Spatial Strategy

Cancel sites with less than 100 houses or look to increase the sites to provide material levy to improve the community

The spacial strategy, in its selection of sites, identified some development in most villages; the release of small sites of under 100 properties has an adverse impact to the community, introduces disruption during construction and does not materially improve the community.

The plan should focus on creating larger sites where infrastructure levy is of size to materially improve the community a development is based;

Adding 100 properties to a large multi thousand development is within the capability of the plan.

This areas with small sites provided options to match large sites but these were rejected on the basis of lack of defensible boundary. This is inconsistent with sites at Knowle, BVP and Balsall Common where large sites have been taken forward.

The plan needs to recognise the potential for further development along the Birmingham - Stratford rail corridor and to allocate additional land or provide a mechanism for releasing additional land for development along it, including land Tidbury Green, Wythall and Earlswood Area.

The plan fails to consider the reasonable alternative strategy of focusing new development along the Birmingham - Stratford rail corridor and the potential for it to accommodate an additional & strategically significant amount of development in a sustainable way, particularly in particularly in the Tidbury Green, Wythall and Earlswood Area.

Distribution of development needs reassessment. Dickens Heath densely populated. Council expressed concerns re: mature areas in need of regeneration in Shirley ignored.

Section G.4 - Proposed development around the periphery of existing densely populated areas. Diminishing/ destroying gaps between urban areas Shirley, South Birmingham, Wythall, Worcestershire. Diminishing gaps between settlements Dickens Heath, Cheswick Green, Tidbury Green.

Review the site selection methodology to accord with the approach above

The methodology of the site selection process is not agreed.
Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning authorities preparing Local Plans “must exercise the function with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development”. In exercising this duty they are required under the same section to “have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued” by the Secretary of State.
Key advice of national policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 is as follows:-
 Significant adverse impacts on key economic, social and environmental objectives should be avoided, in the context of a Sustainability Appraisal designed to inform the plan making process. Alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. (NPPF paragraph 33)
 Policies for development contributions should not undermine the deliverability of the plan.(NPPF paragraph 34)

 Plans will be examined to assess whether they are sound, and measures of soundness include being justified by an appropriate strategy taking into account reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. A further relevant soundness measurement is consistency with national policy to enable delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. (NPPF paragraph 35 )
 Patterns of growth should be focussed on locations which offer genuine choices of transport mode. (NPPF paragraph 103)
 Plans should contain policies that optimise use of land in their area. (NPPF paragraph 123[a])
 When reviewing Green Belt boundaries the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. (NPPF paragraph 138)
National guidance advises as follows:-
 Policies need to be justified by evidence and support of the Planning Advisory Service is tabled as of assistance in this having regard to this need for evidence based justification. (Planning Practice Guidance Reference ID: 61-031-20180913) [It is appropriate to note that PAS offer specific help in relation to Green Belt Review]
 When updating a plan [in full or part] Local Planning Authorities should ensure the resultant plan meets the tests of soundness. (Planning Practice Guidance Reference ID: 61-050-20180913)
 In relation to transport the evidence base should identify opportunities for a shift to more sustainable patterns of transport. Reference should be made to Department for Transport Circular 02/2013(Planning Practice Guidance Reference ID: 54-001-20141010)
 Circular 02/ 13 paragraph 16 is as follows:-
“Promoting sustainable transport solutions through Local Plans
16. Through the production of Local Plans, development should be promoted at locations that are or can be made sustainable, that allow for uptake of sustainable transport modes and support wider social and health objectives, and which support existing business sectors as well as enabling new growth. “
 A robust evidence base can inform sustainable approaches to transport. (Planning Practice Guidance Reference ID: 54-002-20141010)
 A range of key issues need to be evaluated and alternate scenarios of differing alternative site or mitigations proposed in order to articulate and arrive at the delivery of sustainable growth. (Planning Practice Guidance Reference ID: 54-003-20141010)

In the context of the foregoing it is considered the approach to site selection is flawed to the extent that it does not meet the statutory obligations under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and it will fail key tests of soundness.
The nub of the problem relates to the Green Belt element of the selection process. This involved a two stage procedure – the first a broad selection of areas of potential development or non development. The earlier consultation involved a submission (January 2016) on behalf of my clients (promoters of the development at the land rear of 114 – 118 Widney Manor Road) by reference to the Inspector comments in respect of the suspension of the Examination of the Chippenham Site Allocations. Plan.
The Inspector doubted the soundness of that plan for two reasons material to Solihull’s work. Firstly (number (i)/second in the Inspector’s letter of 16-11-2015 [furnished in the objectors January 2016 submission] is the two stage approach to sieving potential development sites on the basis of a narrative broad area analysis which the Inspector felt would not give confidence that those area rejected in the first round have been subject to robust evaluation. This potentially leads to the view that reasonable alternatives have not been given proper consideration. This rendered that emerging plan subject to legal challenge. The Inspector did not spell it out but the underlying view appears to be that the ‘justified’ soundness test would not be met and thus any approval would be subject to a failure on legal grounds through the application of Tesco v Dundee City Council [2012 UKSC 13] which requires a proper understanding of policies as the heart of legally robust decisions.
The second issue in the Chippenham case is that the Sustainability Appraisal fell foul of the same logic.
It is considered that the same problem as referred to in the Chippenham case is present in the approach adopted by Solihull. The Policy and Guidance referred to above contains several discrete aspects which by virtue of S39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 are obliged to consider are precluded in the case of discrete areas of land. Of particular concern in the instant case is the fact that the Sustainability Appraisal lumped my clients land (rear of 114 – 118 Widney Manor Road) together with 3 other parcels of land having very different characteristics.
It is submitted that the two tier approach to Green Belt site selection, together with the specific Sustainability Appraisal flaw referred to above would render the resultant Local Plan review in breach of legal duties and the publication of a plan which would not pass the soundness tests of justified and compliance with national policies.
Modern database technology renders it a fairly simple process to articulate a database which facilitates interrogation by an algorithm which can test individual development sites against the wide range of Government policies and advice required in law (and set out in brief above) to render a plan compliant with legal duty and passing the tests of soundness.

Revise the Policy wording to make clear that the NPPF 2018 policy 'The presumption in favour of sustainable development' (para 11 (b) (i) and (ii) applies. And that the Council will not be altering Green Belt boundaries of allocating new housing sites on land that is now Green Belt.

The spatial strategy stated at paras 56-59 is to develop and expand the Borough for the reasons given in paras 56, 57 and 58. Para 59 states that "to deliver the level of growth envisaged will require significant releases of land from the Green Belt".

This is contrary to national planing policy. Under the NPPF 2018, para 11 'The presumption if favour of sustainable development', Solihull does not have to meet all calculated or claimed needs.

The Solihull Local Plan Review proposes high levels of housing and removal of land from the Green Belt. The Council states that it is meeting calculated housing needs and taking some housing from adjacent local authorities (Birmingham).

The Council has not applied, and has chosen not to make use of, the National Planning Policy Framework policy on sustainable development. This is that policies should provide for assessed needs for housing and other uses unless policies that protect areas of particular importance provide strong reasons for restricting the scale of development. The areas of particular importance in Solihull’s case are the areas of Green Belt. Green Belt designation covers all of Solihull’s countryside and is justification for not meeting the assessed need for housing. See NPPF 2018, paragraph 11.

The Council has not in its Submission Draft Plan explained why it has disregarded this key national planning policy and is proposing the release of large areas of Green Belt to meet the assessed housing need, when the NPPF policy on sustainable development states that it is not required to do this.

Exceptional circumstances for changing Green Belt boundaries (and thus removing land from the Green Belt) cannot be demonstrated where the policy in the NPPF para 11(b) has not been applied.

The Plan is not sound because the NPPF’s policy has not been applied; in fact it has been ignored.

See separate representations.

See Attached Word doc.

The Spatial Strategy should be clearer as to the scale and pattern of development that is intended to be delivered, and how this has informed site selection.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please see attached representations on behalf of Rainier Developments Limited in respect of land at Tidbury Green (site 404). We have also submitted these with the corresponding appendices in the email below as a file share. If you have any problems accessing the file share please let me know.

Kind Regards,

Gary Stephens

All rail stations should fall within the category of high frequency public transport corridors or hubs (Growth Option A).

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please see attached representations on behalf of Rainier Developments Limited in respect of land at Tidbury Green (site 404). We have also submitted these with the corresponding appendices in the email below as a file share. If you have any problems accessing the file share please let me know.

Kind Regards,

Gary Stephens

The Site Selection methodology should be amended to reflect Paragraph 138 of the Framework. The Site Selection should include an allocation of land west of Rumbush Lane, Tidbury Green.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please see attached representations on behalf of Rainier Developments Limited in respect of land at Tidbury Green (site 404). We have also submitted these with the corresponding appendices in the email below as a file share. If you have any problems accessing the file share please let me know.

Kind Regards,

Gary Stephens

See Attached Letter.

The Spatial Strategy should be more clear as to the scale and pattern of development that is intended to be delivered, and how this has informed site selection.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please see attached multiple representations on behalf of IM Properties in respect of land west of Stratford Road (Site 62).

Kind Regards,

The Spatial Strategy should be set out as a strategic policy in the Plan.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please see attached multiple representations on behalf of IM Properties in respect of land west of Stratford Road (Site 62).

Kind Regards,

The Site Selection methodology should be amended to reflect Paragraph 138 of the Framework.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please see attached multiple representations on behalf of IM Properties in respect of land west of Stratford Road (Site 62).

Kind Regards,

Additional reasonable alternatives for higher levels of growth (particularly for options between 16,000 and 19,000 dwellings) should be tested.

The identification of additional Green Belt sites for consideration should be based upon a reappraisal of the Site Selection process.

The potential for additional Green Belt release to deliver levels of growth over and above 19,000 dwellings should be considered, as an alternative to the larger scale expansions of Balsall Common and Land South of A45.

Hello,

Please find attached forms and a letter of representations on behalf of Heyford Developments in relation to their site at Old Station Road, Hampton-in-Arden.

Regards,

A more clear and explicit settlement hierarchy should be added.

Hello,

Please find attached forms and a letter of representations on behalf of Heyford Developments in relation to their site at Old Station Road, Hampton-in-Arden.

Regards,

The Plan should identify safeguarded land in the context of ensuring longer-term development needs are met and that the Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period.

Hello,

Please find attached forms and a letter of representations on behalf of Heyford Developments in relation to their site at Old Station Road, Hampton-in-Arden.

Regards,

Dear Sirs,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
LAND AT FULFORD HALL FARM, TIDBURY GREEN, SOLIHULL
SOLIHULL LOCAL PLAN REVIEW DRAFT SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION
DECEMBER 2020
REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF SUMMIX FHS DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

I make the following submission to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation on behalf of Summix FHS Developments Limited, which comprises:

• Representations to the Solihull Local Plan Publication Version Consultation
• Appendix 1 - Vision Statement
• Appendix 2 - Green Belt, Landscape and Masterplanning Report
• Appendix 3 - Transport Mobility Strategy
• Appendix 4 - West Midland Rail Aspiration Study
• Appendix 5 - Economic Benefits
• Appendix 6 - GB Assessment Appendix F Overall Score Plan
• Appendix 7 – Network Rail email (14.12.20)
• Appendix 8 - Fulford Hall Farm Site Assessment
• Appendix 9 – Location Plan
• Representation Form - Borough Vision Overview
• Representation Form - Spatial Strategy
• Representation Form - Challenge A
• Representation Form - LP Foreword paras 2, 5, 12 and 13
• Representation Form - para 51 and 52
• Representation Form - Policy P9

Please could you confirm receipt of the above stated documents.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Please accept below my response to the Local Plan Review Consultation.

My initial comment is that distribution of new housing in the Borough is biased towards two geographic areas resulting in 31% of the total being proposed in the Balsall Common area within the Meriden ward and 39% within the Shirley South and Blythe ward areas that are geographically adjacent. The majority of the land involved is within the Green Belt. The Shirley South site is site 11 within the previous iteration of the Local Plan document, which is in the process of being built.
There are proposals included in other wards which are not particularly significant in terms of housing numbers and consequent impact on those local areas.
The document refers to proposed housing provision within Solihull town centre and the Arden Cross and National Exhibition areas adjacent to the proposed HS2 railway station. No numbers are provided within the current iteration of the Local Plan document for either of these locations. This is a significant omission from this version of the document as it means that inclusion of the detail for these sites could take a significant amount of pressure off the areas detailed above and reduce the amount of Green Belt that is currently committed within the document.
A further significant impact of the proposals is the situation regarding local school places at the primary level. This is a particular issue within the Blythe ward area. Primary schools exist at Cheswick Green, Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green. All are currently single form entry with nursery units. The sites in the Local Plan document within the catchment areas of these schools are BL1 in Dickens Heath, BL2 at Dog Kennel Lane and BL3 also in Dickens Heath. Two sites currently being built which have an impact are site 11 from the previous iteration of the Local Plan and a further development at the Blythe Valley Business Park site.
Dickens Heath school is single form entry with no scope for expansion. Both Cheswick Green and Tidbury Green primary schools are in the process of being extended to two form entry. A further two form entry primary school is proposed as part of site BL2.
My main concern regarding primary level schooling in the area is that the increased number of houses will generate significant traffic level increases in the surrounding area on what are already busy roads with some effectively being country lanes. This will also significantly increase already high traffic pollution during school drop off and pick up periods. This will have an impact on the Council’s developing Net Zero Carbon plan.
Congestion is already a problem around both Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green schools as there is no off road parking provision at those two locations.
Another concern is that the Local Plan proposals in its current form will add to the existing significant pressures on the local health service provision. There are no documented proposals to enhance the existing local health service provisions to support the increased number of residents.
The proposals also cause merging of the existing settlements within Blythe ward.
Potential flooding in the area is also a concern. Rainfall run off from the sites discussed feed into the river Cole to the north and the river Blythe to the south. The river Cole impacts on roads within Shirley West ward, particularly Nethercote Gardens. The area has suffered from two one in a hundred years flooding incidents within the last 15 years. The river Blythe impacts on Cheswick Green village In Blythe ward and the lower part of the village has also been impacted by two one in a hundred years flooding incidents within the last 15 years.
The proposed local plan does not conform totally with the sentiments of the National Planning Policy Framework which contends that brown field sites should be considered ahead of Green Belt land for housing. The Arden Cross area and Solihull town centre fall into this category and their use to support housing should be considered ahead of use of Green Belt land.
The climate change agenda suggests that locations for housing should be sustainable and not car dependant. Within Blythe ward all roads are very busy and not conducive the cycling and walking. Local bus services are infrequent and follow circuitous routes which are not conducive to encouraging large numbers of users. Consequently there is a high dependency on the use of private cars in all of the settlements within the area. The proposed developments will only make the current situation worse with consequential increase in local pollution.
There is no defensible boundary identified between site BL2 and Cheswick Green village.
My final concern is that there are mainly inaccuracies within the issued Local Plan.

Imbalance of housing distribution should be addressed by modification in the Local Plan.

See attached letter.

Housing sites should be modified.

See attached letter.

See Attached letter.

In order to make the Plan sound, the spatial strategy should be amended to allocate more sites for development around Knowle, to increase the flexibility of the spatial strategy, to ensure that the strategy delivers a steady supply of housing.

See attached representations

The plan would benefit from establishing a clear and prescriptive settlement hierarchy, informed by qualitative evidence as to the sustainability of each settlement based on its provision of services and facilities etc. to demonstrate that the spatial strategy is justified.

See attached documents.

The spatial strategy should distinguish more clearly between economic and housing growth and how both have been accommodated. It should identify Growth Option E (UK Central Hub Area and HS2) as a core component of the spatial strategy, as this is a strategic choice to capitalise on the arrival of HS2 and to support the key economic assets in this area.
This would bring the spatial strategy more into line with paragraph 35(b) of the NPPF

see attached document

See attached

The methodology / site identification contained within the Green Belt Assessment should be reviewed.

See attached

The Spatial Strategy should be set out as a strategic policy in the Plan and be more clear as to the scale and pattern of development that is intended to be delivered, and how this has informed site selection.
The Site Selection methodology should be amended to reflect NPPF Paragraph 138 and include an allocation of land south of Kenilworth Road/Park Lane as an employment allocation

See attached

Additional smaller sites in sustainable villages should be allocated to redress an over reliance on large or complex sites and will deliver the housing requirement;
• It should recognise there is greater potential in sustainable villages, particularly in Meriden which is a highly accessible location with a good level of services including a primary school that can easily be extended to increase capacity;
• Growth Option A - High Frequency Transport Corridors should recognise the opportunity offered by the high frequency X1 bus service through Meriden which provides the opportunity to for additional growth in the settlement;
• Growth Option F - Limited Expansion of Villages should recognize that Meriden has greater capacity for new development, particularly to the east where it is unconstrained and where Green Belt is moderately performing. Site 556 overall is highly sustainable and accessible;

See attached Land North of Main Road, Meriden

The draft SLP should test additional reasonable alternatives for higher levels of growth (particularly for options between 16,000 and 19,000 dwellings) which includes the use of additional Green Belt site releases in accordance with the spatial strategy (over and above the current identified ‘Limited Green Belt Release’). The identification of additional Green Belt sites for consideration should be based upon a reappraisal of the Site Selection process. The potential for additional Green Belt release in accordance with the spatial strategy to deliver levels of growth over and above 19,000 dwellings should also be considered, as an alternative to the larger scale expansions of Balsall Common and Land South of A45 currently tested.
The draft SLP should include an explicit settlement hierarchy within the policy to guide the direction of this additional growth, focusing on those settlements identified as appropriate for development via the spatial strategy approach to date. This should reflect the range of facilities and services available with higher priority given to those settlements with sustainable transport links, particularly railway stations.
The draft SLP should identify safeguarded land in accordance with the spatial strategy to ensure longer term development needs are met.

See attached documents