Policy BC2 - Frog Lane, Balsall Common

Showing comments and forms 1 to 18 of 18

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10581

Received: 05/11/2020

Respondent: Mr David Bell

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

My objections at the start of the process remain that sites 2 and 3 were so far from the centre of the village and the station and that as agreed by most residents and the parish council the boundary of the green belt should be Balsall St East. With site 2 should it proceed the new houses should be set back from the rear gardens of houses to the main road. Access is recognised as a concern but no information is forthcoming as to the required second access.

Change suggested by respondent:

That the green belt boundary should be Balsall St and Balsall st east

Full text:

My objections at the start of the process remain that sites 2 and 3 were so far from the centre of the village and the station and that as agreed by most residents and the parish council the boundary of the green belt should be Balsall St East. With site 2 should it proceed the new houses should be set back from the rear gardens of houses to the main road. Access is recognised as a concern but no information is forthcoming as to the required second access.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10589

Received: 08/11/2020

Respondent: Mr Andrew Dean

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The plan uses maps which are out of date. They do not take in to account development on existing properties that has taken place since the initial plans were submitted.
The allocation of the 'zone of significance' around listed buildings is arbitrary and illegally impacts the residential and development rights of existing properties arbitrarily placed inside said 'zone'.

Change suggested by respondent:

1. The Zones of Significance should be altered so as not to encroach on any existing dwelling / garden / plot. Failure to do so will result in legal action from representatives of 20 Balsall Street East.
2. There should be a formal footpath designated across the Holly Lane playing fields to facilitate pedestrian access to the schools. Even better (in addition) would be a footpath directly through to Balsall Street East at the northern or eastern part of the development.
3. The vehicular entrance road junction with Balsall Street East should have some element of traffic management, e.g. a mini-roundabout, to improve traffic flow in & out of the development and improve safety by reducing traffic speed along Balsall Street East.
4. All existing properties along Balsall Street East should be provided with an 'enhanced green edge' / bund to alleviate the impact to privacy of rear gardens - including houses backing on to the SI Grassland field to the West
5. Houses adjacent to the access road should have an 'enhanced green edge' to the sides of their properties to alleviate the impact of traffic noise, light and pollution of idling cars queuing to exit the development.
6. If (when?) the site is given the go-ahead for development, impacted residents should be proactively contacted to review and comment on the detailed development proposals prior to final approval.
7. Road lighting on the access road should be low in height so as not to impact the existing properties.
8. The access road should have speed calming measures and a 20mph speed limit.

Full text:

The plan uses maps which are out of date. They do not take in to account development on existing properties that has taken place since the initial plans were submitted.
The allocation of the 'zone of significance' around listed buildings is arbitrary and illegally impacts the residential and development rights of existing properties arbitrarily placed inside said 'zone'.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10590

Received: 09/11/2020

Respondent: Mrs Helen Dean

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Maps for this site are out of date and therefore SMBC are consulting on inaccurate maps. A development of 6 flats on the former site of Silverbirches (Frog Lane) is not captured. The access to this site has not been amended and the maps are misleading. In addition the current boundary line for the former site of Silverbirches is physically further forward of the line depicted in the consultation maps therefore the maps for this development site are flawed and the consultation on this site is unlawful.

Change suggested by respondent:

Maps which have been presented for consultation must be accurate and reflect the planning permissions granted and the actual development passed by SMBC and undertaken by developers in the many years which have passed since this development was initially proposed. The maps for the site of Frog Lane are out of date. Only when the maps for this site are up to date can residents be expected to make comments on this proposed development. Until this time SMBC's consultation on this site is unlawful.

Full text:

Maps for this site are out of date and therefore SMBC are consulting on inaccurate maps. A development of 6 flats on the former site of Silverbirches (Frog Lane) is not captured. The access to this site has not been amended and the maps are misleading. In addition the current boundary line for the former site of Silverbirches is physically further forward of the line depicted in the consultation maps therefore the maps for this development site are flawed and the consultation on this site is unlawful.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10633

Received: 18/11/2020

Respondent: Gemma Blanco

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Allocating 31% of housing to Balsall Common will erode the rural fringe and encroach on the Meriden Gap. 1,100 of the 1,600 houses are on greenfield land contrary to Government advice, which is non renewable unlike brownfield land

Full text:

I am writing to you regarding my concerns over the local Plans for Balsall Common and in particular my objections to the concept master plans for BC2 Frog Lane.

The local plan is a cacophony of housing developments of which 31% has been allocated to Balsall Common eroding the rural fringe of Solihull and encroaching on the Meriden Gap. 1100 of the 1600 houses in Balsall Common are being developed on green fields site, ignoring the governments recommendation to protect greenbelt and favour Brownfield sites.
Brownfield land is a renewable source, green belt is not.
In particular, BC2 Concept Master Plan should be removed from the Local Plan. This is a small development on vital greenbelt land that would have an insignificant contribution to the overall housings needs in Solihull at the cost of the environment.

The SMBC’s plan to change the greenbelt boundary of BC2 site is contradictory to the NPPF. The NPPF makes it clear that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It also explicity states that established boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. There are no exceptional circumstances to justify removing this land from greenbelt. It is a small housing development that provides little impact to the overall housing shortage in Solihull. In addition, altering greenbelt boundaries would set a precedent for other landowners in the area to change their greenbelt boundaries and encourage further urban sprawl.

The BC2 site in on an elevated position (as shown on your landscape assessment) and slopes towards a rural country lane and farmland. This is a critical flood risk and will erode natural flood planes causing nearby farming fields to be waterlogged and to potentially ruin crop growth.

The proposed entrance to the site is unsuitable. Balsall Street East is a heavily congested road and with a large primary school and large secondary school adjacent it. Additional traffic to the area would cause further congestion on a hazardous main road especially at peak school times where cars already obstruct the pavement of Balsall Street East.

Finally the BC2 site is poorly positioned from local public transport connections and is located at the furthest point in Balsall Common train station and village centre which is in contravention with planning best practise and would require all residents to drive any local amenities or work. The impact of the carbon footprint would be substantial in comparison to the small gain to housing requirements in the borough.

Based on the above, I hope Solihull council will review the decision to develop on BC2 greenbelt land and remove this site from the planning process. Local plans should reflect the future needs of the borough and not the demands of local landowners and development companies profiteering from the BC2 site.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10856

Received: 13/12/2020

Respondent: Howard Farrand

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Selection of site inconsistent with the feedback provided by residents during the “developer consultations” undertaken - brownfield sites not prioritised - the overall accessibility assessment does not meet the Council’s own criteria - release of RP59 from the green belt would actively threaten adjoining parts and generate pressure for urban sprawl contrary to the green belt purposes - increased traffic flow/congestion - destruction of greenbelt and wildlife - lack of weighting given to this effect on the village community makes this proposal fundamentally unsound

Change suggested by respondent:

see my letter per. Balsall Street East proposal

Full text:

laid out in my letter

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10894

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Star Planning and Development

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Richborough Estates supports the principle of the housing allocation at Frog Lane, Balsall Common (Policy BC2) and the timing of its delivery. It is an available, suitable and deliverable site for housing at one of the larger settlements within Solihull Brough which sits on a public transport corridor and has a range of facilities.

Objections are made to Policy BC2 related to the detailed requirements for the proposal. Alternative wording is proposed to provide some flexibility to ensure the policy is positively prepared, effective and justified.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy BC2 need to be amended to ensure the Local Plan being positively prepared, effective and justified:
Criterion 1 should be amended to be “approximately” 110 dwellings.
Criteria 2(ii) and (iii) are capable of being combined. A single criterion saying “Subject to other masterplanning considerations, the western field is not proposed for housing but shall be retained and used for biodiversity improvements”
Criterion 2(iv) should be deleted.
Criterion 2(v) should be deleted
Criterion 2(vi) should be deleted
Criterion 2(vii) should be deleted
Criterion 3(iii) should be deleted. If a criterion is required then it should state “As part of any application a SuDS scheme shall be submitted”.
Criterion 4(i) - Justification of Policy BC2 it should be made clear that this off-setting approach is acceptable because the recreation ground is designated as Local Greenspace in the Neighbourhood Development Plan.
Concept Masterplan is broadly acceptable to Richborough Estates. However, Richborough Estates has an alternative access option to the one shown on the Concept Masterplan which cannot be included in this representation for commercial reasons. To avoid any future concerns associated with a “significant departure” then there should be recognition that the access location might change and some flexibility on this specific matter is required.
At Page 22 of the Council’s Concept Masterplan document a modification to text is required to state “Predominantly 2-storey medium density housing is appropriate in this semi-rural location. Approximately of 110 units can be accommodated on the site.”

Full text:

1. Richborough Estates Limited supports the principle of the housing allocation at Frog Lane, Balsall Common (Policy BC2) and the timing of its delivery. It is an available, suitable and deliverable site for housing at one of the larger settlements within Solihull Brough which sits on a public transport corridor and has a range of facilities.

2. Although Richborough Estates has worked with the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council to assist the framing of the potential housing scheme indicated on the Concept Masterplan, objections are made to Policy BC2 related to the detailed requirements for the proposal. Alternative wording is proposed to provide some flexibility to ensure the policy is positively prepared, effective and justified.

Formal Objection to Policy BC2

3. The idea of Concept Masterplan for the proposed Frog Lane housing allocation is supported. However, the production of Concept Masterplan does create a strong expectation about how an allocation might come forward for development, especially with the local community.

4. It is recognised that Concept Masterplans are acknowledged by the Council to be the subject of change as further infrastructure survey work is carried out at the application stage. However, Policy BC2 is clear that any significant departure from the principles outlined in the Concept Masterplan will need to be justified and it will be necessary to demonstrate that the overall objectives for the site and its wider context are not compromised. The overall objectives associated for any of the Concept Masterplans are not specifically identified in either the relevant policy or the supporting document. Further, there is a lack of clarity about what significant departure might be defined.

5. Accordingly, although not seeking to materially dilute the drafting of the policy and the Concept Masterplan document to such a degree that it has limited value, there is a need to ensure some flexibility in how an allocation might come forward for development.

6. At Frog Lane the specific requirements of Policy BC2 need to be amended to ensure the Local Plan being positively prepared, effective and justified:

a) Criterion 1 should be amended to be “approximately” 110 dwellings. An absolute figure of the type drafted is too prescriptive, especially where the final capacity should emerge through a more detailed design process at application stage.

b) Criteria 2(ii) and (iii) are capable of being combined. Richborough Estates have no proposals to erect housing in the western field proposed to be removed from the Green Belt. Instead, the field has some biodiversity value at the moment and there is the opportunity to improve this value as part of the housing development. A single criterion saying “Subject to other masterplanning considerations, the western field is not proposed for housing but shall be retained and used for biodiversity improvements” would be appropriate and would provide some flexibility to improve the masterplanning process, for example there might be a need for an item of infrastructure such as SuDS or the access road to cross the field (i.e. as shown on the Council’s Concept Masterplan).

c) The detailed design of a SuDS system is a matter for a planning application taking into account the ground conditions and topography of the site. It is also worthy of note that there are underground features, such as soakaways or subbases, which are part of a typical SuDS scheme. To seek to restrict a potential optimum design of a SuDS system should not be included in a policy but flexibility should be retained. Accordingly, criterion 2(iv) should be deleted. This deletion can also be justified because there is an element of duplication with criterion 3(iii). However, if a criterion is required then it should state “As part of any application a SuDS scheme shall be submitted”.

d) Deletion of reference to “Retention of existing playing fields and allotments” because these facilities (i) do not form part of the housing allocation (nor the Concept Masterplan) and (b) they are Local Greenspaces as identified in the Balsall Common Neighbourhood Development Plan (Policy NE.3). Criterion 2(v) should be deleted.

e) The principle of facilitating easy access by walking and cycling to the rail station and other facilities is supported by Richborough Estates but it is unclear what this actually means for the purposes of masterplanning the allocation. It is assumed that this matter is already addressed in the infrastructure requirements under Criterion 3(iv). Accordingly Criterion 2(vi) should be deleted.

f) Richborough Estates have submitted an objection to Policy P4D. In respect of Frog Lane, Richborough Estates question is whether it is appropriate to provide 5% of the market dwellings as self and custom build plots on this site. Some 1,600 new homes are proposed at Balsall Common with the policies for each allocation seeking 5% self and custom build plots. Is there sufficient evidence of demand for these plots? Richborough Estates propose that the 5% requirement is deleted from Policy BC2 and the self and custom build plots are provided at the larger sites of Barratt’s Farm (Policy BC1), Trevallion Stud (Policy BC5) and Pheasant Oak Farm (Policy BC4).

g) The detailed design of a SuDS system is a matter for a planning application taking into account the ground conditions and topography of the site. To seek to restrict a potential optimum design of a SuDS system should not be included in a policy but flexibility should be retained. Accordingly, criterion 3(iii) should be deleted. If a criterion is required then it should state “As part of any application a SuDS scheme shall be submitted”.

h) Criterion 4(i) refers to the “Provision of improvements to Holly Lane recreation ground as part of the enhancements to mitigate the removal of the allocation from the Green Belt.” In the Justification of Policy BC2 it should be made clear that this off-setting approach is acceptable because the recreation ground is designated as Local Greenspace in the Neighbourhood Development Plan.

7. Subject to the suggested modifications to Policy BC2, the Concept Masterplan is broadly acceptable to Richborough Estates. However, Richborough Estates has an alternative access option to the one shown on the Concept Masterplan which cannot be included in this representation for commercial reasons. To avoid any future concerns associated with a “significant departure” then there should be recognition that the access location might change and some flexibility on this specific matter is required.

8. As has been identified to the Council previously, the majority of the houses are likely to be 2-storey. However, whether apartments or to assist with legibility, there should be the option to have buildings of up-to 3-storeys in height at selected locations, including towards the centre of the proposed housing allocation to allow design variation where appropriate. At Page 22 of the Council’s document a modification to text is required to state “Predominantly 2-storey medium density housing is appropriate in this semi-rural location. Approximately of 110 units can be accommodated on the site.”

Principle of the Allocation

9. Once established, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies of plans should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they can endure beyond the plan period (Paragraph 136).

10. Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, taking in to account whether the strategy makes as much use as possible of previously developed and underutilised land; optimises the density of development to make efficient use of land including higher densities in town centres and other locations well served by public transport; and informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development (Paragraph 137).

11. When reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account and where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land, plans should give first priority towards land which has been previously developed and/or is well served by public transport, and plans should set out ways in which the impact can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land (Paragraph 138).

12. Although there is no definition in policy or guidance of what comprise exceptional circumstances as envisaged in the Framework, Case Law has confirmed that any alteration to the Green Belt must be justified by exceptional circumstances rather than general planning concepts (Carpets of Worth Ltd v Wyre Forest DC (1991) 62 PCR 334). It is a matter for the Council to reach a sound planning judgment on whether exceptionality exists in the circumstances of an individual case (Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin)). The application of the exceptional circumstances test was also recently considered in the decision of Ouseley J. in Compton PC & Others v Guildford BC & Others [2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin) (Compton). Although this case related to the 2012 version of the Framework the commentary for this Case concerning exceptional circumstance remains relevant.

13. There is a recognised two-stage approach to which can be followed to provide the necessary evidence and justification to identify that exceptional circumstances exist to alter the Green Belt boundary through the preparation of a Local Plan. The first stage is the evidence gathering and assessment that leads to an in-principle decision that alterations of the Green Belt boundary may be justified to help meet development needs in a sustainable way. Such a need may relate to the significant benefits which would be associated with a specific development proposal (e.g. in the Compton case was found to have significant benefits in terms of affordability and delivery of affordable housing notwithstanding the objectively assessed housing need was being materially exceeded).

14. Stage 1 concerns the evidence gathering and assessment that leads to an in-principle decision that a review of the Green Belt boundary may be justified to help meet development needs in a sustainable way. It is set out at paragraph 137 of the Framework and requires the Council to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. .

15. There is evidence that there have been discussions throughout the preparation of the Local Plan with neighbouring authorities, under the Duty to Co-operate, to consider whether there is the opportunity for these areas to accommodate some of Solihull Borough’s housing need on non-Green Belt land. However, the authorities boarding Solihull Borough have a lack of land within their urban areas, the same Green Belt considerations and issues about accommodating the growth needs of an adjoining large urban area, whether Birmingham or Coventry.

16. The Overall Approach Topic Paper records the issues related to accommodating the unmet housing needs of Birmingham across the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (HMA). As at April 2019, there was still a shortfall of some 2,597 dwellings to be accommodated across the HMA even after Solihull agreeing to accommodate some 2,000 dwellings. However, it is also recognised in the Topic Paper that the final details of any contribution must be tested through a Local Plan process in accordance with national guidance. This is primarily associated with the need to release land from the Green Belt to support any contributions it makes. Equally, there is a question whether Solihull Borough might be able to accommodate further unmet housing needs to address the ongoing HMA shortfall.

17. Although Richborough Estates does have concerns about the assessed housing requirement, principally associated with the HMA shortfall, it is clear from the Local Plan’s evidence base that to accommodate the level of housing proposed does require land to be removed from the Green Belt. There have been extensive studies concerning what land might be suitable and available for housing development within the urban areas of Solihull Borough. Indeed, the Local Plan has sought to making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land within both the urban area and, in sustainable locations, the Green Belt. A significant number of the potential housing sites in the Site Assessments document are within the urban area.

18. Within the urban areas there is evidence the Council is seeking to optimise density compatible with local character. The justification for Policy P15 refers to “The appropriate density of residential development will be informed by the need to make efficient use of land together with the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting. Where it can be demonstrated that a higher density would improve the character and quality of an area, this will be supported.” Richborough Estates consider there is a legitimate question to be raised whether, in some cases, the development density of land released for housing from the Green Belt has been optimised, especially a locations well served by public transport. A specific objection to the assumed capacity of the land west of Dickens Heath (Policy BL1) has been raised in this context and refences has been made to Policy BC2 (and other similar allocation policies) having a minimum provision.

19. As a matter of principle, Richborough Estates concur with the Council that the necessary Stage 1 exceptional circumstances exist for alterations to the Green Belt boundary to accommodate the housing needs during the plan period.

20. Stage 2 of the exceptional circumstances approach then determines which sites would best meet the identified need having regard to Green Belt harm and other relevant considerations, including whether they are suitably located and developable. Stage 2 considers such as previously developed land or land well served by public transport together with ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be off-set through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. In the case of this Local Plan, Policy P17A allows for such enhancements to be secured through off-setting which is a pragmatic approach to adopt and supported by Richborough Estates.

21. The Site Selection Process Topic Paper usefully explains the approach of combining the various studies which were undertaken and form part of the Local Plan’s evidence base, including the Green Belt Study, the Sustainability Appraisal the Accessibility Study and the Landscape Character Assessment.

22. Balsall Common is amongst the most sustainable settlements outside the urban area of Solihull. The Overall Approach Topic Paper states that “The area around the settlement presents an opportunity for significant growth”. It also goes onto to say “The low to moderate impact on the Green Belt and the medium to high accessibility indicate that this settlement is suitable for consideration for growth. Development to the east of the settlement would be within walking distance of the rail station and could assist infrastructure provision, and development to the south and southeast would, although be less accessible, be on land that either preforms least well in Green Belt terms or provides strong defensible boundaries.”

23. Balsall Common has a range of local facilities, including secondary school, primary schools, shops, services, community buildings and employment opportunities. The settlement sits on a public transport corridor principally comprising the rail link between Coventry, the NEC/Birmingham Airport and Birmingham. However, there are also bus services to Coventry and Solihull.

24. The Solihull Strategic Green Belt Assessment identifies that the proposed allocation at Frog Lane as one of the lowest scores (or performs least well) in terms of the purposes of the Green Belt. There is a strong and obvious Green Belt boundary created by Frog Lane and Holly Lane which are well defined physical features. For recreation and biodiversity reasons all the land removed from the Green Belt is not proposed to be developed for housing. For Policy BC2, there would be some merit in considering enhancements to what would be non-Green Belt land contributing to the wider aim of compensating for the loss of Green Belt.

25. An element of caution is required in the interpretation of the Site Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal of the proposed allocation prepared by the Council. The reason being is that the Site Assessment (Ref 75) considered both the housing development area and the retained field rather than just the implications of the residential development site. This wider appraisal also appears to have been adopted in the Sustainability Appraisal (Ref AECOM ID 98) which may well have skewed the scoring.

26. The area proposed for housing is (apart from the boundary trees) devoid of any significant biodiversity interest, is located away from the setting of designated heritage assets, is outside any floodplain and is physically separated from the wider agricultural landscape to the south of Balsall Common by Frog Lane. The site is visually contained by the trees along the southern boundary with Frog Lane. The technical work undertaken by Richborough Estates demonstrates that access and utilities can be provided and a SuDS strategy implemented to comply with the current requirements for surface water drainage.

27. The Frog Lane housing allocation is well placed in terms of access to the facilities at Balsall Common, especially the education provision which is one of the highest trip generators at morning peak. Other facilities within the settlement are accessible on foot or cycle. There are public transport connections available to Birmingham, Coventry, Solihull and the area around the NEC/Birmingham Airport/UK Central. These locations have extensive employment opportunities and higher order facilities.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10899

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Keith Tindall

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

i) The housing density fails to comply with the Balsall NDP as the proposed new housing does not reflect existing low density housing in the immediate area.
ii) The 110 units will require 0.9 hectares of public open space to meet SLP Police P10 and the concept masterplan for the site fails to meet this policy; furthermore paragraph 4i is incorrect as the school playing field is not public open space.

Change suggested by respondent:

The new housing mix and siting must take account of the Balsall NDP by ensuring that high density housing is not built directly next to existing low density housing.

The public open space must be no less 0.9 hectares and exclude the inclusion of the Heart of England playing field.

Full text:

i) The housing density fails to comply with the Balsall NDP as the proposed new housing does not reflect existing low density housing in the immediate area.
ii) The 110 units will require 0.9 hectares of public open space to meet SLP Police P10 and the concept masterplan for the site fails to meet this policy; furthermore paragraph 4i is incorrect as the school playing field is not public open space.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10935

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: The British Horse Society

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

2 vi, 3iv,

Change suggested by respondent:

Active travel includes equestrians as vulnerable road users (Jesse Norman MP, 2018). Improvements to the connectivity of cycle and pedestrian routes should include equestrians where it could avoid horse riders being sandwiched between fast moving motorised traffic and fast moving cyclists, to improve safety.

Full text:

2 vi, 3iv,

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10958

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Archaeology Warwickshire

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

As highlighted in the 2018 Archaeological Assessment undertaken by the Warwickshire County Council Archaeological Information and Advice team on behalf of SMBC*, this site has significant archaeological potential. This potential, and the need for further archaeological assessment in advance of the submission of any planning application is not referenced in this policy. As the results of the assessment may influence the final form of the development across this area, it should be.

*Warwickshire County Council, 2020. 'Archaeological Assessment to Inform the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Local Plan. Additional Sites, 2020'. Warwick: Archaeological Information and Advice

Change suggested by respondent:

The policy should reference the significant archaeological potential of this area and highlight that, prior to the submission of any planning application, a detailed archaeological assessment, including evaluative fieldwork, should be undertaken. It should further advise that results of the assessment should inform the development of a strategy, if appropriate, to mitigate the potential archaeological impact of the proposed development and that this strategy may include designing the development to avoid impacting any archaeological features present which are worthy of conservation.

This will help to ensure that any application is submitted with sufficient archaeological information to enable a reasoned and informed planning decision to be made.

Full text:

As highlighted in the 2018 Archaeological Assessment undertaken by the Warwickshire County Council Archaeological Information and Advice team on behalf of SMBC*, this site has significant archaeological potential. This potential, and the need for further archaeological assessment in advance of the submission of any planning application is not referenced in this policy. As the results of the assessment may influence the final form of the development across this area, it should be.

*Warwickshire County Council, 2020. 'Archaeological Assessment to Inform the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Local Plan. Additional Sites, 2020'. Warwick: Archaeological Information and Advice

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11009

Received: 11/12/2020

Respondent: Balsall Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The proposed layout for Site BC2 fails to take account of the Balsall Parish NDP, which has passed examination although the referendum has been delayed. Policy BE.2 Local Character and Design a) and b) calls for the density of new development in immediate proximity to existing housing to reflect the density of existing housing.
The Concept Masterplan for Site BC2 shows medium density housing adjacent to low density existing housing on Balsall Street East contrary to the Balsall NDP.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy BC2 – Frog Lane should contain the following wording:
“Where new development abuts existing development the new development’s initial density should
reflect the existing density or there should be a separation through public open space.”
This development principle would be in line with that used for the Concept Masterplan Development Principles: BC5 Trevallion Stud.
“The POS provides a buffer to the south of the development between the new and existing development
providing the opportunity for place-making and for the integration of the future and existing residents.”

The Concept Masterplan for BC2 Frog Lane should be amended to include the following additional wording:
“The density of housing immediately adjacent to the homes on Balsall Street East should be shown as low density. The density of housing on Frog Lane should not exceed medium density and the average density across the site should be medium.”
This wording will not change the number of homes on the site but will protect Frog Lane and ensure a gradual change in density from Balsall Street East into this new
development.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11010

Received: 11/12/2020

Respondent: Balsall Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Concept Masterplan BC2 Frog Lane does not conform with Policy P10 requirements for greenspace improvements. Based on 110 units this development will require 0.9 hectares of public open space (POS). A doorstep space will need to be provided on site and a local play space/neighbourhood play area in the locality. The land to the east is a school playing field and not public open space. The POS required for this allocation is not shown on the Concept Masterplan. The Parish Council is concerned it may not materialise, and that POS provision in Balsall Common is below the submission plan target and the Borough average, exacerbated by inadequate provision for the SLP2013 sites.
The nearest proper play provision is 2 miles away along the A452 trunk road in Lavender Hall Park.

Change suggested by respondent:

Amend Policy BC2 paragraph 2 to include the words
“Public open space amounting to 0.9 hectares must be provided on the site.”
This will ensure that the required POS is local to the new
housing and does not require children to cross main roads nor parents to use their cars to drive to Lavender Hall Park.
Policy BC2 para 4i should be deleted. There is no such place as the Holly Lane recreation ground. It is school playing field for the Heart of England school. Seeking a financial contribution is not appropriate because it is not POS.
Amend paragraph 5 of Concept Masterplan BC2 Frog Lane to “Based on 110 units this development will require 0.9 hectares of public open space on site in
a location sensitive to the amenity of existing residents, the mechanism for its delivery can be
considered at the application stage alongside other development brought forward in Balsall
Common in the adopted Local Plan.”

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13694

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Jonathan Moore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Concern over infrastructure and facilities within the village being overstretched
- Suggests access would be better from Frog Lane, which could be widened without impacting any properties, avoiding Balsall Common all together
-Localised flooding would be worsened. Incident: 200617-000101 as an example.
- Road safety concern - the possibility of a vehicle overshooting the end of the access road.
- Tree loss would displace buzzards

Change suggested by respondent:

- Suggests access would be better from Frog Lane, which could be widened without impacting any properties, avoiding Balsall Common all together

Full text:

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you in response to SMBC’s Local Plan, as I am very concerned about how it will affect both the village and my property specifically. I have lived in Balsall Common for most of my life and have seen it grow enormously in that time. However, the infrastructure and facilities within the village have hardly changed and are already overstretched before there is any further development. Looking at a map of proposed development within the borough, it would seem that Balsall Common is being unfairly targeted, especially as the development allocated to Berkswell parish, actually impacts on Balsall Common village.

I am primarily concerned about the proposed development in Frog Lane (BC2), which is planned to access Balsall Street East directly opposite my property. Surely it would make more sense for access to be gained from Frog Lane, which would mean that any travel towards Warwick/Stratford/M40/new JLR site at Honiley would avoid Balsall Common all together? This would also mean that the site, if it goes ahead, would use existing road junctions. That portion of Frog Lane also has capacity to be widen without impacting on any properties, but seems to have been ignored.

Along with the other properties on the North side of Balsall Street East at this point, my house sits below road level. We already suffer from localised flooding (2 incidents this year so far see Incident: 200617-000101 as an example), along with our neighbours, after and during periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This development will essentially act as an elevated rainwater catchment area, which is then being pointed at our property via the proposed entrance road, what are the council’s plans to protect the properties on the northern side of the road from increased flooding risk?

Solihull planning seems to ignore this risk of property flooding from the council managed byways as can been seen in the approval of the demolition of the bungalow at the corner of Frog Lane and Balsall Street East, to replace gardens with parking for 6 apartments, all to now drain on to Balsall Street East. Please can you confirm the drainage plans for the proposed development.

Our living room is on the front of our property – what protection will we be offered from the headlights of the 100+ vehicles that will be coming in & out of this new development, or the possibility of a vehicle overshooting the end of the access road?

There are currently a number of mature trees at the back of the property that is to be demolished which provide a nesting site to a breeding pair of buzzards. The buzzard is fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it an offence to kill, injure or take a buzzard, or to take, damage or destroy an active nest or its contents. Please can you confirm that these trees are not impacted by the proposed development.

I never received any feedback regarding the objections raised in 2017 to the draft plan, please can you advise the process for residents and tax payers to receive feedback to objections raised?

Yours faithfully,

Jonathan Moore

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13925

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Sport England

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Welcome retention of the existing playing field site in Policy BC2 2v in line with the finding of the Playing Pitch Strategy. However, the concept masterplan appears to display a road abutting the playing field site and the removal of part of a hedgerow which creates a boundary for the playing field site. It is unclear why this has been proposed as it could impact on the use of the site such as it being less secure and balls leaving the playing field site.

Change suggested by respondent:

To ensure that there is reduced impact on the use of playing field the concept masterplan should maintain a strong boundary for the playing field site.

Full text:

Policy P14 sets out how developments which will cause or be subject to existing
noise, odour or atmospheric pollution, will need to satisfactorily mitigate or abate the identified negative impact on amenity.
The Policy in part covers NPPF paragraph 182 agent of change principle. However, it fails to consider circumstances such as a developments adjacent playing field site for example a cricket club, which could be at risk of ball strike. In such circumstances, in line with NPPF paragraph 182, the development would need to provide mitigation through the provision of ball stop netting to ensure the use of the playing field is not prejudiced or that any unreasonable restrictions are placed on the use of the site.
An additional criterion should be added to Policy P14 to ensure consistency with national planning policy paragraph 182.
* Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.

Policy P15 could be made more effective in promoting health and well-being, in line with NPPF paragraph 127, by referring to Sport England’s Active Design Guid-ance. The Guidance sets out 10 principles which developments should seek to ad-here to promote activity, health and stronger communities through design.
Active Design is supported by Public Health England and is part of our collabora-tive action to promote the principles set out in Public Health England’s ‘Everybody Active, Every Day’, to create active environments that make physical activity the easiest and most practical option in everyday life.
Add reference to point Policy P15 point 4 to help achieve Objectives F, H and J -
4. All developments should comply with the urban design principles set out in es-tablished current design guidance, including at present; The National Design Guide (2019), Urban Design Compendium 1 and 2 (2007), Manual for Streets 1 (2007) and 2 (2010), Active Design (20015), Building for Life 12 and Secured by Design principles, or their equivalents.

Sport England are supportive of Policy P18 Health and Wellbeing with it containing a number of Active Design Principles which help to promote physical activity.
Sport England considers the policy could be made more effective through the promotion of co-location (the grouping of destinations such as community facilities, schools, shops, work places, sports facilities and leisure centres within close proximity of each other), allowing users to make only one linked trip to an area for multiple reasons. Co-location assists with linked trips reducing the need to travel and allow more time for people to linger and be socially interactive, whilst also creating variety and vitality in town and local centres.
Linked to the above supporting infrastructure should also be promoted such as public conveniences; drinking fountains; cycle, mobility scooter and pushchair storage; changing rooms; quality of seating; Wi-Fi access; shelter and showers. The above are all elements that can influence physical activity choices and should be provided where appropriate to meet the needs of a range of potential users.
Supporting infrastructure to enable sport and physical activity to take place should be provided across all contexts including workplaces, sports facilities and public space, to facilitate all forms of activity.
Provision of new public open space, children’s play, sports and recreational facilities
Point 7 sets out new housing development will be required to provide or contribute towards new open spaces or the improvement of existing provision in the area, in line with the minimum standard of 3.57ha per 1,000 population.
The Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy Update and Playing Pitch Mitigation utilises Sport England’s Playing Pitch Demand Calculator Tool to ascertain the playing pitch demand from proposed housing allocations contained within the Plan.
Sport England promotes the use of the calculator with it being informed by a local evidence base document assessment of supply and demand. It is unclear if the standard of 3.57ha per 1,000 population encapsulates playing field provision and if so, how has the figure been justified to identify demand in line with Playing Pitch Strategy and whether it would meet the CIL regulation 122 tests.
Provision of new public open space, children’s play, sports and recreational facilities
Point 9 states new housing developments will be required to provide or contribute towards new open spaces or the improvement of existing provision in the area, unless financial unviability is clearly demonstrated. It is unclear why the viability caveat is included particularly given Policy P21 and the Plan’s objectives F and J, it might be the circumstances that other contributions should not be sought or that contributions should be proportionality reduced.
Indoor Sports Facilities Strategy 2012

Policy P20 points 10 and 13 refers to an Indoor Sports Facilities Strategy 2012. The document sets out provision standards based on deficit and surpluses for the Borough and then applies these standards to the 2026 projected future population of the Borough. Therefore, the standards proposed and identified deficits/surpluses are not based on robust and up to date assessment of need as there is a failure to consider needs up to 2036.
On the basis of the above the policy (and the IDP) is not consistent with national planning policy with NPPF paragraph 96, which requires planning policies to be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities (including quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses) and opportunities for new provision.
Playing Pitch Strategy
Sport England welcomes the authority undertaking a monitoring and review of its Playing Pitch Strategy 2017. The Playing Pitch Strategy (update) 2019 provides an update on the following inputs amongst others; sites (where informed by national governing bodies and the LPA); team numbers (informed by national governing bodies); strategy period (extending from 2026 to 2036); and site actions.
The update document reaffirms that there are current and future shortfalls in playing field provision within the Borough. Therefore, to ensure demand for pitches are met there is a need to protect existing sites; provide new sites and to improve the quality of the existing sites where identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy Action Plan. The document also provides a robust evidence base to inform the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy which establishes the need to replace existing playing field sites proposed for development and identify the playing pitch demands from residential developments. The use of the Playing Pitch Strategy Mitigation report within the site allocations policies contained within the Plan is welcomed and in line with NPPF paragraph 96.
It should be noted dialogue with the LPA as part of the PPS update work confirmed that the authority will conduct a full Playing Pitch Strategy in early 2022, this is supported by Sport England to ensure that authority evidence base remains robust. It should be noted that the authority should still undertake annual reviews in line with Stage E of Sport England’s Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance.
1. The incorporation of the below text within P20 ensures that the demand for playing pitches will be informed/justified by evidence namely the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy in line with NPPF paragraph 96.
Developer contributions will be required to enhance provision of playing pitch-es, based on additional demand generated by the new residential development and the sufficiency of existing provision to meet current and projected need. The Council will have regard to Sport England’s strategic planning tools and findings of the Playing Pitch Strategy to determine an appropriate amount and type of contribution or provision within new developments.
Where it is agreed by the Council that on-site pitch provision is appropriate to meet identified demand, the applicant is required to provide the new pitch(es) and make provision for its management and maintenance in perpetuity, and clarify these arrangements within a management plan to be agreed by the Council.
2. To ensure that the policy is effective in achieving its objective and policies considerations are not replicated the following amendment is suggested:
New housing developments will be required to provide or contribute to-wards new open spaces or the improvement of existing provision in the area, unless financial unviability is clearly demonstrated.
3. Indoor Sports Facilities Strategy 2012
The authority should commit to updating its Indoor Sports Facilities Strategy 2012 with works commencing prior to the adoption of the Plan to ensure the Plan is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96.

Policy BC2 2. V states the retention of the existing playing field site which is welcomed and in line with the finding of the Playing Pitch Strategy. However, SMBC illustrative concept masterplan appears to display a road abutting the playing field site and the removal of part of a hedgerow which creates a boundary for the playing field site. It is unclear why this has been proposed as it could lead impact on the use of the site such as it being less secure and balls leaving the playing field site.
To ensure that there is reduced impact on the use of playing field the concept masterplan should maintain a strong boundary for the playing field site.
Sport England welcomes the vast majority of the proposed housing allocation policies identifying a need to provide a financial contribution towards the provision of new playing pitches and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy and the Playing Pitch Strategy which identified that there are current and future shortfalls in pitch provision.
However, at this point in time it is unclear as to where the contributions will be directed to with the Plan failing to identify the location or allocation of the new playing pitches/hubs sites.
Further to this on the larger proposed allocation sites (sites which generate the demand for multiple pitches) the illustrative concept masterplans fail to incorporate any on-site playing pitch provision As such there is a possibility that no additional pitches are created which could lead to the deterioration of existing pitches (which already in short supply) due to their use being exacerbated even further.
It should also be noted that ancillary uses such as car parking and changing room facilities will also be required to support the use of playing field sites for formal activities in line with the Playing Pitch Strategy.
Pitch Provision
To ensure the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy is met in accordance with NPPF paragraph 96 the Concept Illustrative Masterplans for sites which create the demand for multi playing pitches should clearly display locations for the pitches and ancillary provision. The need to provide for the pitches will rescind upon such time suitable new off site playing field site(s) have been identified to meet the developments demands for playing field provision. This approach will also assist in ensuring Plan objectives F and J are met.
Ancillary Provision
To ensure that the playing field demand generated from sites in accordance with NPPF paragraph 96 the policy should incorporate the provision of supporting infrastructure required to serve the playing field sites, therefore the below additional text should be incorporated.
v. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and supporting ancillary provisions) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.
The wording of paragraph 594 should be made clear that the replacement provision should be equivalent or better provision in terms quantity and quality to ensure consistency with NPPF paragraph 97. Further to this new sports provision would also be required to meet the demand generated from the new developments.
In relation to shortlisted replacement sites further details should be provided to ascertain the sites suitability and further clarification is required as to what part of P20 is an enabling policy for replacement pitches and facilities.
For clarity paragraph 594 should be amended as per the below:
Sports and Recreation - Replacement of any lost recreation / sports provision as a result of development will be required to an equivalent or better standard in terms of quantity and quality, including ancillary provision, access and use by the wider community where appropriate. Provision will also be made for playing pitches (and ancillary provision) to meet the demands generated from new developments. Several sites have been shortlisted in the vicinity of the existing clubs West of Dickens Heath, and an enabling policy for replacement pitches and facilities is incorporated within Policy P20

Policy BL1 sets out the existing sports facilities should be retained and remain accessible until such time replacement sites are in place, which is supported by Sport England.
However Policy BL1 fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches being utilised more intensively thus reducing their quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as the policy fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
To enable the sporting needs from the development are met in line with Playing Pitch Strategy and NPPF paragraph 96 the following change is proposed:
-iii Relocation of the existing sports provision. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Paragraph 605 incorrectly sets out the sports club sites to be relocated with Leafield Athletic FC being retained and Wychall Wanderers FC to be replaced. To ensure clarity as to the site’s to be replaced the following modification is proposed.
605 The larger site is currently occupied by Highgate United FC, Leafield FC Wychall Wanderers FC and Old Yardleians .Rugby Football Club, and re-provision will be required for these sports pitches.

Policy BL2 fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches being utilised more intensively thus reducing their quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as the policy fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Policy BL3 fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches being utilised more intensively thus reducing their quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as the policy fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Policy HH1 fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches being utilised more intensively thus reducing their quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as the policy fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

The allocation of KN1 would entail the relocation of Knowle Football Club within the site on land between the new development and the canal. The policy states that appropriate facilities associated with the provision of outdoor sport will be permitted in the Green Belt, provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.
To ensure the current site can be relocated in the area identified within the concept illustrative masterplan, the policy should make clear the replacement entails pitches and ancillary provision (such as floodlighting, clubhouse and car parking). Further to this provisions should be made within the policy to enable the capability of the site containing a 3G pitch in line with recommendations contained within the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy and the Football Foundations Local Facilities Football Plan to ensure demand in the area can be met.
With regards to the illustrative concept masterplan Sport England and national governing bodies are keen to be engaged with the layout of the replacement site as there are some concerns based on concept such as:
- the introduction of trees within the central areas of the replacement playing field area would reduce the flexibility of the site to be marked out for alternative pitch layouts.
- car parking is detached from the sports pavilion;
- pavilion should be centrally located to the main pitch it seeks to serve
- Pitch orientation should accord with Sport England’s Natural Turf for Sport Guidance which is endorsed by national governing bodies.
- Seek to ensure the provision of sports light and the potential for a 3G pitch is not impacted by the LWS, Listed Buildings or proximity to residential dwellings.
- Cricket pitch should be sited in an area which would be impact by ball strike.
Policy KN1 would result in residential development adjacent an existing cricket club the policy fails to identify this as a principle which should be taken account of within the concept masterplan. The policy should reflect the requirements of NPPF paragraph 182 requiring a ball strike assessment to be undertaken should residential development come forward on the football club site but not on the cricket club site. The findings of the ball strike assessment should be implemented and maintained by the developer (unless of otherwise agreed by the Club following consultation with Sport England and the ECB). It is viewed that this is necessary as the proposed development could be at risk of ball strike which could prejudice the use of the cricket pitch.
a) To ensure replacement provision is equivalent in terms of quantity and quality in line with NPPF paragraph 97 and Sport England Exception Policy E4 the following modification is considered necessary:
viii. Relocation of the existing playing field site (pitches and ancillary provision) sports pitches currently occupied by Knowle Football Club;
b) For consistency and clarity purposes all reference to the reprovision/relocation of the Knowle pitches within the policy and supporting text should be modified to playing field site (pitches and ancillary provision)
c) To ensure that the use of the cricket club is not prejudiced by the introduction of residential development adjacent to it the following design principle in line NPPF paragraph 182 should be incorporated into the Policy:
2.IX The provision and maintenance of ball stop mitigation will be required, if deemed necessary following a ball strike risk assessment, and implemented before any ball strike risk is introduced as a result of the proposed development.
d) To enable an identified need within the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy and Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy to be met at the site, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 96, provisions within the policy for a 3G pitch should be made within the replacement site.
4.IV The provision for a full sized 3G pitch with sports lighting to be provided at the site.

Policy KN2 entails the relocation of the Arden Academy site. The Academy’s playing field site contains hard court provision, AGP and a number of playing pitches. The Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy identifies that there are current and future shortfalls in playing field provision. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies that the site is used by the community, which should be formal secured via a community use agreement, and that sports provision should be replaced. In relation to the AGP the Playing Pitch Strategy states that it should replaced by a 3G pitch instead. Given the above the playing field site is not deemed to be surplus to requirement and the policy should ensure the playing field site should not be lost until a replacement provision of equivalent quantity and quality being developed and available for use.
Policy KN2 also fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches being utilised more intensively thus reducing their quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as the policy fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
a) To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 97b, as the playing field site incorporating hard court and AGP has not been demonstrated to be surplus to requirement by the Playing Pitch Strategy and utilised by the community, the following modification is proposed to policy KN2:
2. x Development of the Arden Academy Trust playing field site (inclusive of hard court and AGP) and its ancillary facilities shall not commence until the provision of replacement playing field is made available for use. The replacement provision will be at least equivalent or better in terms quantity and quality of that proposed to be lost.
b) To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Policy ME1 fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches be utilised more intensively thus reducing its quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as it fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Policy SO2 fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches be utilised more intensively thus reducing its quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as it fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Policy SO1 identifies that the existing sports pitches are to be retained. Sport England consider that wording sports pitches should be replaced with ‘playing field site’ which is aligned to the wording of NPPF paragraph 97. Further to this the sports pitch layout within a playing field can alter and is not fixed on the site.
Sport England considers this modification is necessary as it would appear that the illustrative concept masterplan for the site has a road which encroaches on to the playing field site reducing the capability of site to accommodate pitches (reducing the size of pitches). No information has been submitted to justify the loss of playing field land in accordance with NPPF paragraph 97/Sport England’s Exception Policies.
Policy SO1 also fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches be utilised more intensively thus reducing its quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as it fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
A) To ensure the policy wording in relation to the retention of existing playing field site in accordance with NPPF paragraph 97 the following modification is proposed:
V. iii. Retention of existing sports pitch playing field site.
B) For clarity the Concept Illustrative Masterplan should clearly set out there is no encroachment on to the playing field site.
C) To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Sport England welcomes the identification of the provision of leisure and community infrastructure though the needs for the site should be informed by a Playing Pitch Strategy and Indoor Needs Assessment. To ensure that the leisure provision and playing pitch demand generated for the site is met the policy/supporting text should make reference to the need to undertake a site specific leisure and playing pitch needs assessment to inform the requirements for the site.

Sport England are supportive of policy UK2 with it ensuring the retention of the existing sports provision site until a suitable alternative site, agreed with Sport England and national governing bodies, being provided and ready for use.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14157

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Councillor Diane Howell

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Policy BC2 Criteria 2i does not state how the rural character of Frog Lane will be retained. The current wording does not provide explicit protection and would allow for a variety of interpretations.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy BC2 Criteria 2i should be amended to state ‘retention of the rural character of Frog Lane by preserving the hedgerow boundaries and key ecological features; No vehicular access to the site from Frog Lane’.

Full text:

Please find attached my representation to the Local Plan Consultation. Please confirm receipt.

Kind regards

Diane

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14270

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: L&Q Estates - Land North of Balsall Street, Balsall Common

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy BC2 is not considered justified or effective. Disagree with Green Belt Assessment of refined parcel 59 which performs a highly important role for Purpose 1. Site should have been categorised as 6 blue in site hierarchy. Concept masterplan shows lack of frontage and required habitat buffer, inadequate buffer to existing housing and landscape, ecological, flood risk and heritage constraints have potential to further impact
capacity.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14799

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Sarah Moore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Objects to Policy BC2;
Access should be made from Frogs lane - increased risk of flooding for property and surrounding properties - drainage plans for proposed developments needs confirmed - reps properties facing new entrance of property (protection from headlights) - trees' to rear of property nesting Buzzards, impact by development.

Full text:

I am writing to you in response to SMBC’s Local Plan, as I am very concerned about how it will affect both the village and my property specifically. I have lived in Balsall Common for most of my life and have seen it grow enormously in that time. However, the infrastructure and facilities within the village have hardly changed and are already overstretched before there is any further development. Looking at a map of proposed development within the borough, it would seem that Balsall Common is being unfairly targeted, especially as the development allocated to Berkswell parish, actually impacts on Balsall Common village.

I am primarily concerned about the proposed development in Frog Lane (BC2), which is planned to access Balsall Street East directly opposite my property. Surely it would make more sense for access to be gained from Frog Lane, which would mean that any travel towards Warwick/Stratford/M40/new JLR site at Honiley would avoid Balsall Common all together? This would also mean that the site, if it goes ahead, would use existing road junctions. That portion of Frog Lane also has capacity to be widen without impacting on any properties, but seems to have been ignored.

Along with the other properties on the North side of Balsall Street East at this point, my house sits below road level. We already suffer from localised flooding (2 incidents this year so far see Incident: 200617-000101 as an example), along with our neighbours, after and during periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This development will essentially act as an elevated rainwater catchment area, which is then being pointed at our property via the proposed entrance road, what are the council’s plans to protect the properties on the northern side of the road from increased flooding risk?

Solihull planning seems to ignore this risk of property flooding from the council managed byways as can been seen in the approval of the demolition of the bungalow at the corner of Frog Lane and Balsall Street East, to replace gardens with parking for 6 apartments, all to now drain on to Balsall Street East. Please can you confirm the drainage plans for the proposed development.

Our living room is on the front of our property – what protection will we be offered from the headlights of the 100+ vehicles that will be coming in & out of this new development, or the possibility of a vehicle overshooting the end of the access road?

There are currently a number of mature trees at the back of the property that is to be demolished which provide a nesting site to a breeding pair of buzzards. The buzzard is fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it an offence to kill, injure or take a buzzard, or to take, damage or destroy an active nest or its contents. Please can you confirm that these trees are not impacted by the proposed development.

I never received any feedback regarding the objections raised in 2017 to the draft plan, please can you advise the process for residents and tax payers to receive feedback to objections raised?

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14899

Received: 11/12/2020

Respondent: West Midlands Police

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

- West Midlands Police has a statutory duty to secure maintenance of efficient and effective police force for its area
- Council statutorily required to consider crime, disorder and community safety in exercise of its duties, with aim to reduce crime.
- NPPF and PPG refer to designing out crime, supporting safe communities, working with police and security agencies, importance of considering and addressing crime and disorder, and fear of crime.
- PPG provides for planning obligations in policy requirements, understanding infrastructure evidence and costs and guidance for CIL.
- Vital that Police are not deprived of legitimate sources of funding so they’re not under-resourced
- If additional infrastructure for WMP is not provided, then Police’s ability to provide a safe and appropriate level of service will be seriously impacted by level of growth in the DSP.
- Important to note that increase in local population or number of households does not directly lead to an increase in central government funding or local taxation.
- Viability Assessment shows that police contributions are viable.
- Considered therefore contributions to policing are essential for delivery of DSP, and should be expressly stated in site policies and P21, not just Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
- Site policies should include more social infrastructure, such as ‘emergency services’ within likely infrastructure requirements, as within 2013 Local Plan.
- Site policies are unsound without reference to need for financial contributions to police infrastructure in list of ‘likely infrastructure requirements’
- Site policies are unsound without cross-referencing need to comply Policy P15
- Site policies are contrary to the requirements of NPPF Para.’s 34, 91, 95 and 127f) and PPG Para: 004 ID: 23b-004-20190901, Para: 017 ID: 25-017-20190901, and Para: 144 ID: 25-144-20190901.

Change suggested by respondent:

- An additional sub-paragraph to be included under Paragraph “Development of this site should be consistent with the principles of the Concept Masterplan for this site, which includes the following”:
‘Create a place which is safe with a strong sense of identity, incorporating high quality design which meets ‘Secured by Design’ standards to reduce crime and the fear of crime and to this end applicants are encouraged to engage with the West Midlands Crime Prevention Advisor at the earliest opportunity.’

- An additional sub-paragraph to be included Paragraph “Likely infrastructure requirements will include”:
Developer contributions to Police infrastructure to ensure an appropriate level of service can be maintained so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.

Full text:

See attached representations forms

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 15199

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Archaeology Warwickshire

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

As highlighted on pg. 19 of the 2020 Archaeological Assessment undertaken by the Warwickshire County Council Archaeological Information and Advice team on behalf of SMBC*, this site has significant archaeological potential. This potential, and the need for further archaeological assessment in advance of the submission of any planning application is not referenced in this policy. As the results of the assessment may influence the final form of the development across this area, it should be.

*Warwickshire County Council, 2020. 'Archaeological Assessment to Inform the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Local Plan. Additional Sites, 2020'. Warwick: Archaeological Information and Advice

Change suggested by respondent:

The policy should reference the significant archaeological potential of this area and highlight that, prior to the submission of any planning application, a detailed archaeological assessment, including evaluative fieldwork, should be undertaken. It should further advise that results of the assessment should inform the development of a strategy, if appropriate, to mitigate the potential archaeological impact of the proposed development and that this strategy may include designing the development to avoid impacting any archaeological features present which are worthy of conservation.

This will help to ensure that any application is submitted with sufficient archaeological information to enable a reasoned and informed planning decision to be made.

Full text:

As highlighted on pg. 19 of the 2020 Archaeological Assessment undertaken by the Warwickshire County Council Archaeological Information and Advice team on behalf of SMBC*, this site has significant archaeological potential. This potential, and the need for further archaeological assessment in advance of the submission of any planning application is not referenced in this policy. As the results of the assessment may influence the final form of the development across this area, it should be.

*Warwickshire County Council, 2020. 'Archaeological Assessment to Inform the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Local Plan. Additional Sites, 2020'. Warwick: Archaeological Information and Advice