Policy UK2 - Land at Damson Parkway

Damson parkway is already heavily congested at various points in the day with residents int eh surrounding area suffering on yearly basis changes to the JLR development and increased traffic. The waste recycling centre does not need to be positioned here adding further stress to the road network in the area and bringing more noise and various pollution to the area of Damsonwood.

Points 831 - UK2 Point 1 and 859 - Relocation of Bickenhill Waste Centre to Damson Parkway.

We would request that the Council looks again to relocate Solihull’s Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot to a site which does not impact on any person’s opportunity to live in an environment which is not subject to high levels of noise and pollution.

We are writing to express our shock and distress at learning that Solihull’s Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot is planned to be relocated to Damson Parkway. We are residents of Damson Parkway and would like to note that we have serious concerns regarding the impact on our health and well-being from yet another source of noise and pollution, given that we already live close to the airport, the main A45 and Jaguar Land Rover and are currently suffering the environmental impact of having the JLR Logistics Centre being built close to our home. We already have noise intrusion and poor air quality due to being located in close proximity to JLR, main roads and the airport; the relocation of the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot will bring increased noise, vibration and pollution levels as well as foul odours and the attraction of vermin. We are disappointed at the loss of the green belt already allocated to JLR and the visual intrusion of the changes already being made. We are distressed that we will now have further visual intrusion from this planned relocation. We note that the plan states that “the site is relatively isolated from residential uses, other than the Gypsy and Traveller site, for which impacts can be minimised and mitigated”; we do not accept this judgment as we are already able to hear noise from the A45 and JLR where we live and therefore it is certain that we will be impacted by noise and pollution from the Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot as well. There will also be increased vehicle pollution levels to our air quality due to the increase in traffic approaching Damson Parkway to access the Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot.
The plan states that “the site is accessible from the strategic highway network, with sufficient space for queuing vehicles at peak times”. There are already frequent occasions when traffic is held up on Damson Parkway due to congestion so we do not accept this evaluation.

We then read in your plan that the Council already acknowledges “the existence of significant sources of noise or potential noise within 375.the Borough, such as Birmingham Airport, major roads and railways including HS2, mineral workings and some industrial processes, and the need to protect noise sensitive uses, including housing, education and health institutions. The policy seeks to ensure that the impacts of noise and vibration are properly investigated, assessed, quantified and mitigated to ensure adequate protection is afforded. Where this is not possible, the policy aims to prevent such development taking place”. Following this, in the section of your plan on Health and Well-being, you state that you intend to “Delivering high quality, inclusive and attractive environments which minimise and mitigate against potential harm from risks such as pollution and obesogenic environments, and promoting health and wellbeing & opportunities for social interaction” and that you are looking to create “a healthier environment by filtering pollutants, attenuating noise pollution, decreasing the urban heat island effect, reducing flood risk impacts and providing opportunities to interact with nature.” It seems that the residents in the Damson Parkway have been ignored in your desires to promote health and well-being for the community. For our own health and well-being we fail to understand why the Council would think it appropriate to locate this site close to residential properties. When we moved to this area, we had no idea that we would be subsequently living within a highly industrialised location.

We would request that the Council looks again to relocate Solihull’s Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot to a site which does not impact on any person’s opportunity to live in an environment which is not subject to high levels of noise and pollution.

We would request that the Council looks again to relocate Solihull’s Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot to a site which does not impact on any person’s opportunity to live in an environment which is not subject to high levels of noise and pollution.

We are writing to express our shock and distress at learning that Solihull’s Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot is planned to be relocated to Damson Parkway. We are residents of Damson Parkway and would like to note that we have serious concerns regarding the impact on our health and well-being from yet another source of noise and pollution, given that we already live close to the airport, the main A45 and Jaguar Land Rover and are currently suffering the environmental impact of having the JLR Logistics Centre being built close to our home. We already have noise intrusion and poor air quality due to being located in close proximity to JLR, main roads and the airport; the relocation of the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot will bring increased noise, vibration and pollution levels as well as foul odours and the attraction of vermin. We are disappointed at the loss of the green belt already allocated to JLR and the visual intrusion of the changes already being made. We are distressed that we will now have further visual intrusion from this planned relocation. We note that the plan states that “the site is relatively isolated from residential uses, other than the Gypsy and Traveller site, for which impacts can be minimised and mitigated”; we do not accept this judgment as we are already able to hear noise from the A45 and JLR where we live and therefore it is certain that we will be impacted by noise and pollution from the Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot as well. There will also be increased vehicle pollution levels to our air quality due to the increase in traffic approaching Damson Parkway to access the Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot.
The plan states that “the site is accessible from the strategic highway network, with sufficient space for queuing vehicles at peak times”. There are already frequent occasions when traffic is held up on Damson Parkway due to congestion so we do not accept this evaluation.

We then read in your plan that the Council already acknowledges “the existence of significant sources of noise or potential noise within 375.the Borough, such as Birmingham Airport, major roads and railways including HS2, mineral workings and some industrial processes, and the need to protect noise sensitive uses, including housing, education and health institutions. The policy seeks to ensure that the impacts of noise and vibration are properly investigated, assessed, quantified and mitigated to ensure adequate protection is afforded. Where this is not possible, the policy aims to prevent such development taking place”. Following this, in the section of your plan on Health and Well-being, you state that you intend to “Delivering high quality, inclusive and attractive environments which minimise and mitigate against potential harm from risks such as pollution and obesogenic environments, and promoting health and wellbeing & opportunities for social interaction” and that you are looking to create “a healthier environment by filtering pollutants, attenuating noise pollution, decreasing the urban heat island effect, reducing flood risk impacts and providing opportunities to interact with nature.” It seems that the residents in the Damson Parkway have been ignored in your desires to promote health and well-being for the community. For our own health and well-being we fail to understand why the Council would think it appropriate to locate this site close to residential properties. When we moved to this area, we had no idea that we would be subsequently living within a highly industrialised location.

We would request that the Council looks again to relocate Solihull’s Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot to a site which does not impact on any person’s opportunity to live in an environment which is not subject to high levels of noise and pollution.

To make it in a remote area far from houses and schools and walking paths etc.

It is too close to houses and traffic will be higher and loss of green belt in a condensed area already. Noise also is a consideration. Traffics not only by employees but from tip users.

Move away from residential areas, we walk down damson parkway with young children both into Solihull and to elmdon park if this goes ahead we will be forced to drive everywhere as walking or cycling will be unsafe with added traffic and pollution. This will have a negative impact on many peoples quality of life and physical health.

It is too close to residential area. Damson Parkway is already very busy and dangerous to walk Along with my small children. The extra traffick, noise, pollution this will create is unacceptable. Also loss of green belt land.

Scrap these plans and consider elsewhere where local residents lives will not be severely affected by these proposals and traffic flow will not be affected

The proposal to erect a waste disposal site in Damson Parkway is flawed. The local residents whose lives will be affected by the proposals have not been satisfactorily informed of these proposals. Furthermore the placing of a waste disposal site at this location will create severe traffic problems with the potential of long traffic queues of people in vehicles queueing to use the site (as recently encountered during the current pandemic). Damson Parkway is also well used by local residents and Land Rover traffic and any queueing traffic will cause traffic congestion.

The need to relocate the Moat Lane depot is recognised, as is the need to relocate the household waste recycling centre. However, unless the Damson Lane/(expanded) Damson Parkway/Damsonwood residential area is to become gridlocked by traffic trying to access this centre, and littered with "spill" waste and fly-tipping by those denied access to or disenclined to use the proposed HWRC (the latter already a problem in Lugtrout Lane/Field Lane) - this is simply the wrong place to put it. It needs to be relocated further away from a residential area with higher capacity road access (as there is now from the A45). The existing proposal forces residents in the north to cross the A45 and those in the south to travel through the town centre - with everyone converging on Damson Parkway. It's simply an ill-conceived idea. This section needs removing from the proposed plan completely with a rethink undertaken.

1. This "representation" task appears specifically designed to be difficult, if not impossible, for residents/voters to access.
2. This appears to be the only (intentionally hidden?) reference to relocating the Moat Lane depot and the Household Waste Recycling Centre to Damson Parkway.
3. The overall plan already includes significant residential growth in this local area. Perhaps undesirable, but necessary. As for moving a waste recycling centre so close to an increasingly densely populated residential area, already suffering traffic challenges, this seems ill-advised.
4. Surely for such an activity, a brownfield site would be most suitable.

Look to relocate Bickenhill Waste Disposal unit to a more adequate location.

I disagree with this policy on the basis that you are using Green Belt land that should be preserved for wildlife and habitats. How can you be protecting and enhancing our natural assets when you are destroying countryside. As a local resident in the Damson Parkway area I do not believe within this policy you have considered the amount of disruption not only in noise pollution but in emissions from traffic that is going to have a negative impact by contributing to climate change within this local area. In this policy you have stated that these plans will contribute tho the attractiveness of the borough, for people that work, live and invest in Solihull. For Residents in Damson Wood I do not think a Waste disposal unit next to the monstrosity of JLR this will make the area attractive. This will also prevent people from investing and moving to this area, and will affect local residents being able to travel to work. This will also affect peoples mental health and well being.

Relocate Bickenhill Waste Disposal facility to a more suitable location.

I disagree with this policy as again Green Belt land is being destroyed and not persevered to relocate Bickenhill Waste Disposal facility to make room for the HS2. In your policy you have already stated that the lower part of Damson lane floods significantly during rainfall events. I do not see how the Damson Wood area is suitable for this type of facility when the area is known to flood. This would mean more financial support would be needed to fund this movement of the waste facility. This policy is also impacting local residents such as the Sports Division because you are looking to relocate them. It will also be impacting Park farm house and Packington Hall and Park these are historical land sites that not only are enjoyed by local residents but visitors these should not be disrupted.

Relocate Bickenhill Waste Facility to another location.

I disagree with this policy by destroying Green belt and the monstrosity JLR have built on this land this is not improving the attractiveness of the local community. By moving Bickenhill Waste Facility to Damsonwood this is going to have an impact on climate change for this local community due to the amount of pollution this will generate. This will not be a healthy lifestyle change for the local residents that will have this facility on their doorstep. I do not believe that this policy is protecting the environment when Green Belt is being destroyed.

Relocate Bickenhill Waste Facility to another location. The Damsonwood Location is not suitable for this facility.

I disagree with this policy as the land on Damsonwood have had trees taken down from this location, when it clearly states under this policy that existing trees will not be damaged or loss. This has already taken place on Damson Parkway next to the new JLR building. This policy also states about restoring biodiversity for the natural environment. This would not need to be resolved if the land in Damsonwood that was Green Belt had not been destroyed. By the relocation of Bickenhill Waste facility to Damsonwood this is not going to help with either planting trees as there will be no land to do this. It will not benefit people and the wildlife by using all this open space for both JLR and Bickenhill Waste unit. This will also have a negative impact on carbon management as there will be a considerable increase in traffic to JLR and Bickenhill Waste Facility.

Relocate Bickenhill Waste Disposal Facility to another location.

I disagree with this policy as you have stated that the council will seek to protect, enhance, restore, increase and connect the natural environment and secure measurable net gains in biodiversity. The full value and benefits of the natural environment will be taken into account in considering all development proposals, including the contribution to the green economy, the health and wellbeing of residents, and the role of green infrastructure in reducing the impacts of climate change and improving air quality. Joint working with neighbouring authorities and partners will be supported, recognising the need for a landscape scale approach to the natural environment and conservation of biodiversity and geodiversity. How is the council doing this when green belt land is being destroyed for facilities like JLR and the proposition of moving Bickenhills Waste Disposal Facility Unit to Damsonwood. This is not going to help the local residents in regards to well being and health including mental health with the amount of noise pollution and traffic this will bring to the local area.

Relocate Bickenhill Waste Disposal Facility to another location

I disagree with this policy how is the movement of Bickenhill Waste Disposal Facility going to benefit the local residents of Damsonwood health and well being. This is going to have quite the adverse affect to peoples health due to the increase in noise and carbon emissions that will be caused by the amount of people that this will bring to the local area. This will also have a negative impact to the local environment as this will increase climate change and destroy the landscape.

Relocate Bickenhill Waste Disposal Facility to another location

I disagree with this policy. I feel this policy is not supporting the local residents in Damsonwood by the relocation of Bickenhill Waste Disposal Facility on top of the works that has undergone at JLR to expand that business. This is going to have significant impact on peoples health and welfare because of the increase in noise and pollution that will be bought to the local area. With the resources that you are creating in Damsonwood such as the expansion of JLR and the relocation of Bickenhill Waste Disposal Facility this is not promoting or enhancing a healthy and physical lifestyle for the local residents. Local residents are not going to take up physical exercise right next to a waste disposal facility.

Relocate Bickenhill Waste Disposal Facility.

I disagree with this policy because in this policy you have stated the national definition of sustainable development aims to enable people to meet their needs without compromising the quality of life of future generations, and includes protection and enhancement of the physical and natural environment, and efficient use of resources and energy. The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to sustainable development, which includes the need to protect and enhance the natural environment, use natural resources more prudently, and to mitigate and adapt to climate change, thereby moving to a low carbon economy.
Since the SLP was adopted, the Council has developed a "Climate Change Prospectus" which captures how the Council is delivering a sustainable, low carbon Solihull. The prospectus sets out the Council's vision for the future, along key themes that are essential if the Borough is to become more sustainable. They are:
Clean Growth
Clean Air
Nature Gain
I do not see how this has happened in the Damsonwood area when green belt has been destroyed for JLR and by the relocation of Bickenhill Waste Disposal Facility this is going to increase carbon emissions and contribute to more climate change in this area. In Damsonwood area the natural environment is not being protected when trees and landscape are being destroyed for new infrastructure. With relocating Bickenhill Waste Disposal Facility to the local area this is going to have a negative impact to peoples lifestyles with the amount of disruption such as noise, traffic and pollution it will bring.

To protect what is left of precious greenfield land and find the space for the waste centre within the HS2 development triangle. To curtail any future JLR expansion by making more efficient use of the existing site.

This area is already blighted by traffic congestion due to the JLR plant, and that is before the new site is in operation. That in turn has affected air quality, litter strewn along the verges and road safety. So the news that a further 15 acres of green space is to be lost for a new waste centre (on top of 22 acres lost to JLR) is devastating! creating even more congestion and pollution. Developing Moat Lane depot for housing will also create further congestion and further strain on a overstretched infrastructure.

I think the expectations for waste increases in Solihull need to be reassessed in full in line with my comments above and in line with Government initiatives to reduce waste.
The position of the waste site should also be reassessed away from existing houses in the area.

With the government initiatives towards a Zero Waste economy, I find it difficult to believe that the waste for Solihull is going to increase by 52%. This suggests that any initiatives the government has, will fail, especially in Solihull.

1. Household waste increase by 25% equates to 13,000 new households, WHERE?
2. Commercial & industrial waste increase by 44% and Construction and demolition waste by 59%. WHERE?
I can only surmise that JLR will make up the majority of this increase in waste, and if so, why was the planned expansion agreed upon without a clause to manage waste responsibility.

Make the tip more effective where it is. Or move it to another part of the district.

Thought has not been given to the existing infrastructure. To overload an already overloaded area with more traffic, pollution (noise, light and air quality) would not make sense. The increase in JLR use of the land has already caused and will continue to cause problems for residents. The noise of the traffic, airport and JLR is disruptive and unfair. The smell of the proposed tip would make living in the area untenable.

Due to the inadequate information provided and the failure to consult on this proposal then the Plan should be confined to stating /justifying the need for improved waste/recycling facilities and then state what the identified options are, i.e. 1) alter existing site, 2) relocate to Damson Parkway (and identify exactly where) and 3) relocate to the other site the Council have referred to (the not preferred option) and identify where that site is. The plan should state what consultation will be undertaken in order to inform a decision as well as state what evidence base will be published prior to such consultation. No preference as to the solution should be expressed in the plan.

The proposed relocation of the Bickenhill tip is not legally compliant because this has not been consulted upon, this is the first time this proposal has been put into the public domain, so it does not comply with the statement of community involvement. No information about the alternative (but not preferred) site that it turns out has been considered and rejected have been provided, no details about the possibility of expansion of the current site have been provided. It is stated that there is sufficient space for queuing vehicles, but no evidence has been provided. Relocation of the site to land adjacent to Damson Parkway would significantly increase traffic/congestion on Damson Parkway, Damson Lane and Rowood Drive and at shift change times at JLR plus traffic from the new logistics facility would likely result in traffic gridlock. No traffic assessment/sustainability assessment appears to have been undertaken. Thus there is inadequate information provided/available to support the "exceptional circumstances to justify the the potential use of the site" as referred to in para 354.
Other options to co-operate with other local authorities, in particular Birmingham Council, have not been explored thus the duty to co-operate has not been met.

Removal from the plan of point 831. (As far as I can see, this is the only point mentioning relocating HWRC to Damson Parkway, but if there are any other mentions/references to this move, then these should also be removed).

A key enabler for effective engagement is community involvement in developing the plan and the planning process includes a commitment to notify interested stakeholders. The relocation of HWRC to Damson Parkway (831) was deliberately buried in the plan with the intent of discouraging community involvement (1218 people have now signed a petition opposing). Opportunities to brief interested stakeholders (i.e. local councillors), at the councillors briefing, were not used. Instead, UK2 was glossed over and this land described as allocated to JLR. There is no connection between HWRC and JLR, so this was deliberate misrepresentation of the intended changes.

See attached letter

Removal of the proposals to allow further expansion to JLR and more importantly, the relocation of HWRC

With reference to Paragraphs 105 and 831 Damson Parkway Area
I would ask that you remove the proposals for even more JLR expansion and the relocation of the HWRC to the above area.
There will be traffic chaos here, also offensive odours, and removal of green belt. We cannot sustain any more building or traffic in this area.
You have already refused airport parking behind the Kia garage, so a precedent of refusing Planning Permission in this area already exists
This area is a gateway to Solihull, and should be retained as "Urbs In Rure"

The proposed plan to move the Waste Management Centre closer to an area of residential housing needs to be totally reassessed.
The options which should be carefully examined are:
i) Expanding the current Bickenhill site which already meets existing traffic infrastructure requirements.
ii) Greater effort needs to be expended in identifying a suitable Brownfield site to prevent further encroachment onto our precious Green Belt land.

The proposed move of the Bickenhill Waste Centre closer to the recently built JLR Logistics Centre will undoubtedly add more vehicles to the already excessively high traffic volume A45 and surrounding roads.
It is totally unacceptable to consider moving a Waste Management function closer to the large residential area of Damsonwood and Damson Parkway.
It is yet another planned infringement on existing precious Green Belt land where the Council has already demonstrated its lack of care in its stewardship of local Green Belt land by permitting the hideous development of the JLR Logistics Centre at the Damson Parkway site.

The plan should remove any reference to the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot being moved from its present Bickenhill Site to Damson Parkway, and instead the plan should concentrate on how the Bickenhill site could be improved (better parking, access booking systems etc.).

Paragraph 831 - Reference to moving the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot from its present Bickenhill site to Damson Parkway is not legally compliant, or sound. A move is not justified on environmental grounds, and does not properly take account of the negative climate change / environmental impacts of an unnecessary move (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s. 19 (1A), nor the requirement for community involvement given the strong objections from the residents nearest to the proposed Damson Parkway site (s. 19 (3)). No evidence of co-operation with other agencies regarding this site move is provided.

The plan should remove any reference to the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot being moved from its present Bickenhill Site to Damson Parkway, and instead the plan should concentrate on how the Bickenhill site could be improved (better parking, access booking systems etc.).

Paragraph 105 - Reference to moving the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot from its present Bickenhill site to Damson Parkway is not legally compliant, or sound. A move is not justified on environmental grounds, and does not properly take account of the negative climate change / environmental impacts of an unnecessary move (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s. 19 (1A), nor the requirement for community involvement given the strong objections from the residents nearest to the proposed Damson Parkway site (s. 19 (3)). No evidence of co-operation with other agencies regarding this site move is provided.

The plan should remove any reference to the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot being moved from its present Bickenhill Site to Damson Parkway, and instead the plan should concentrate on how the Bickenhill site could be improved (better parking, access booking systems etc.).

Paragraph 105 - Reference to moving the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot from its present Bickenhill site to Damson Parkway is not legally compliant, or sound. A move is not justified on environmental grounds, and does not properly take account of the negative climate change / environmental impacts of an unnecessary move (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s. 19 (1A), nor the requirement for community involvement given the strong objections from the residents nearest to the proposed Damson Parkway site (s. 19 (3)). No evidence of co-operation with other agencies regarding this site move is provided.

The policy should remove any reference to the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot being moved from its present Bickenhill Site to Damson Parkway, and instead the plan should concentrate on how the Bickenhill site could be improved (better parking, access booking systems etc.).

Policy P12-para7 - Reference to moving the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot from its present Bickenhill site to Damson Parkway is not legally compliant, or sound. A move is not justified on environmental grounds, and does not properly take account of the negative climate change / environmental impacts of an unnecessary move (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s. 19 (1A), nor the requirement for community involvement given the strong objections from the residents nearest to the proposed Damson Parkway site (s. 19 (3)). No evidence of co-operation with other agencies regarding this site move is provided.

The plan should remove any reference to the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot being moved from its present Bickenhill Site to Damson Parkway, and instead the plan should concentrate on how the Bickenhill site could be improved (better parking, access booking systems etc.).

Paragraph 831 - Reference to moving the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Depot from its present Bickenhill site to Damson Parkway is not legally compliant, or sound. A move is not justified on environmental grounds, and does not properly take account of the negative climate change / environmental impacts of an unnecessary move (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s. 19 (1A), nor the requirement for community involvement given the strong objections from the residents nearest to the proposed Damson Parkway site (s. 19 (3)). No evidence of co-operation with other agencies regarding this site move is provided.

References to the relocation of the waste/recycling facility to Damson Parkway should be removed.

The "requirement" for relocated Depot and waste/recycling facility isn't justified, there is a need for improved waste/recycling facilities only. Joining these two together is a tactic to develop a requirement for a relocated waste/recycling facility rather than improve existing facilities. The hidden purpose of this is to t enable a re-location of Depot in order to release/sell Moat Lane site for housing. Relocation of the waste/recycling site to Damson Parkway hasn't been published before, it hasn't been consulted upon. No Information about options considered/alternative sites haven't been provided. Thus the plan is not sound and is not legally compliant

All references to the HWRC being moved to Damson Parkway need to be removed.
No consultation with Councillors or the public has taken place and 1,200 residents have signed a petition against plans so far.

- The proposal to move the HWRC to Damson Parkway has not been made public prior to this draft of local plan publication. Local Councillors were not notified or consulted, and neither was the public.
- Environmental Impact and Traffic Assessments have not been shared. I understand they have not been undertaken.
- This development would be close to housing and the Traveller Site. This is already an area of pollution concern and the new JLR LOC will add to traffic pollution. The HWRC will add more, contrary to national policy on pollution.
- Supporting evidence published after consultation started.