Policy BC4 - Pheasant Oak Farm, Balsall Common
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 10699
Received: 07/12/2020
Respondent: Burton Green Parish Council
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The dangers arising from increased traffic using Hob Lane from this and other local developments in Balsall Common have not been taken into account.
We strongly urge you to set aside Section 106 funds to improve Hob Lane to prevent serious accidents.
HOB LANE
Parish Councillors are increasingly concerned about the condition of Hob Lane. This narrow lane which straddles the border is the responsibility of Solihull Highways but, as always, is ignored in any proposal. It is almost inevitable that with 110 new houses in Windmill Lane and 100 on Pheasant Oak Farm, more motorists will make their way along this narrow lane with its dangerous bends, past our Village School in the direction of the University. Already there have been accidents on the bend near Moat Farm and this stretch of road is especially treacherous in icy conditions, despite the Lane being gritted. The reality is that many residents in Burton Green are reluctant to use this route but in recent weeks, parents were forced to detour along Hob Lane because of HS2 road closures,to drop their children at the Village School. Understandably many have expressed fears about the safety of this lane. In the draft Local Plan, the promotion and enhancement of sustainable modes of traffic were highlighted but only in the direction of Berkswell rail station, Balsall Common centre and Balsall Common health centre. We strongly urge you to set aside Section 106 funds to improve Hob Lane to prevent serious accidents.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 10801
Received: 12/12/2020
Respondent: Mr Richard Jones
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This proposal is Ill conceived and inappropriate. The area where these proposed houses are to be built are not served well by public transport, poor road connections and are over a mile away from the Balsall common centre. All this will do is increase car use (which is in conflict with national strategy and with the West Midlands Mayors view). If it was restricted to existing brownfield footprint that would be acceptable if public transport and road quality and junctions were improved. However this proposal takes out the same size of greenbelt land again which is not sustainable or justified
1.Improve public transport. 2.Build houses on the brownfield area only.
3. Improve road quality and junctions.
This proposal is Ill conceived and inappropriate. The area where these proposed houses are to be built are not served well by public transport, poor road connections and are over a mile away from the Balsall common centre. All this will do is increase car use (which is in conflict with national strategy and with the West Midlands Mayors view). If it was restricted to existing brownfield footprint that would be acceptable if public transport and road quality and junctions were improved. However this proposal takes out the same size of greenbelt land again which is not sustainable or justified
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 10937
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: The British Horse Society
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Yes
2v and 3iv do not include equestrian access in the policy.
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.
2v and 3iv do not include equestrian access in the policy.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 10960
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Archaeology Warwickshire
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Yes
As highlighted in 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
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 planning application is submitted with sufficient archaeological information to enable a reasoned and informed planning decision to be made.
As highlighted in 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
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 11116
Received: 09/12/2020
Respondent: BFNAG
Number of people: 120
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
There is a serious discrepancy in the definition of the Green Belt boundary south of Waste Lane. Specifically, paragraph 537 says “The boundary will be drawn close to the eastern edge of site BC4 before following the line of Windmill Lane to the southern point of site BC3 where it then cuts across to Kenilworth Road”.
Concept Masterplan BC4 states “The alignment of the bypass will provide the new green belt boundary to the east of the site” which could then release significant areas of land south of Hob Lane down to the A452 at Mere End. The Concept Master Plan BC4 should be corrected.
Concept Master Plan BC4 2nd paragraph to be amended to read “The boundary will be drawn from the eastern edge of site BC1 along Old Waste Lane to the junction with Waste Lane and then close to the eastern edge of site BC4 before following the line of Windmill Lane to the southern point of site BC3 where it then cuts across to Kenilworth Road”.
See Attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 13692
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Ltd
Agent: stantec
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Support allocation of Site BC4, which is primarily brownfield land for housing. Site can deliver 270 dwellings making more effective use of land whilst still according with environmental and design requirements, see Barwood masterplan.
Concept masterplan contains errors, Relief Road corridor incorrectly shown. Reference to bypass providing Green Belt boundary is incorrect and contradicts paragraph 560 of Plan, which refers to eastern boundary of site. Object to BC4.2.iv reference to public open space east of site to Relief Road as shown on Concept Masterplan as unreasonable and undeliverable as outside promoter's control. BC4.2.vi should be removed as unnecessary and insufficient evidence. BC4.3 requirements should be subject to meeting CIL tests. Object to BC4.4.i and paragraph 560 requirement for open space between site and Relief Road. BC4.4.ii requirement should be within site. Should reference potential Green Belt enhancements to be agreed at planning application stage.
Increase capacity to 270 dwellings.
Delete criteria 2vi and 4i. Amend criteria 2iv to remove 'and to Relief Road', 4ii to within site, and paragraph 560 to delete 'and land to the east between the site and the Relief Road'.
Amend Concept Masterplan to show accurate alignment of Relief Road, exclude public open space on land between site and Relief Road and to correct wording of second paragraph to confirm Green Belt boundary along eastern boundary of site.
Infrastructure requirements should be subject to meeting CIL tests. Green Belt enhancements should be potential to be agreed at planning application stage.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14190
Received: 11/12/2020
Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The curtilage of Site BC4 should be amended to retain the public open space along the Waste Lane corridor within the Green Belt, which will minimise the reduction in Green Belt gap between Balsall Common and Burton Green/Coventry
The curtilage of Site BC4 should be amended to retain the public open space along the Waste Lane corridor within the Green Belt
See attached
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14212
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Generator (Balsall) & Minton
Agent: DS Planning
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
No evidence that complex land assembly issues associated with Site BC4 have been addressed. Allocation not justified by Site Assessment that draws attention to part being higher performing Green Belt, in the Green Belt Assessment, low accessibility, should be subject to clear firm Green Belt boundaries.
Uncertainty over building of this section of Relief Road casts doubt over provision of firm eastern boundary. Plan and concept masterplan inconsistent over Green Belt boundary and line of Relief Road. Site cannot be considered available, achievable and deliverable
Deletion of Policy BC4 Pheasant Oak Farm, Balsall Common
See attached
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14272
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
Policy BC4 is not considered justified or effective. Site inappropriately designated as brownfield as part agricultural and part greenfield. Site performs important Green Belt role. Incorrectly categorised in site hierarchy and should be at best 7 blue, not 3 green. No strong and defensible Green Belt boundary to east. Performs poorly in Sustainability Appraisal
See attached
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14324
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Rosconn Strategic Land
Agent: DS Planning
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The site is of multiple ownership and has complex land assembly
As noted in the Council’s most recent site assessment document (October 2020), the site: is part of high performing Green Belt, would result in an indefensible Green Belt boundary to the east, has a low level of accessibility, and could be considered subject to provision of clear firm Green Belt boundaries. The DSP states “Development should preferably be on land that is more highly accessible, and/or performs least well in Green Belt terms and/or provides strong defensible boundaries”. These factors weigh heavily against the site as a draft allocation.
BC4 is reliant on the building of the bypass, which appears to have no policy or proposal of this section of the bypass adjacent to BC4. It must be assumed this section would not to be built within the Plan period up to 2036 and there is no certainty over its provision at any stage.
There is no consistency between the DSP and the SLP Concept Masterplans over the precise location of the Revised Green Belt boundary in relation to BC4. The DSP proposes the eastern boundary of the site (paragraph 560) as the defensible boundary, whilst the Masterplan proposes the alignment of the bypass (page 32).
See attached form and written representations
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14580
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land Fronting Waste Lane
Agent: Marrons Planning
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Whilst Site BC4 is an appropriate location for residential
development, object to the detail of the policy.
Firstly, designation on the Concept Masterplan of part of the site adjacent to Waste Lane (Site 408) as semi-improved grassland-significant habitat value is not justified. The Ecological Assessment identifies the site as ‘improved grassland’, a habitat of low to negligible nature conservation importance and the Sustainability Appraisal finds no record of priority habitats or species. An ecological assessment review has been prepared which concludes that the land supports species-poor improved grassland of low to negligible ecological value, and should not be protected by the Plan. In design and accessibility terms, the site is a logical infill and key gateway that connects the existing settlement with the proposed development beyond.
Secondly, the status of the concept masterplans is ambiguous
The concept masterplan for Site BC4 should be amended to remove reference to semi-improved grassland – significant habitat value, and replaced with a medium
density housing designation. The number of dwellings allocated in Policy BC4 should be increased.
Policy BC4 (Pheasant Oak Farm, Balsall Common)/Concept Masterplan
The proposed allocation comprises land in two ownerships, and promoted separately by Rainier Developments Limited (Rainier) and Barwood Land
(Barwood) respectively. The two parties are however collaborating in the interests of good planning to bring forward a comprehensive development.
In the first instance, the allocated site is an appropriate location for residential development. The proposed allocation at ‘Pheasant Oak Farm’ is developable,
available now, and achievable. The evidence base is supportive, and negative effects identified in the SA are capable of being mitigated and are not material.
Whilst Policy BC4 is therefore supported to the extent that it proposes to allocate land at Pheasant Oak Farm for residential development and remove this site from the Green Belt, an objection is made to the detail of the policy.
Firstly, objection is raised to the designation on the Concept Masterplan of part of the site adjacent to Waste Lane (Site 408) as semi-improved grassland-significant habitat value. This designation is not justified, as the Plan’s evidence base taken from the Habitat Biodiversity Audit Ecological Assessment (January 2020) identifies the site as ‘improved grassland’ which is a habitat of low to negligible nature conservation importance.
It is also noted that the Concept Masterplan’s designation conflicts with the Plan’s Sustainability Appraisal which found the site not to contain any records of priority habitats or species.
An ecological assessment review prepared by FPCR has been appended to these representations (Appendix 1). This was informed by a site visit in September 2020. Its overall conclusion is that identifying the land as semi-improved grassland appears to be an error. The land supports species-poor improved grassland of low to negligible ecological value, a habitat type that
should not represent a constraint to development. It continues to be managed as such, and is currently a silage ley that has been re-sown this autumn.
The land fronting Waste Lane is not therefore a habitat of significant value that should be protected by the Plan. It should be part of the built development and can contribute towards increasing the allocation by some 16 dwellings and making a more efficient use of the land allocated. Furthermore, in design and accessibility terms, the site is a logical infill and key gateway that connects the existing settlement with the proposed development beyond. Not to develop this area would represent a missed opportunity to enhance the accessibility
of the allocation.
As an additional point, the concept masterplans are referenced in the Plan and are to be used to determine applications and assess whether they accord with the Plan. However, they do not appear in the Plan and therefore their status is somewhat ambiguous. If a policy is based on a concept masterplan, then the concept masterplan should be within the Plan and tested for its
soundness as part of this process.
The concept masterplan should be amended to remove reference to semi-improved grassland – significant habitat value, and replaced with a medium
density housing designation. The number of dwellings allocated in Policy BC4 should be increased.
The concept masterplans should form part of the Plan.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14858
Received: 13/12/2020
Respondent: Melanie Hughes
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objects to Policy BC4;
ew development cause overlooking - effect on mental health and wellbeing - worsen issues with flooding - increased traffic - not in keeping with existing rural character - infrastructure/services not place to deal with new developments - development BC4 closing the gap between Coventry - Brownfield sites not being prioritised - destruction of local wildlife/habitat - use of infill sites should be prioritised - improvements to public transport - provision of leisure facilities/activities - provisions of better green space/green buffers
Removed from Final Local Plan/Draft Submission Plan
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14901
Received: 11/12/2020
Respondent: West Midlands Police
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
- 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.
- 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.
See attached representations forms
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 15021
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Kier Living Ltd - Coleshill Road
Agent: Mr Hywel James
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Site has several constraints that will compromise deliverability and capacity as set out in DSP:
- Western part of the site is located within a lower performing parcel of the Green Belt and the eastern part is within a higher performing area.
- SA identifies 3 positive and 6 negative effects with a significant effect being the distance to key
economic assets and convenience store or supermarket. - Negative effects include the site having
a low level of accessibility, in an area of medium visual sensitivity with low capacity for change.
- Site Assessment document state site has low accessibility and does not provide a strong defensible GB boundary.
As such, we have strong reservations regarding site's suitability.
Further housing sites, such as the CFS 193, must be allocated to provide assurances that the
minimum housing requirement can be met.
See attached letter
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 15202
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Archaeology Warwickshire
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
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
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
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
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 15248
Received: 13/12/2020
Respondent: Jason Edwards
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objects to Policy BC4;
ew development cause overlooking - effect on mental health and wellbeing - worsen issues with flooding - increased traffic - not in keeping with existing rural character - infrastructure/services not place to deal with new developments - development BC4 closing the gap between Coventry - Brownfield sites not being prioritised - destruction of local wildlife/habitat - use of infill sites should be prioritised - improvements to public transport - provision of leisure facilities/activities - provisions of better green space/green buffers
Removed from Final Local Plan/Draft Submission Plan
See attachment