Policy BC6 - Lavender Hall Farm, Balsall Common

Object

Representation ID: 10787

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Land is unconnected from main part of Balsall Common,
While much of that is to be welcomed in the two main areas of residential growth – Knowle and Balsall Common – no provision has been made of land for employment purposes to help to create a balanced community rather than commuter villages where the population has to travel usually by car to employment opportunities elsewhere. In both those communities’ provision should be made in the Local Plan for a modest amount of employment land.

Object

Representation ID: 10939

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: The British Horse Society

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

4i

Object

Representation ID: 13705

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This is NOT an objection to the principle of the site, but a recommendation to fully consider the environmental permitting regulations.
BC6: Lavender Hall Farm, Balsall Common – the land is currently used as a permitted landfill site, and as such, redevelopment of the land will need to ensure effective surrender of their operational permit prior to redevelopment. Site design and redevelopment will need to consider the underlying landfill.

Object

Representation ID: 14134

Received: 06/12/2020

Respondent: Berkswell Charities

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy BC6. Berkswell C of E school is the nearest to this site, but a footpath/cycleway link is required. This would be consistent with the aim to support walking and cycling strategies

Object

Representation ID: 14238

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Generator (Balsall) & Minton

Agent: DS Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Site BC6 is unsuitable as an allocation, as it contradicts the assessment criteria. Site is completely divorced from the settlement with no link or appropriate setting, is within the highest performing Green Belt in the Green Belt Assessment, whilst the Landscape Character Assessment identifies that the site has medium visual sensitivity. A narrow belt between 2 highly used railway lines is unsuitable due to noise, vibration and visual sensitivity. Site breaches firm and defensible Green Belt boundary as applied to other sites in the settlement.

Object

Representation ID: 14277

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 BC6 is not considered justified or effective. Query designation of entire site as brownfield. Site performs important role in relation to Green Belt impact, is highly performing in Green Belt Assessment, and would result in unrestricted sprawl. Incorrectly categorised as 3 green in site hierarchy. Should not rely on HS2 line as this has not yet been built. Performs poorly in Sustainability Appraisal. Remote from settlement with a railway barrier, poor pedestrian links and heritage constraints. If site considered suitable for C2 use then other sites are as well

Object

Representation ID: 14326

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Rosconn Strategic Land

Agent: DS Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The site is a later addition to the housing allocations, and it is not clear why the site was considered suitable for allocation.
The site is detached from the settlement, having no contextual link/setting to suggest that the site makes sensible addition to the village, which sets a inappropriate precedent for future development.
The site lies within the highest performing Green Belt Parcel and the Landscape Character Assessment identifies that the site has medium visual sensitivity. The allocation contradicts the Councils own assessment criteria, which states that development should preferably be on highly accessible land/performs well in Green Belt terms/provides defensible boundaries.
The site would be unsuitable for residential development given its position between the West Coast Mainline and possible HS2 line, resulting in an environment with noise, vibration and visual sensitivity.
The site would lie outside the defensible Green Belt boundary (West Coast Mainline), contrary to the principles of Policy BC1 Barrett’s Farm, which notes the need for strong defensible boundaries within Balsall Common.
It makes no logical sense to identify a defensible Green Belt boundary to mark the eastern most boundary of Balsall Common and then breach that boundary in endeavouring to justify allocating a further site (BC6) and create a weaker Green Belt boundary around that site.

Object

Representation ID: 14794

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Richard Lloyd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Unsound because it does not comply with the NPPF in two respects:
the proposed housing is significantly affected by noise from the HS2 railway, and
the site does not meet the requirements for sustainable access to facilities and the mechanism to achieve compliance is insufficient.
In addition, the concept plan is unsound because it ignores the two major water mains running across the area designated for medium-density housing.

Object

Representation ID: 14903

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.

Object

Representation ID: 15204

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