatial Strategy. It is unacceptable to leave these fundamental issues to the Submission stage.
The Spatial Strategy and the site hierarchy assessment (at Appendix D) refer in places to sites in KDBH being consistent with Option G of the Spatial Strategy. However, this Option was one of the worst performing in the Interim Sustainability Appraisal. It is not clear which of the Options is the basis of the Spatial Strategy - it appears to be a mix of all the Options with no clear approach. Notwithstanding this, the aim of the Spatial Strategy is to ensure a sustainable pattern of development and to protect the character and distinctiveness of the Borough. This is inconsistent with the proposed scale of growth in KDBH.
There is no change in the assumption that the Local Plan will make a 2000 house contribution to meeting the HMA shortfall. This will not be reviewed until the Submission version of the DLP. It is widely believed that the Council will have to increase this number which could have significant implications for the overall Spatial Strategy. At present it appears that the Council is considering the amber sites as possible further releases. However, bearing in mind the flaws in the Spatial Strategy outlined in the previous response of the Neighbourhood Forum (NF) it is even more important to revisit the Spatial Strategy should the HMA number increase. Simply adding more amber sites will not provide the strategic approach that is necessary.
Methodology: There are flaws in the methodology and in the application of the methodology.
Step 1 of the hierarchy identifies those sites with a score of 1 to 4 as green. However, the Step 2 diagram appears to concentrate on refining only the yellow and blue sites. This is confirmed in para 68 which says that Step 2 is principally concerned with confirming whether the yellow and blue sites should be reallocated in the hierarchy. This suggests that if a site is assessed as green in Step 1, there is no proper assessment of how such sites fit with the overall spatial strategy or of site constraints.
The methodology gives insufficient weight to the impact and mitigation of site constraints, particularly in respect of 'green' sites. Step 2 must apply to all sites and should be given equal weight to Step 1 as compliance with strategy and the assessment of constraints are of vital importance to the assessment of all sites.
There are significant inconsistencies in the application of the methodology which undermine the integrity of the whole selection process. The following are a few examples where further explanation of the conclusion of the assessment process is required:
* Arden Triangle sites (nos. 148, 149, 150,151,152,153 and 154 and 157 excluding the Academy site) all appear in Appendix D to score 6 in step 1 and be assessed as blue (ie 'unlikely allocations') but are then assessed as green via Step 2. Without sight of impacts and proposed mitigation, it is not possible to understand how these sites fall into the green category ie that they have no or relatively low impact on relevant considerations; or that severe impacts can be mitigated. Such information is essential to enable residents and businesses to make informed responses to this consultation.
* Further apparent anomalies within the Arden Triangle include parcel 148 Lansdowne, assessed as medium/high accessibility and parcel 157 Land east of Knowle forming part of the Arden Triangle assessed as very high accessibility. Similar issues arise in the Interim Sustainability Appraisal in which the Arden Triangle is assessed as highly positive in terms of proximity to buses and trains and to convenience stores, positive in terms of healthcare and leisure, and neutral in relation to landscape. However, most of the Arden Triangle site lying beyond the Academy is not easily accessible and has valued landscape characteristics as demonstrated by both the Council's Landscape Assessment and the Landscape Study commissioned by the NF.
* Site 213 north of Hampton Rd is assessed as blue in Step 1 and then becomes green, despite performing highly in terms of purpose 1 of Green Belt. It is also assessed as having medium/ high accessibility even though there is no bus service and large parts of the site are a long walk from the High St. The other two northern parcels (sites 214 and 215) are assessed as red ie not suitable for development although they would become the site of the sports hub development.
* Yet further questions arise in respect of Site 244, part of Copt Heath Golf Course, which is only assessed as medium accessibility despite being close to a bus route. It is assessed as yellow in Step 1 but is red after Step 2: Jacobean Lane sites 323 and 324 score reasonably well but one is red and the other amber: and site 413 Land at Oak Green, Dorridge performs well with high accessibility but is assessed as amber.
These are a few examples which aim to demonstrate the point that many if the sites around KDBH have very similar scores but vary considerably in their assessment as green, red or amber. A clearer explanation is required of the assessment process to justify the draft allocation sites. Without this, the credibility and robustness of the process is undermined.
It is also noted that the assessment excludes a number of smaller sites from the Sustainability Appraisal. The Strategy continues to focus only on large scale Green Belt releases around KDBH which is not consistent with government advice that a mix of sites should be encouraged. Some of the smaller sites should be reassessed to see if they could contribute to housing growth in a more sensitive way which has less overall impact on the Green Belt and on local character.
Infrastructure impacts and mitigation. See answer to Q22, 23, and 24

I have just attended the presentation in Balsall common held by the Berkswell parish council. I have attempted to answer the online questionnaire - but it does not allow answers to more than one question and deletes comments to earlier questions!

However - my objection lies in the fact that residents in Balsall Common and Berkswell - we live in both parishes - chose to do so because it is surrounded by green space and countryside. While I recognise that new homes are needed I object to the significant number proposed for our area. While this may be recognised as nimbyism you ask if as residents we support the plans and I do not. Such huge changes to our area will drive current residents away and change significantly the character of our village.

The residents of the new homes will endure limited green space and infrastructure pressure. The current infrastructure is already under pressure - medical services, schools and roads are under strain and I fail to see how this an be adapted to cater for such proposed growth. Cycle paths are short and end in major roads, in Windmill lane ( where I live) there are no footpaths , nor mains sewers or gas - is it realistic to think the village can be transformed to provide all these service to a much larger population when it cannot do so at present ! The windmill on our lane is an ancient historic monument and yet its importance seems to have been overlooked as it will be sandwiched between new homes and the by pass!

Your questionnaire asks for comments on individual sites - this only achieves a situation where individuals object to development in their area and agree to other site development. This is not an appropriate or reasonable approach, as residents are generally not sufficiently technically knowledgeable about developmental arguments and leads to emotional responses which will no doubt be ignored.

Please think again about the significant number of homes planned for my area - it is unreasonable and unrealistic

I object to this latest proposal as it is no better than the original proposal of Allocation 13.
The original plan was for 600 houses and the area touched on to Dickens Heath Road/Tanworth Lane at one end and Bills Lane/Haslucks Green Road - an assumption would have been that approximately 50% of traffic would exit/enter one end, and 50% would exit/enter at the other putting more traffic onto already congested roads - this latest site 26 proposal will now only affect Bills Lane/Haslucks Green Road end with 300 houses - therefore the traffic impact will be no better for Bills Lane and Haslucks green road which is already overloaded with traffic coming from Dickens Heath. This point is touched on in the plan in the word "shifting" and acknowledging that Dickens Heath Road is already congested - 'Shifting the focus of vehicular traffic movements away from the congested Dickens Heath Road to Bills Lane/Haslucks Green Road.'

I do not see this current proposal as sustainable due to the high volume of houses in one focused area.

Despite changes to the initial plan I gather that Shirley South is still to receive 38% of proposed new housing in the Solihull borough, which remains disproportionate and unacceptable given the size of the borough.
The effect on the local area by way of flooding and environmental issues is in no way fully understood and not addressed in the proposal from what I can understand. This area suffered massive flooding in April of 2018. If housing is built on the natural land and flood plains the results could be much worse than previously.

I will also refer to a point I made in my initial objection of the 38% of housing in Shirley is that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In the case of HS2 which is referred to in the current plans, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to these proposed Shirley developments - therefore more congestion would be caused by people driving to the proposed HS2 station as there is inadequate public transport to that area of the borough.

Thank you for referring the above consultation which we received on 30 January 2019. We apologise we have been unable to respond prior to now, and hope that you are still able to take our comments into account as the plan develops.
We have reviewed the above consultation document which is dated January 2019 and note the inclusion of additional sites for consideration for allocation.
We welcome the inclusion of Flood Risk as a potential 'Hard' issue in the site selection criteria as identified on page 18 and 19. We further recommend that Water Quality is added to the footnote in this section, with particular referenced to River Blythe's SSSI status. Further to this page 29 looks at what is required for the Blythe in the future and protection and enhancement of water quality should be included. Please see attached letter for our advice with regards to your site allocations, which incorporates comments previously provided, and adds additional comments in relation to your new sites. These comments should be used in preference to those previously provided as they have been updated

See Letters

1. Why are there so many new homes in South Shirley?
2. What are you going to do to support the local transport network that is already overloaded?
3. Why are you removing so much green belt?
4. Why are you not making denser populated housing?
5. Why do you not make it easier for elderly to move thereby freeing up housing stock?
6. Why are you not developing more brownfield sites?
7. Why are you not tackling unoccupied houses?

Please find attached Hampton-in-Arden Society's response to the current draft local plan consultation.

Please find attached my objection to the allocation of Site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common for consideration

See Letter

objection to site 3 and copy of BARRAGE letter
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.

See letter

This representation is made on behalf of IM Land, a subsidiary of IM Properties PLC who are working with landowners to promote land north of Main Road, Meriden for new housing
see attached letter and appendices

Please see attached submission on behalf of our Client, Albanwise Limited, in response to the Solihull Local Plan Review: Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation.
We respond in respect of their land interest known as 'Land at Wychwood Roundabout' ('the Site'); and support its inclusion within the Draft Local Plan
Review, as a suitable and sustainable location for residential development

See Letter