Policy SO1 - East of Solihull

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 70

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10599

Received: 12/11/2020

Respondent: Mrs Kate Hillman

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

I fully support the objections submitted by Hampton In Arden PC and Catherine-De-Barnes Residents Association.
This is an invasion into the green belt. It's hugely inappropriate to build an extra 700 houses in a village with currently only 400 homes. It's misleading in the extreme to say 'it functions as part of the urban area' when it's within the Catherine-De-Barnes boundary and Hampton In Arden parish. Putting it in the Solihull section of the plan misleads local residents. There has been no community engagement. Local roads and key services will be overwhelmed. Previous applications have been rejected on this plot.

Change suggested by respondent:

This whole policy should be removed from the plan. There has not been enough consideration given to the impact on the local road network (Lugtrout Lane is a small country lane), volumes of traffic within the village and congestion on the main incoming roads. The local infrastructure will also be unable to cope with the influx of that many families. There's not enough capacity at local schools or medical facilities. Previous individual applications on this plot have been rejected in the past due to the green belt considerations and past housing proposals have also been rejected and not included in local plans. This proposal directly contradicts various comments in the plan about the special character of the villages and in particular a point raised in paragraph 632, 'The parish area of Hampton in Arden will require protection from excessive development that may impact upon the character and attractiveness of the village'.

Full text:

I fully support the objections submitted by Hampton In Arden PC and Catherine-De-Barnes Residents Association.
This is an invasion into the green belt. It's hugely inappropriate to build an extra 700 houses in a village with currently only 400 homes. It's misleading in the extreme to say 'it functions as part of the urban area' when it's within the Catherine-De-Barnes boundary and Hampton In Arden parish. Putting it in the Solihull section of the plan misleads local residents. There has been no community engagement. Local roads and key services will be overwhelmed. Previous applications have been rejected on this plot.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10605

Received: 13/11/2020

Respondent: Mr Tom Davis

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The site is within the green belt and there's no very special circumstances to remove it. The Grade II listed Field Farm will be harmed. It'll cause access and safety problems using the existing sports pitches. Damson Parkway is a key transport corridor between the motorway and Coventry Road that has been negatively affected by the JLR expansion. An extra 700 homes will add 1,400 cars, creating more traffic and pollution. The access point opposite the Spire hospital causes a safety problem. This plan will result in more children yet existing schools can't accommodate them and there is no school.

Change suggested by respondent:

This site is precious green belt land that provides valued open space to the local community. This site is already a problem area due to traffic and cars heading from JLR. No building should take place here and certainly not at the size of 700 homes which is completey inappropriate for a historic area on the edge of Catherine-de-Barnes village. If building was to take place here, then the scale should be vastly reduced and be set back from the existing Damson Parkway to avoid future highways safety problems.

Full text:

The site is within the green belt and there's no very special circumstances to remove it. The Grade II listed Field Farm will be harmed. It'll cause access and safety problems using the existing sports pitches. Damson Parkway is a key transport corridor between the motorway and Coventry Road that has been negatively affected by the JLR expansion. An extra 700 homes will add 1,400 cars, creating more traffic and pollution. The access point opposite the Spire hospital causes a safety problem. This plan will result in more children yet existing schools can't accommodate them and there is no school.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10609

Received: 14/11/2020

Respondent: Mr Graham Roderick

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

As a resident of Lugtrout Lane in Catherine-De-Barnes, I wish to voice my concerns and objection over the possible building of 700 new homes according to the SMBC Masterplan SO1 East of Solihull. I recognize that SMBC have to provide a solution to the identified housing shortage, but I ask you to review your intention to include this particular site in the plan on the grounds listed below.

Change suggested by respondent:

1) Building on Green field land. SMBC should not be encouraging development on green field sites, there are precious few left and I do pose the question have any other brown field sites been considered ?
2) Potential loss of prime agricultural land.

3) Loss of accessible recreational sports facilities which seems contradictory to improving health and wellbeing for everyone.

4) The designated area is within the Meriden Gap, an area that you have recognized is under considerable development threat and should be protected where possible. It is possible to meet your own commitment by not promoting this site for development.

5) Whilst you recognize that most of the bordering roads will need upgrading I do not believe this will go anywhere to resolving the ongoing traffic issues that this area is constantly subjected to: widening roads does not reduce traffic. Promoting a site of 700 dwellings will ultimately result in potentially 1400 more vehicles in the immediate area and 6000 + traffic movements per day. The continual expansion of JLR facilities will result in increase in traffic particularly on Damson Parkway and Lugtrout Lane, particularly at shift pattern changing times, which will be exacerbated by the movements to and from dwellings.

6) Upgrading two of the roads mentioned namely Lugtrout Lane and Field Lane has the potential of completely changing the character of the rural local area, a feature which SMBC continually promote as a reason why the Borough is so popular. I do pose the question of how will footpaths be installed along the length of Lugtrout Lane.

7) The plan also recognizes that certain facilities need increasing, namely schools, public transport and local health services. The plan seems to contain no guarantees that the increased provision will be provided. Schools and local surgeries are already over –subscribed. At present bus services in the area do not meet requirements for new developments in terms of frequency. Currently operators have shown little interest in improving them.

8) Policy P19 Range and quality of Local Services promotes developments will need to be sensitive to local character and enhance public realm and suggest that a development of this size in this locality fails to meet this criteria.

9) By allocating this site for development SMBC are breaching one of its own objectives namely protecting key gaps between urban areas and rural settlements. The fields you have selected are areas that separate the settlement of Catherine-De Barnes from Solihull.

I do hope you will consider the points raised when you discuss the proposed plan.

Yours faithfully

Graham Roderick

401 Lugtrout Lane, Catherine-De-Barnes, Solihull B91 2TN

Full text:

As a resident of Lugtrout Lane in Catherine-De-Barnes, I wish to voice my concerns and objection over the possible building of 700 new homes according to the SMBC Masterplan SO1 East of Solihull. I recognize that SMBC have to provide a solution to the identified housing shortage, but I ask you to review your intention to include this particular site in the plan on the grounds listed below.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10613

Received: 17/11/2020

Respondent: Mr Mike Davis

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The site is within the green belt and there's no very special circumstances to remove it. The Grade II listed Field Farm will be harmed. It'll cause access and safety problems using the existing sports pitches. Damson Parkway is a key transport corridor between the motorway and Coventry Road that has been negatively affected by the JLR expansion. An extra 700 homes will add 1,400 cars, creating more traffic and pollution. The access point opposite the Spire hospital causes a safety problem. This plan will result in more children yet existing schools can't accommodate them and there is no school.

Change suggested by respondent:

This site is precious green belt land that provides valued open space to the local community. This site is already a problem area due to traffic and cars heading from JLR. No building should take place here and certainly not at the size of 700 homes which is completey inappropriate for a historic area on the edge of Catherine-de-Barnes village. If building was to take place here, then the scale should be vastly reduced and be set back from the existing Damson Parkway to avoid future highways safety problems.

Full text:

The site is within the green belt and there's no very special circumstances to remove it. The Grade II listed Field Farm will be harmed. It'll cause access and safety problems using the existing sports pitches. Damson Parkway is a key transport corridor between the motorway and Coventry Road that has been negatively affected by the JLR expansion. An extra 700 homes will add 1,400 cars, creating more traffic and pollution. The access point opposite the Spire hospital causes a safety problem. This plan will result in more children yet existing schools can't accommodate them and there is no school.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10627

Received: 09/11/2020

Respondent: John & Sue McMahon

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We would like to have objections noted to the proposed development site 16 on Lugtrout lane and the land North of Lugtrout Lane and Oak Farm site 24.

This is GREEN BELT land known as the the Catney Gap and would if built on lead to the loss of the rural gap between Solihull and rural Catherine de Barnes. It will leave no real defensible boundries to protect our precious green belt or to the wild life that absolutely needs protecting.

Lugtrout Lane is a country lane with no footpath lighting or proper drainage and is susceptible to flooding as the water table is high. There is already considerable usage of the lane by workers at the Land Rover Plant, This, at times can lead to traffic jams and speeding. It is extremely dangerous to walk at anytime in the Lane.

Much of the said land is presently used agricultural farm land. The sports fields at the other end of the site will become unsustainable.
There are at times, problems caused by cars being parked in Lugtrout lane when there are football matches on.This can only compound the problem with traffic from the housing development.

The plans do not include any new infrastructure to cope with the obvious extra traffic. No new Doctors surgery or schools!!!
Yew Tree lane Doctors surgery is already at capacity and no plans for new local schools.

Catherine de Barnes is now part of Hampton in Arden Parish. There are multiple threats from HS2 and the M42 junction 6 and the MSA. Together with the proposed high density housing on Oak Farm we can only assume there is to be multi-storey housing or packed in terraced property. There is insufficient parking spaces and as we all know the public transport is extremely in adequate. This land was originally proposed for use as a home for the elderly. This would be an option and would cause less impact on the local infrastructure.

Please consider these proposals very carefully. Once the GREEN BELT is built on its lost forever along with natures habitat.

Full text:

Dear Sirs

Solihull Local Plan Site 16 and Site 24

We would like to have objections noted to the proposed development site 16 on Lugtrout lane and the land North of Lugtrout Lane and Oak Farm site 24.

This is GREEN BELT land known as the the Catney Gap and would if built on lead to the loss of the rural gap between Solihull and rural Catherine de Barnes. It will leave no real defensible boundries to protect our precious green belt or to the wild life that absolutely needs protecting.

Lugtrout Lane is a country lane with no footpath lighting or proper drainage and is susceptible to flooding as the water table is high. There is already considerable usage of the lane by workers at the Land Rover Plant, This, at times can lead to traffic jams and speeding. It is extremely dangerous to walk at anytime in the Lane.

Much of the said land is presently used agricultural farm land. The sports fields at the other end of the site will become unsustainable.
There are at times, problems caused by cars being parked in Lugtrout lane when there are football matches on.This can only compound the problem with traffic from the housing development.

The plans do not include any new infrastructure to cope with the obvious extra traffic. No new Doctors surgery or schools!!!
Yew Tree lane Doctors surgery is already at capacity and no plans for new local schools.

Catherine de Barnes is now part of Hampton in Arden Parish. There are multiple threats from HS2 and the M42 junction 6 and the MSA. Together with the proposed high density housing on Oak Farm we can only assume there is to be multi-storey housing or packed in terraced property. There is insufficient parking spaces and as we all know the public transport is extremely in adequate. This land was originally proposed for use as a home for the elderly. This would be an option and would cause less impact on the local infrastructure.

Please consider these proposals very carefully. Once the GREEN BELT is built on its lost forever along with natures habitat.


Yours truly

John & Sue McMahon


11 Oakfields Way
Catherine de Barnes
Solihull
B91 2TR

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10638

Received: 24/11/2020

Respondent: Mr John Bailey

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The site is within the green belt and there are no very special reason to remove it. The Grade 2 listed Field Farm will be harmed. It will definitely cause access and safety problems using the existing sports pitches. Damson Parkway is a key transport corridor between the Motorway and Coventry Road that has been negatively affected by the JLR expansion. An extra 700 homes will probably add another 1400 cars creating more traffic and pollution. The access point opposite Spire Hospital/Rayner House causes a safety problem. There are no plans for additional schools/places to cope with 700 more homes.

Change suggested by respondent:

This site is Green Belt and there is now little of this left. This site already has huge traffic problems especially when JLR is changing shift, we know we get it daily. An extra 700 homes is a new traffic nightmare to contemplate on top of the JLR traffic and workers going to the NEC and Birmingham Airport, which are 24 hour operators. The impact of a 700 home expansion in this area is totally inappropriate for the area especially Catherine De Barnes Village setting This plan needs vastly scaling back and setting away from the Damson parkway corridor route.

Full text:

The site is within the green belt and there are no very special reason to remove it. The Grade 2 listed Field Farm will be harmed. It will definitely cause access and safety problems using the existing sports pitches. Damson Parkway is a key transport corridor between the Motorway and Coventry Road that has been negatively affected by the JLR expansion. An extra 700 homes will probably add another 1400 cars creating more traffic and pollution. The access point opposite Spire Hospital/Rayner House causes a safety problem. There are no plans for additional schools/places to cope with 700 more homes.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10643

Received: 09/11/2020

Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Parish Council and Catherine-de-Barnes Residents' Association

Number of people: 153

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Site SO1 (formerly site 16) should be deleted because:-
1) It cannot be reconciled with the previous position that the site (or components thereof) would impact on the openness of the green belt and threaten coalescence between settlements.
2) The development fails to meet the objective referred to in Challenge E ‘Protecting key gaps between urban areas and settlements’
3) Current infrastructure does not support a development of this size, and current development plans for land on Damson Parkway in particular, will result
in significant traffic issues which have not been truly taken into account.
4) Lack of evidence of a Traffic Impact Assessment for the Plan period and specifically for site SO1.
5) Contradicts para 430 of the Plan to take account of the setting and special character in considering development proposal.
If not deleted, any development north of Lugtrout Lane should be ribbon development, with the site capacity substantially reduced to minimise impact on rural character.
The site is within Hampton-in-Arden Parish and should be included in the Hampton-in-Arden settlement chapter.

Change suggested by respondent:

Site SO1 should be deleted. If not deleted, capacity should be reduced north of Lugtrout Lane. The site should be relocated into the Hampton-in-Arden settlement chapter

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10647

Received: 09/11/2020

Respondent: John & Sue McMahon

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Loss of the Green belt and wildlife habitats would lead to no defensible boundaries.
Lugtrout Lane has no footpath or adequate lighting and susceptiable to flooding. Dangerous to walk along due to traffic and speeding on country lane.
Land is currently agricultural land and sports fields will become unsustainable. Increased housing together with existing parking problems from football matches will lead to further issues. Plans do not include any infrastructure to cope with extra traffic, no extra doctors or schools.

Full text:

Dear Sirs

Solihull Local Plan Site 16 and Site 24

We would like to have objections noted to the proposed development site 16 on Lugtrout lane and the land North of Lugtrout Lane and Oak Farm site 24.

This is GREEN BELT land known as the the Catney Gap and would if built on lead to the loss of the rural gap between Solihull and rural Catherine de Barnes. It will leave no real defensible boundries to protect our precious green belt or to the wild life that absolutely needs protecting.

Lugtrout Lane is a country lane with no footpath lighting or proper drainage and is susceptible to flooding as the water table is high. There is already considerable usage of the lane by workers at the Land Rover Plant, This, at times can lead to traffic jams and speeding. It is extremely dangerous to walk at anytime in the Lane.

Much of the said land is presently used agricultural farm land. The sports fields at the other end of the site will become unsustainable.
There are at times, problems caused by cars being parked in Lugtrout lane when there are football matches on.This can only compound the problem with traffic from the housing development.

The plans do not include any new infrastructure to cope with the obvious extra traffic. No new Doctors surgery or schools!!!
Yew Tree lane Doctors surgery is already at capacity and no plans for new local schools.

Catherine de Barnes is now part of Hampton in Arden Parish. There are multiple threats from HS2 and the M42 junction 6 and the MSA. Together with the proposed high density housing on Oak Farm we can only assume there is to be multi-storey housing or packed in terraced property. There is insufficient parking spaces and as we all know the public transport is extremely in adequate. This land was originally proposed for use as a home for the elderly. This would be an option and would cause less impact on the local infrastructure.

Please consider these proposals very carefully. Once the GREEN BELT is built on its lost forever along with natures habitat.


Yours truly

John & Sue McMahon


11 Oakfields Way
Catherine de Barnes
Solihull
B91 2TR

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10664

Received: 02/12/2020

Respondent: Own Your Brand Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The site is precious green belt with no special circumstances to remove it and provides valuable open space to the community. This site is already a problem area due to traffic and cars heading from JLR. No building should take place here and certainly not the size of 700 homes which is completely inappropriate for a historic area on the edge of Catherine- de-barnes.

Change suggested by respondent:

If building was to take place here then the scale should be vastly reduced and be set back from the existing Damson Parkway to avoid future highways safety problems.

Full text:

The site is precious green belt with no special circumstances to remove it and provides valuable open space to the community. This site is already a problem area due to traffic and cars heading from JLR. No building should take place here and certainly not the size of 700 homes which is completely inappropriate for a historic area on the edge of Catherine- de-barnes.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10677

Received: 03/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Munish Khurmi

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I understand homes are needed but I fail to see an evidence that addresses the current challenges in the area. Demand on schools & local services is too high. As a resident of 15 years, I’ve struggled to place my children at local schools (long waiting lists and competition). Seeing a doctor is difficult, so much so that I self-diagnose via NHS website. The roads struggle, Hampton Lane has traffic queuing up at peak times, these queues extend down so far along Hampton Lane/Damson Pkway.

Change suggested by respondent:

I strongly feel this side of Solihull is already massively congested, Hampton Lane is already used as a cut through from A45/Airport traffic/NEC ect, this will be compounded by adding more homes off the back of Hampton Lane (Ludgate Lane). COVID has taught us that having access to open green spaces has a real positive impact on people, why is there an unnecessary need to repurpose these ‘Green’ spaces what allow the community to live in a balance environment supporting local nature. This development will only add to more pollution and congestion having a negative impact on the environment.

Full text:

I understand homes are needed but I fail to see an evidence that addresses the current challenges in the area. Demand on schools & local services is too high. As a resident of 15 years, I’ve struggled to place my children at local schools (long waiting lists and competition). Seeing a doctor is difficult, so much so that I self-diagnose via NHS website. The roads struggle, Hampton Lane has traffic queuing up at peak times, these queues extend down so far along Hampton Lane/Damson Pkway.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10692

Received: 07/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Giles Cook

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Unsound because a) it is misleading to call it SO1 as it clearly lies in Catherine de Barnes ward of Hampton in Arden Parish. It should be listed as HA3 to draw residents attention to this section.
b) SO1 has never been out for consultation in its present form. It is an amalgamation of previous sites. Residents are objecting strongly to the size of the present site.
c)Increasing Catherine de Barnes from 400 to 1100 dwellings is against Solihull Green Belt Assessment 2016 and the long standing Meriden Gap policy.

Change suggested by respondent:

It is recognised that Solihull needs to build more houses but this location is currently worked as agricultural land, both pasture and arable. Therefore a ribbon development along Lugtrout Lane is more suitable for house building with small infill sites where appropriate between Lugtrout Lane and the canal and along Hampton Lane. This would leave productive Green Belt land untouched but allowing for a smaller increase in the size of Catherine de Barnes which already includes the development from site HA2 (Oak Farm)

Full text:

Unsound because a) it is misleading to call it SO1 as it clearly lies in Catherine de Barnes ward of Hampton in Arden Parish. It should be listed as HA3 to draw residents attention to this section.
b) SO1 has never been out for consultation in its present form. It is an amalgamation of previous sites. Residents are objecting strongly to the size of the present site.
c)Increasing Catherine de Barnes from 400 to 1100 dwellings is against Solihull Green Belt Assessment 2016 and the long standing Meriden Gap policy.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10712

Received: 09/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Ramasamy Jaganathan

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

It is within green belt area. new 700 homes will increase traffic. lack of school facility for the children in these homes. potential 1400 cars causin congeston around parkway hospital

Change suggested by respondent:

widening the road of Damson Parkway; reducing house numbers by half

Full text:

It is within green belt area. new 700 homes will increase traffic. lack of school facility for the children in these homes. potential 1400 cars causin congeston around parkway hospital

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10762

Received: 11/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Cliff Dobson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I am not qualified to comment on legal compliance or duty to co-operate so my comments relate only to the soundness of Policy SO1 from the viewpoint of a local resident.
They relate to green belt , open space, access to the countryside and the town centre, traffic management, financial contributions for education and primary health care



Change suggested by respondent:

General Comments on SO1 Allocation
1. SO1 is within the parish of Catherine de Barnes and Hampton-in Arden. This proposal should recognise this relationship, and acknowledge that any new development could be part of the Catherine-de-Barnes community and impact that community. As an example, I note that bus stops along Hampton Lane which link the communities of Hampton-in-Arden, Catherine-de-Barnes and Solihull are not shown on the Illustrative Concept Master Plan whereas bus stops on Damson Parkway are clearly marked.
2. The status and significance of the BDG Masterplan Proposal is unclear. It seems to contradict the SMBC Illustrative Concept Masterplan. This is not at all helpful. There should be a statement that development will adhere to the Concept Masterplan
3. Green Belt – I understand that if the land identified for development in SO1 is released from green belt, the land occupied by existing houses on the northern side of Hampton Lane will remain green belt. This is perverse. It would be more equitable to use Hampton Lane itself as the southern boundary of SO1. There is some scope for infilling or redevelopment in this established ribbon development. If substantial housing development to the north of existing homes is approved, infilling and redevelopment opportunities should also become available to existing households on the northern side of Hampton Lane.

Detailed comments on S01 allocation and SMBC Illustrative Concept Masterplan (ICMP)

1. Retention of sports pitches, historical significance of Field Farm and the rural character of Field Lane are welcomed. However, the rural character of Field Lane could be further enhanced by
a) Designating the small SE area adjoining Field Lane currently ear-marked for development as public open space to retain continuous green space along Field Lane
b) Providing access to Field Lane for pedestrians and cyclists from SO1 which would give immediate access to the countryside, and also the amenities of Catherine-de-Barnes. There are many cyclists who commute along Hampton Lane and a number of the new residents of S01 would wish to do the same. Accordingly there should be direct access to the cycle route down to Catherine-de-Barnes and up to the airport and beyond.
c) Closing Field Lane to vehicular through traffic between Field Farm and the sports pitches entrances, but retaining access for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

2. Other open and green space – the ICMP suggests a reasonable amount of green and open space throughout the development, except where it borders existing dwellings some of which have small gardens. The ICMP shows green buffer zones within the proposed new development but not where it adjoins existing dwellings. To respect the existing properties, similar buffer zones should be provided using pathways or trees.

3. Pedestrian access to Solihull town centre. This is currently proposed along Pinfold Road which would give the shortest walking distance to the town centre. However, this appears to cross open space which would not feel safe after dark. For maximum use and to reduce traffic, the pedestrian access should be through housing development preferably via well-lit roadside pavements not quiet paths. Should the proposed open space in the south west corner leading to Pinfold Rd be developed instead of the remote field in the south east corner, which could then be used for access to Field Lane by pedestrians and cycles as suggested in 1a-c above?

4. Traffic management – additional local traffic generated by a development on this scale has not been competently addressed in 3.iii on P213 of local plan. The following needs addressing
a) the congestion that builds up around the Solihull bypass junctions with both parts of Hampton Lane will inevitably increase, so there will need to be considerable infrastructure investment to address this substantial shortcoming.
b) Field Lane is a “rat run” at busy times. Although I understand this single track lane may become one way at some time in 2021, this could lead to speeding traffic. It would be preferable to redesignate Field Lane as a no-through route. This may in turn reduce traffic on Lugtrout Lane.
c) Lugtrout Lane is not safe to walk along as only just wide enough for two way traffic and there is no pavement or verge along most of its length, and no space to create one. It also appears to be used as a rat run particularly by JLR commuters.
d) Although the local plan envisages local traffic travelling along Damson Parkway towards the airport to avoid Catherine de Barnes and Lugtrout Lane, will this actually happen in practice?
e) Suitable pedestrian routes, cycle routes and bus services may not have much effect on the amount of traffic from the development given the level of current car ownership.
f) How will excessive traffic on all the boundary roads be mitigated?

5. As the ICMP describes “low density housing with driveways” I can only assume all other housing will not have driveways. High density housing such as apartments may have some form of parking bays, but where will those in medium density housing park their cars? As most households will have one car and many two or more, will there be sufficient parking? The failure to provide sufficient parking for private cars is perfectly illustrated in the recent Dickens Heath development. The plan must make it clear how many driveways/parking spaces to be provided.

6. “Financial contribution for education provision” may be required from developers, but how would this be used? There is no proposal for a new school included in the plan. However the nearest primary school at Yew Tree school has little or no room for expansion and could be described as “cramped”. Do the children who attend Yew Tree not deserve a new school? Could a new school be developed within SO1 and the current Yew Tree school site be redeveloped for housing? Any primary school should be within a safe walking distance and the other schools in the area are too far for younger children to walk. State secondary school pupils living within the proposed development are likely to travel by private car unless an imaginative transport plan makes bus travel attractive. This will add further pressure on the already congested road network at peak times.

7. How would developer contributions for primary health care facilities be used? Would they be sufficient to create new facilities, or just to expand an already stretched facility?

Full text:

I am not qualified to comment on legal compliance or duty to co-operate so my comments relate only to the soundness of Policy SO1 from the viewpoint of a local resident.
They relate to green belt , open space, access to the countryside and the town centre, traffic management, financial contributions for education and primary health care



Support

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10794

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning

Representation Summary:

Support release of SO 1 from Green Belt for housing. Need to recognise free standing land owners who will cooperate with development as far as they are able.

Full text:

As you may be aware, I represent Mrs Mavis Ferguson of 147 Lugtrout Lane which is on the north side of Lugtrout Lane. Mrs Ferguson is unwilling to enter into any MOU with landowners on the south side of Lugtrout Lane.
We are in regular contact with representatives of other landowners on the north side of Lugtrout Lane about separate arrangements with those landowners. Mrs Ferguson is a free-standing landowner and supports the allocation of Site SO1 and removal of her property from the Green Belt. She is prepared to develop her land broadly in line with the latest version of the masterplan and will cooperate so long as she is able to do so with other landowners on that side of Lugtrout Lane.
We have already provided a site survey and possible layout of No 147 Lugtrout Lane to accommodate around 5 dwelling units which has been incorporated into the masterplan when last seen, and we will contribute land to the linear open space at the rear of the site if required to do so.
We will also seek to come into line with any overall drainage strategy as long as Mrs Ferguson can achieve a modest development on her land which we believe we have shown that we can. As we have a frontage to Lugtrout Lane and other services are available, we do not consider that there is need for any equalisation at this present time.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10827

Received: 13/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Stephen Walker

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

I object to:
1. Increase in the area to 43ha and the visual impact it will have
2. The strain on existing facilities in the Lode Heath area (plus SO 2) would be cosiderable (eg schools, already overstretched medical facilities)
3. Local road system/ drainage able to cope.
4. Inadequate social provision, no mention of affordable housing.
5. Failure to acknowledge the extensive use of Lugtrout Lane for recreation and its loss of facility.

While an environmentally sensite area protection measures are vague and not binding.

The scheme would encourage ribbon development linking Lode Heath with Catherine de Barnes.

Change suggested by respondent:

1. Field Lane preserved as a holloway and closed to through traffic like Ravenshaw Lane. Alternative road access to SO 1 considered not off Field Lane.
2. Reduction in the scale of developent from 700 houses
3. Consideration of creation of a public footpath adjacent to Lugtrout Lane.
4. Landscaping to maintain the semi-rural ambience of Lugtrout Lane with housing pushed back further from the Lugtrout Lane boundary.
5. The parcel of land adjoining the Canal to be considered for public open space and enhanced access to the canal. Housing too near 237 Lugtrout Lane.
6. Strict limitations to prevent "creeping ribbon development towards Catherine de Barnes village"

It is regrettable that one of the last green areas close to the Town Centre needs to be developed as so many other areas have been lost. However the visual impact can be mitiigated by enhanced environmental work, screening and a lower proposed hosing development.

Full text:

I object to:
1. Increase in the area to 43ha and the visual impact it will have
2. The strain on existing facilities in the Lode Heath area (plus SO 2) would be cosiderable (eg schools, already overstretched medical facilities)
3. Local road system/ drainage able to cope.
4. Inadequate social provision, no mention of affordable housing.
5. Failure to acknowledge the extensive use of Lugtrout Lane for recreation and its loss of facility.

While an environmentally sensite area protection measures are vague and not binding.

The scheme would encourage ribbon development linking Lode Heath with Catherine de Barnes.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10870

Received: 13/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Whitney

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The site is green belt and will be harmed.
Extra traffic causing pollution.
More pressure on local doctors.
Not enough school provision for added population.

Change suggested by respondent:

No building should take place

Full text:

The site is green belt and will be harmed.
Extra traffic causing pollution.
More pressure on local doctors.
Not enough school provision for added population.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10922

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Site of !47 Lugtrout Lane is a free standing site with the broad allocation of SO1. The landowner is prepared to contribute her site to the larger housing site as long as she can develop the land with a few houses and can contribute to some open space provision. versions of the masterplan show her site included as a small development site but others do not show it. the matter needs clarification.

Change suggested by respondent:

Clearly indicate the site of 147 Lugtrout Lane as small housing site within the overall eventual masterplan

Full text:

The submitted master plans both with the Local Plan and from the Council on behalf of the landowners show conflicting designation of land at 147 Lugtrout Lane. Clarification is required .
I represent Mrs Mavis Ferguson of 147 Lugtrout Lane which is on the north side of Lugtrout Lane. Mrs Ferguson is unwilling to enter into any MOU with landowners on the south side of Lugtrout Lane.
We are in regular contact with representatives of other landowners on the north side of Lugtrout Lane about separate arrangements with those landowners. Mrs Ferguson is a free-standing landowner and supports the allocation of Site SO1 and removal of her property from the Green Belt and its inclusion as a site for some modest housing development. She is prepared to develop her land broadly in line with the masterplan subject to that being clarified and will cooperate so long as she is able to do so with other landowners on that side of Lugtrout Lane.
We have already provided a site survey and possible layout of No 147 Lugtrout Lane to accommodate around 5 dwelling units which has been incorporated into the masterplan when last seen, and we will contribute land to the linear open space at the rear of the site if required to do so.
We will also seek to come into line with any overall drainage strategy as long as Mrs Ferguson can achieve a modest development on her land which we believe we have shown that we can. As we have a frontage to Lugtrout Lane and other services are available, we do not consider that there is need for any equalisation at this present time.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10947

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Ms Carol Wright

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

700 dwellings is far too many. A significant smaller number of dwellings would enhance and help preserve the natural character, wildlife and value of a precious green corner of this lovely Midlands town. The proposed site is within the green belt area. The Grade II listed field is beginning to be harmed. Damson Parkway traffic has already been affected by JLR expansion, and a further 1400 cars would create more traffic and pollution,

Change suggested by respondent:

This site is precious green belt land that provides valued open space to the large local community. The site is already a problem area due to JLR commercial and employees traffic.
No building should take place here if this requires removing beautiful green belt pastures, and he overcrowding of the historic village of Catherine de Barnes, certainly not of the size of 700 dwellings. If building was to take place on this site the plan should be greatly reduced in size to protect the environment the site set well back from the existing Damson Parkway.

Full text:

700 dwellings is far too many. A significant smaller number of dwellings would enhance and help preserve the natural character, wildlife and value of a precious green corner of this lovely Midlands town. The proposed site is within the green belt area. The Grade II listed field is beginning to be harmed. Damson Parkway traffic has already been affected by JLR expansion, and a further 1400 cars would create more traffic and pollution,

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10951

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Gerald Hudson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The construction of 700 dwellings would completely overwhelm the local infrastructure. Particularly the local roads, which are already congested with JLR traffic and will soon become even more so with the opening of the new JLR logistics centre. Such a development will ruin the feel of the nearby village of Catherine de Barnes. The construction of this site will bring severe noise, pollution and disruption to residents of the Damson Parkway estate.

Change suggested by respondent:

The plan should be abandoned and other locations chosen, preferably those that are already established residential areas with supporting infrastructure that would not be overwhelmed by such a large development.

Full text:

The construction of 700 dwellings would completely overwhelm the local infrastructure. Particularly the local roads, which are already congested with JLR traffic and will soon become even more so with the opening of the new JLR logistics centre. Such a development will ruin the feel of the nearby village of Catherine de Barnes. The construction of this site will bring severe noise, pollution and disruption to residents of the Damson Parkway estate.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10973

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.

*WCC Archaeological Information and Advice, 2018. 'Archaeological Assessment to Inform the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Local Plan'. Warwick: WCC 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 planning 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.

*WCC Archaeological Information and Advice, 2018. 'Archaeological Assessment to Inform the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Local Plan'. Warwick: WCC Archaeological Information and Advice

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10981

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Rajinder Hothi

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Proposal goes against the green belt and natural setting of the site and brings in more ecological issues outweighing any potential benefits. There is no outline of how the additional traffic/ pollution/ congestion/ works schedule etc. in order to minimise the safety and air quality for my family consisting of 2 adults and 3 small children.

Represents inappropriate development which is harmful to the Green Belt and fails to preserve the openness of the land.

No due consideration has been represented for the natural habitat of the animals that live on this Green Belt. No ecological study representations.

Change suggested by respondent:

I would like the proposal to remove the development proposed adjacent to and behind 225 Lugtrout Lane and would also like them to re-confirm no development will take place on the football ground opposite 225 Lugtrout Lane.

Full text:

As the property owner of 225 Lugtrout Lane, Solihull I am writing with regards to the proposed development adjacent to 225 Lugtrout Lane and directly behind the property leading towards the canal.

It has been noted from the proposed plans that 9 dwellings with driveways will be created on this site. There is no justification for these dwellings and benefits they will create to the community. It goes against the green belt and natural setting of the site and brings in more ecological issues outweighing any potential benefits. There is no outline of how the additional traffic/ pollution/ congestion/ works schedule etc. in order to minimise the safety and air quality for my family consisting of 2 adults and 3 small children.

This proposed site is not aligned and splits through the boundary of the significantly developed area on the opposite side of the lane and therefore is treated as an additional development site. In its own merits this site does not constitute or is appropriate to be considered for social/ housing to improve the local area and amenities.

In addition, there is no reasoning for converting the green belt area and reassigning the land status but simply an opportunity for the housing developer.

The site is attracted by and frequented by varied wildlife whose natural habitat will be destroyed as a consequence of irrelevant development. It has been acknowledged that a pond will be created with no appreciation for reason and benefit? I frequently see deers, owls, birds of prey, foxes, rabbits behind my property and building on this green belt land will endanger the habitat of these animals.

I believe this plan specifically behind and adjacent to 225 Lugtrout Lane, represents inappropriate development which is harmful to the Green Belt and fails to preserve the openness of the land. This would also harm the character of the area and I fail to see how it enhances the distinctiveness of the area.

The site proposal will also have major impacts on the road network especially Lugtrout Lane and require further infrastructure provisioning for safety of residents, which in turn further eludes from the preservation of the Green Belt and inappropriate use.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11002

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Carol Ashby

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The site seems to be within green belt and there are no special circumstances to remove it. The Grade II listed Field Farm may be effected, along with access problems via the sports pitches. Damson Parkway is a very busy link road from Solihull to the main A45 road, made busier by the JLR plant access. Using the same road for a major new housing development will only add to congestion.

Change suggested by respondent:

A site away from an existing large housing area, but within reach of infrastructrure, perhaps a redeveloped brownfield site, may not impact so much on local traffic and would help avoid negative impacts on green belt.

Full text:

The site seems to be within green belt and there are no special circumstances to remove it. The Grade II listed Field Farm may be effected, along with access problems via the sports pitches. Damson Parkway is a very busy link road from Solihull to the main A45 road, made busier by the JLR plant access. Using the same road for a major new housing development will only add to congestion.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11018

Received: 04/12/2020

Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Society

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

SO1 - Object to site being included in the Solihull Local Plan for the following reasons:-
1) The proposal cannot be reconciled with SMBC’s previously determined position that the site (or components of the site) would impact on the openness of the green belt and would threaten coalescence between settlements.
2) The development fails to meet the objective referred to in Challenge E of the Local Plan – ‘Protecting key gaps between urban areas and settlements’
3) The current infrastructure does not support a development of this size, and current development plans for land on Damson Parkway in particular, will result in significant traffic issues which have not been truly taken into account.
4) No evidence of a Traffic Impact Assessment for the period of the Plan and specifically for the allocated site SO1.
5) Para 430 of the Plan states ‘The settlements of Catherine de Barnes, Hampton in Arden, Hockley Heath and Meriden are inset from the Green Belt. Whilst Green Belt policies do not apply within these settlements, the Council will take into account their rural setting and special character in considering development proposal.’
We feel that the SO1 proposal directly contradicts this policy.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove site SO1 from the Plan.

In the event that our request for withdrawal of site SO1 from the Local Plan does not succeed, we suggest that any development within the extended boundary area north of Lugtrout Lane should be ribbon-type development and the quantity of 700 dwellings allocated to the overall site be substantially reduced to minimise the impact of the development of the local environment, and the rural character of Lugtrout Lane and Field Lane.

Full text:

I write as the Committee Member of the Hampton Society with responsibility for planning matters and regarding the Societies response to the consultation on the Draft Local Plan.

The Society always cooperates closely with Hampton-in-Arden Parish Council on all planning issues and our response to the draft local plan is no exception. Consequently I would be grateful if you could accept this email as the formal response of the Society which is to fully agree with and support the responses already submitted by the Parish Council and which is attached.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11081

Received: 15/12/2020

Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Site is adjoining a LWS – Hampton and Elmdone Copppice which would impact on the biodiversity and protected species on the site. there is also no requirement to provide a buffer between the site and the Local Wildlife Site. 4i ‘Biodiversity enhancement’ is also too vague.

Full text:

See Attached Word doc.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11225

Received: 07/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Christine Spriggs

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The original consultation on SO1 (East of Solihull) represented a significantly smaller number of properties and was less invasive upon the local amenities.

Change suggested by respondent:

A smaller amount of properties proposed at SO1 would have less physical impact, and therefore the allocation should be amended.

Full text:

Representation attached.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11226

Received: 07/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Christine Spriggs

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The plan fails to take account of the accumulated impact of the overall loss of green belt land.

Change suggested by respondent:

A co-ordinated consideration must be given to the environmental impact of the loss of green belt land and nearby allocations.

Full text:

Representation attached.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11227

Received: 07/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Christine Spriggs

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The implications of increased traffic and pollution associated with S01 has not been fully considered.

Full text:

Representation attached.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11228

Received: 07/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Christine Spriggs

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Consultation has been limited to only a few properties, whilst development is going to have a wider significant impact.

Change suggested by respondent:

Much wider consultation needs to take place.

Full text:

Representation attached.

Attachments:

Support

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11245

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Rosconn Strategic Land

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

Allocation SO1 is supported. All landowners and their representatives have agreed a masterplan for the allocation. Technical reports have been undertaken with issues and constraints identified and addressed in the masterplan. There is agreement in principle to have a memorandum of understanding.

The site is available, achievable and could deliver a higher number of dwellings than the proposed allocation (more than 700 dwellings). Land north of Lugtrout can be brought forward at an early stage, with no major infrastructure requirements. The site is in a sustainable location, close to local services and facilities.

Change suggested by respondent:

The red line boundary of S01 should be amended to be consistent with the masterplan. In relation to 'land north of Lugtrout Lane' it should include land up to the Grand Union Canal, Damson Parkway, land to the rear of 237 Lugtrout Lane and the existing residential properties on Lugtrout Lane and Hampton Lane.

Full text:

Dear Sirs

Please find Reg 19 Reps attached on behalf of landowners north of Lugtrout Lane.

Kind regards

Donna

Attachments:

Support

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11262

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: SMBC Strategic Land and Property - Site S01

Agent: Cushman and Wakefield

Representation Summary:

The allocation of Site SO1 is sound – positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. The allocation is accessible, would represent sustainable development and contribute to the Borough’s housing land supply. It is deliverable within Phases I and II of the Plan period (0-10 years). Technical work including a number of site surveys have been undertaken to inform the masterplan work and confirms the proposed allocation of the site for at least 700 dwellings is achievable. We consider the potential for development to impact upon nearby heritage assets and the potential impact of neighbouring towns merging into one another can be mitigated through the masterplan. The site provides a density of 35-40+ dph.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy SO1 East of Solihull (and the Summary Table at para 226) and the Concept Masterplan Document, should refer to the site’s capacity being ‘at least’ 700 dwellings.

The Proposed Policies Map, Concept Masterplan document, Site Analysis Plan and Landscape Assessment Plan should be consistent with each other and include the full extent of the proposed allocation, including land north of Lugtrout Lane/Damson Parkway, and the existing residential properties on Hampton Lane, the Grand Union Canal and Field Lane.

Reference within the Concept Masterplan Document to ‘an ecosite (former Pinfold nurseries)’ is not evidenced and should be removed.

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO1 East of Solihull submitted on behalf of the joint landowner group (see representation letter attached).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 East Solihull
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Preferred Concept Masterplan (ref. 19029-BDS-XX-00-DR-A-1006-P01, attached)
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Stage 1 Brief Document
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare

Attachments: