Foreword

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 57

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10648

Received: 27/11/2020

Respondent: Mrs Clare Davison

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Publicity for the consultation has been inadequate-I found out about it because I happened to walk past an A4 piece of paper stapled to a lamppost on a walk around my local area. As you rightly state, the plan is one of the most important proposals for the people of Solihull. More effort to obtain the views of residents should have been made. The plans will negatively impact the local environment, wildlife, house prices, infrastructure, traffic flow and the ability for people in Solihull to enjoy and benefit from green spaces.

Change suggested by respondent:

Advertise the consultation to the people of Solihull - ensure that all residents in areas surrounding proposed development sites are made aware of proposals and given the opportunity to respond. Rethink the links being made between HS2 and housing need in Solihull. Protect our green spaces, remaining ancient woodland and green belt land by not allowing it to be built on. Do not overdevelop existing villages with defined borders making them into large concrete extensions of Solihull. Protect the quality of life of the people who live in Solihull now.

Full text:

As a local resident, I only know about this consultation process because I happened to walk past a piece of paper attached to a lamp post on a walk down the canal. If I have just found out about these redevelopment plans that will have such a major impact on every resident in Shirley, and surrounding areas, I imagine other residents will also not be aware. This is not good enough. For consultation to be meaningful, all residents in affected areas should be made aware of the plans and given the chance to read and understand them and to give their feedback. 6 weeks is not enough time to do this and makes this consultations paper exercise-something that can be used to pay lip service to involvement if local communities without doing so in any meaningful way.

You identify the rural nature of Solihull as one of the factors making it a desirable place to live however this plan would concrete over an area in which houses are relatively (by Solihull standards) affordable (in comparison to for example Henley or Knowle) - is it less important for people in Shirley to access green spaces when so much of the green space in and around Shirley has already been built on?

There is also the issue of the North Solihull an area in massive need of re development.

Solihull Council should serve the needs of the people who live in Solihull now-not the needs of people who might want to move out of London because of HS2 and frankly not to serve the needs (and line the pockets) of housing development companies. To does not seem sensible to base projections of housing need around HS2 - a white elephant project for the elite - after employers and employees adjustments to remote working due to the coronavirus crisis, which are predicted to result in long term changes to working patterns and may well mean that need to travel down to London becomes obsolete.

Neighbouring areas will be negatively impacted by this massive expansion with increased traffic on roads not designed to accommodate heavy traffic flow, depreciation in value of houses where the value comes from their semi rural location, infrastructure is not in place to cater for a massive increase in population in Shirley and surrounding areas.

There are already new housing developments in Dickens Heath, Chiswick Green, Ilshaw Heath,Tidbury Green and Dog Kennel Lane. The proposed developments at Dickens Heath and between Cheswick Green and Shirley will effectively mean that Shirley, Cheswick Green, Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green will become one giant connotation with and sense of the current village nature of those places will be lost.

Your report acknowledges the ancient woodlands that much of Solihull is built on. The plan would decimate what is left in Shirley and Dickens Heath. The impact on local wildlife will be devastating and the environmental impact of nationwide encroachment on our protected green belt land will not be able to be mitigated by new planting.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10671

Received: 19/12/2020

Respondent: Mary Sullivan

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Amazed that the Council is submitting such plans in the midst of a Pandemic, which has highlighted
• The necessity of Greenspace for people's well-being and health;
• That the areas with the highest density of COVID 19 are densely populated towns and cities
• That greed should not be put before people's Health.
The people representing us are not and should speak the those they represent and consider our wellbeing.

Full text:

I am absolutely amazed that Councillors or Officers of the council are submitting such plans in the midst of a PANDIC. Has the PANDIC highlighted
• THE NECESSITITY OF GREEN SPACE FOR PEOPLES WELL BEING AND HEALTH
• THE AREAS OF THE COUNTRY WITH THE HIGHEST DENSITY OF COVID 19 IS DENSELY POPULATED TOWNS AND CITIES
• GREED SOULD NOT BE PUT BEFORE PEOPLES HEALTH
The people representing us are not and should speak the those they represent and consider our wellbeing.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10694

Received: 07/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Helen Bruckshaw

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The Forward mentions peoples wellbeing - having so many new homes in Shirley (between Bills Lane and Tanworth Lane) is not taking into consideration the wellbeing of existing or new residents. It is disproportionate for that area to have so many homes -congested roads, pollution, loss of green space etc will have a negative effect on wellbeing.

Change suggested by respondent:

The new properties should be shared out around the borough, it is disproportionate for the size and population of Shirley to have so many new homes.

Full text:

The Forward mentions peoples wellbeing - having so many new homes in Shirley (between Bills Lane and Tanworth Lane) is not taking into consideration the wellbeing of existing or new residents. It is disproportionate for that area to have so many homes -congested roads, pollution, loss of green space etc will have a negative effect on wellbeing.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10717

Received: 09/12/2020

Respondent: Mr John Lloyd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

- Lack of consultation by Solihull MBC with local residents
- Planned developments will result in overcrowding in an already densely populated area
- There will be increased air, noise and collateral pollution from traffic, houses and people at a time when the world is trying to reduce pollution
- The will be no enhancements to infrastructure nor provision for medical services, schools etc
- We are already over-burdened with supermarkets, superstores and garages and Shirley will become grid-locked as more and more people visit these sites

Change suggested by respondent:

- Cancel all future housing development in Shirley
- Enhance transport facilities and and increase road capacity in the area so as to reduce traffic congestion and pollution (e.g. around Dickens Heath)
- Prevent all further development of retail outlets in Shirley (e.g. the catastrophic Marks & Spencer's development) so as to reduce pollution and encourage local businesses
- Provide enhanced facilities to meet social demand (e.g. medical and educational)
- The centre of Solihull is dying due to the reckless development of retail outlets on the Stratford Road. This must be stopped
- Utilise 'brown-field' sites in central areas so as to redevelop retail outlets that are destined to close (e.g. M&S and Rackhams)

Full text:

- Lack of consultation by Solihull MBC with local residents
- Planned developments will result in overcrowding in an already densely populated area
- There will be increased air, noise and collateral pollution from traffic, houses and people at a time when the world is trying to reduce pollution
- The will be no enhancements to infrastructure nor provision for medical services, schools etc
- We are already over-burdened with supermarkets, superstores and garages and Shirley will become grid-locked as more and more people visit these sites

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10780

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The Local Plan has been prepared without consideration of the wider needs of the community in terms of appropriate allocation of land for sustainable employment provision closer to growth communities, provision of adequate land in appropriate locations for religious, cultural and social facilities, adequate positive protection for significant listed buildings and provision of country parks to redress the balance of loss of Green Belt land for housing and employment.

Change suggested by respondent:

Provision of employment land should be made in Knowle and Balsall Common, sites should be allocated in the urban area for expanding religious, social and cultural facilities, and Country Park should be allocated on land around the Berkswell Windmill and around the fringe of Solihull Town Centre at the Berry Hall estate or Council and at Widney Manor Road.

Full text:

The Local Plan has been prepared without consideration of the wider needs of the community in terms of appropriate allocation of land for sustainable employment provision closer to growth communities, provision of adequate land in appropriate locations for religious, cultural and social facilities, adequate positive protection for significant listed buildings and provision of country parks to redress the balance of loss of Green Belt land for housing and employment.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10971

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Neill Jongman

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I believe that the plans are being pushed through with haste, undercover of a global pandemic. I believe that the Shirley region has an unfair number of the allocation of houses. There is also a considerable number of retirement properties. I would like a priority to be placed on affordable houses - so the young people of the area can continue to live where they grew up. An increasing elderly population can put pressure on local services. There are also major environmental concerns with these plans.
I worry that the major beneficiary of this plan appears to be the developers.

Change suggested by respondent:

I would like to see these proposals incorporated into the plan.
The Regeneration of Chelmsley Wood
Making good use of the HS2 interchange site for housing
Prioritise the Solihull Town Centre Masterplan.

Full text:

I believe that the plans are being pushed through with haste, undercover of a global pandemic. I believe that the Shirley region has an unfair number of the allocation of houses. There is also a considerable number of retirement properties. I would like a priority to be placed on affordable houses - so the young people of the area can continue to live where they grew up. An increasing elderly population can put pressure on local services. There are also major environmental concerns with these plans.
I worry that the major beneficiary of this plan appears to be the developers.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10978

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Hatfield

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I cannot see any duty to co-operate with other areas. All the promises of protecting the Greenbelt and the Meriden Gap have been broken. Balsall Common will be destroyed by this plan. We are already dealing with the awful consequences to the environment of HS2. Our greenery and wildlife are disappearing before our eyes.
Over 31% of the new homes will be built in Balsall Common - totally disproportionate. New developments are better served by areas which are not reliant on vehicles. Over 84% of residents in Balsall Common have to drive outside of the area for work.

Change suggested by respondent:

I do not believe that all of the brownfield options have been utilised. The area at the HS2 Interchange station is capable of taking far more than the 500 homes suggested. We know that more housing is required, but we are taking way more than our fair share. Why is site BC1 in the Meriden Gap so desirable? The site has a multitude of landowners, all with their own agenda, whereas Grange Farm only has one owner - namely L & Q (owners of Gallagher Estates). Sadly, I personally feel that Solihull have only discounted this site as Gallagher originally took the Council to court over the 2013 plan. This site could probably be also developed earlier than BC1 as it is not in such close proximity to HS2

Full text:

I cannot see any duty to co-operate with other areas. All the promises of protecting the Greenbelt and the Meriden Gap have been broken. Balsall Common will be destroyed by this plan. We are already dealing with the awful consequences to the environment of HS2. Our greenery and wildlife are disappearing before our eyes.
Over 31% of the new homes will be built in Balsall Common - totally disproportionate. New developments are better served by areas which are not reliant on vehicles. Over 84% of residents in Balsall Common have to drive outside of the area for work.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11086

Received: 15/12/2020

Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Proposals Map -
We would also request that Nature Reserves and Potential Local Wildlife Sites are included on the proposals map.

Change suggested by respondent:

the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust would also request that Nature Reserves and Potential Local Wildlife Sites are included on the Policies Map.

Full text:

See Attached Word doc.

Attachments:

Support

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11127

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Natural England

Representation Summary:

We welcome reference to the importance of and need for quality ‘blue and green infrastructure’ up front. Now more than ever, in light of climate change targets and the aspirations of Defras 25 Year Environment Plan (25YEP), the need for improved biodiversity protection and enhancement needs to take its place at the heart of a strategic plan and indeed, embedded throughout relevant themes to secure its delivery.

Full text:

See Attached Letter.

Attachments:

Support

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13709

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

Sustainability Appraisal -
The EA have reviewed the Sustainability Appraisal undertaken by aecom (October 2020) and have no concerns we wish to raise.

Full text:

See Attached Letter.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13745

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Relates to Masterplan Document - The status of the masterplan document is ambiguous. It should be made clear that the concept masterplans are an integral part of the Local Plan and that adherence to key principles will be required; also, that only minor changes are envisaged in the future.
Essential matters and key principles of development should be clearly stated requirements and distinguished from any material that might be illustrative.
Densities differ between what is contained in the MP document and table at para 240 of the LP.

Change suggested by respondent:

Modifications as proposed in the representations for the Concept Masterplan document which include:
- Clarification that the document forms an integral part of the Local Plan, are not illustrative and subject to only minor change.

Full text:

See attachments.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13749

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Under all of the Options in the Sustainability Appraisal where the UK Central Hub is identified as part of the supply it is for 1,500 dwellings. This is not consistent with the draft plan which identifies the capacity for 2,240 dwellings.

Full text:

Hello,

Please find attached forms and a letter of representations on behalf of Heyford Developments in relation to their site at Old Station Road, Hampton-in-Arden.

Regards,

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13762

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We object to the approach for the new Sports Hubs which are required in five locations across the Borough to deal with replacement/new provision. It is not clear whether the land is available to deliver these hubs, or the cost and timing of when they will be delivered.

Change suggested by respondent:

The draft Plan should state what mitigation is required and how it can be delivered, with support from the evidence base.

Full text:

Hello,

Please find attached forms and a letter of representations on behalf of Heyford Developments in relation to their site at Old Station Road, Hampton-in-Arden.

Regards,

Attachments:

Support

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13802

Received: 22/01/2021

Respondent: Dickens Heath Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Dickens Heath Parish Council has established a positive and ongoing dialogue with Solihull Planners throughout the process and participated throughout in the consultation process & is comfortable with the level of consultation that has taken place.
DHPC does not raise objection to the legality, soundness or the details arising from the duty to co-operate within the Housing Market Area.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13806

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Define Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The plan does not allow for a simple and enforceable interpretation, contrary to Paragraph 16d of the National Planning Policy Framework. Longer policies should be separated by topic to ensure they are not too lengthy. For example Policy P5 relates to several key issues within one policy which is not suitable- numerous policies would be more effective.

Change suggested by respondent:

A review of the policies and supporting text should be carried out, with specific consideration of the policies’ interpretation for development management purposes.

Full text:

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find attached representations submitted on behalf of William Davis Ltd (WDL) in relation to their site at Land off Old Station Road, Hampton in Arden in response to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council’s Draft Submission Plan Consultation. This submission takes the form of the attached multiple submission response form (Document Ref. 'Solihull R19 Plan Representations - Define Planning and Design obo William Davis Ltd - Land off Old Station Road, Hampton in Arden (083 MR 141220)' that sets out WDL’s position in relation to the Draft Submission Plan and the policies set out within, as well as the associated Vision Document that is referred to within those representations (Document Ref. '083 Land off Station Road, Hampton in Arden Vision Document RS').

I would be most grateful if you could confirm safe receipt of this email and its attachments by return email.

Kind regards

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13840

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Kler Group - Gentleshaw Lane

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There is a contradiction in terms in paragraph 243. ‘Piecemeal’ means piece by piece, one piece at a time. However, it is important is that there is a unifying approach to the bringing forward of an allocation and that one piece does not prejudice the delivery of another piece.
The Council recognises that an allocation can come forward in phases indicating an acceptance to a piece by piece approach (which is better characterised as a coordinated phased approach); it is the coordination of the bringing forward of pieces which is critical to the successful delivery of an allocation.
In this context, concept master plans are only one way in which an allocation can be brought forward piece by piece provided that there is a demonstration that they will not prejudice the delivery of the remainder.

Change suggested by respondent:

Paragraph 243 should remove reference to the word ‘piecemeal’.
The paragraph should also be modified to make clear that concept master plans are only one way in which the Council’s objectives in relation to a joint and coordinated approach on the delivery of an allocation can be realised.

Full text:

See attached documents

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13880

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Councillor A Hodgson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

My final concern is that there are mainly inaccuracies within the issued Local Plan.

Full text:

Please accept below my response to the Local Plan Review Consultation.

My initial comment is that distribution of new housing in the Borough is biased towards two geographic areas resulting in 31% of the total being proposed in the Balsall Common area within the Meriden ward and 39% within the Shirley South and Blythe ward areas that are geographically adjacent. The majority of the land involved is within the Green Belt. The Shirley South site is site 11 within the previous iteration of the Local Plan document, which is in the process of being built.
There are proposals included in other wards which are not particularly significant in terms of housing numbers and consequent impact on those local areas.
The document refers to proposed housing provision within Solihull town centre and the Arden Cross and National Exhibition areas adjacent to the proposed HS2 railway station. No numbers are provided within the current iteration of the Local Plan document for either of these locations. This is a significant omission from this version of the document as it means that inclusion of the detail for these sites could take a significant amount of pressure off the areas detailed above and reduce the amount of Green Belt that is currently committed within the document.
A further significant impact of the proposals is the situation regarding local school places at the primary level. This is a particular issue within the Blythe ward area. Primary schools exist at Cheswick Green, Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green. All are currently single form entry with nursery units. The sites in the Local Plan document within the catchment areas of these schools are BL1 in Dickens Heath, BL2 at Dog Kennel Lane and BL3 also in Dickens Heath. Two sites currently being built which have an impact are site 11 from the previous iteration of the Local Plan and a further development at the Blythe Valley Business Park site.
Dickens Heath school is single form entry with no scope for expansion. Both Cheswick Green and Tidbury Green primary schools are in the process of being extended to two form entry. A further two form entry primary school is proposed as part of site BL2.
My main concern regarding primary level schooling in the area is that the increased number of houses will generate significant traffic level increases in the surrounding area on what are already busy roads with some effectively being country lanes. This will also significantly increase already high traffic pollution during school drop off and pick up periods. This will have an impact on the Council’s developing Net Zero Carbon plan.
Congestion is already a problem around both Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green schools as there is no off road parking provision at those two locations.
Another concern is that the Local Plan proposals in its current form will add to the existing significant pressures on the local health service provision. There are no documented proposals to enhance the existing local health service provisions to support the increased number of residents.
The proposals also cause merging of the existing settlements within Blythe ward.
Potential flooding in the area is also a concern. Rainfall run off from the sites discussed feed into the river Cole to the north and the river Blythe to the south. The river Cole impacts on roads within Shirley West ward, particularly Nethercote Gardens. The area has suffered from two one in a hundred years flooding incidents within the last 15 years. The river Blythe impacts on Cheswick Green village In Blythe ward and the lower part of the village has also been impacted by two one in a hundred years flooding incidents within the last 15 years.
The proposed local plan does not conform totally with the sentiments of the National Planning Policy Framework which contends that brown field sites should be considered ahead of Green Belt land for housing. The Arden Cross area and Solihull town centre fall into this category and their use to support housing should be considered ahead of use of Green Belt land.
The climate change agenda suggests that locations for housing should be sustainable and not car dependant. Within Blythe ward all roads are very busy and not conducive the cycling and walking. Local bus services are infrequent and follow circuitous routes which are not conducive to encouraging large numbers of users. Consequently there is a high dependency on the use of private cars in all of the settlements within the area. The proposed developments will only make the current situation worse with consequential increase in local pollution.
There is no defensible boundary identified between site BL2 and Cheswick Green village.
My final concern is that there are mainly inaccuracies within the issued Local Plan.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13935

Received: 13/12/2020

Respondent: Councillor T Hodgson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Consultation process:
- Plan rushed through
- Inadequate timescale for public consultation, especially in view of the Covid-19 pandemic, e.g. Traditional outreach methods, like public meetings, not possible.
- Opposition councillors unanimously backed extensions to consultation, but all requests at Full Council on 08.10.20 and 06.12.20 denied.
- Residents reported numerous difficulties in accessing online forms, many been excluded from consultation, in particular the digitally excluded.
- Documents in support of Plan were uploaded after 30th October, some alterations in final week of consultation, should have extended timescales to accommodate this.
- Disproportionate number of documents were uploaded in October, thereby a limited window to review documents.

Full text:

See attached letter.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13945

Received: 13/12/2020

Respondent: Councillor T Hodgson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Conclusion:
- Like all Opposition Councillors, I voted against this plan when it came to the Full Council meeting on 6 October 2020.
- Consider Plan does not meet the needs of the whole Borough
- Plan sacrifices Green Belt, which could be avoided
- Disproportionate housing numbers in Shirley/Blythe and Balsall Common area; insufficient homes elsewhere
- Inadequate infrastructure to support growth
- Objections raised by residents, opposition Councillors, Parish Councillors and other third parties ignored
- Consultation not inclusive.

Full text:

See attached letter.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13966

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Climate Change Agenda
- Welcome that Solihull MBC has declared a climate emergency on 8th October 2019, and committed its support for UK’s 100 Net Zero Local Leadership Club.
- Since Climate Change declaration, how many planning applications have been passed which do not show enough ambition? Conditions should be used to enable more progress across Borough on climate change action.
- Numerous statements in plan on reducing and minimising carbon emissions, however huge growth planned will increase emissions significantly.
- Many of the infrastructure projects will use huge amount of concrete. How are these emissions assigned within Borough’s plans and climate objectives?
- What are climate implications of airport operations?
- How does local plan fit with Climate Emergency Statement of Intent of 19th October 2019?
- NPPF could and should go further in addressing climate change.
- Has SMBC considered adopting the UN Sustainable Development goals as part of its local plan?

Full text:

See Attached letter.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13971

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Concept Masterplans:
- Concept Masterplans appear largely to have been provided by developers. Some, particularly those in less accessible location, designed on traditional cul-de-sac, car orientated basis.
- Design features should embed sustainable travel and favour reduction in CO2 emissions. Needs to be in individual [site] policies, especially if Planning White Paper proposals are carried forward, which will reduce opportunities for input post Plan adoption.
- Limited services on edge of settlements. Will new services be provided on sites?

Full text:

See Attached letter.

Attachments:

Support

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13976

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Transport for the West Midlands

Representation Summary:

- Transport for West Midlands (TfWM) – the transport arm of the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) is in support of the Solihull Local Plan (Publication Stage) overall. We feel engagement has been undertaken and overall the plan is in alignment with our overall transport policies.
- TfWM do not object to the Solihull local plan and are very supportive of the plans vision and key objectives.
- TfWM would like to work closely with SMBC and developers as site progress through planning system.
- However, we feel there are areas where minor modifications could be made, to strengthen the active travel and sustainable transfer offer, to ensure the plan is sound and fully compliant with our wider policy objectives as a Combined Authority.

Full text:

See Attached Letter and Representation Form.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14262

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Local Plan consultation process has been highly problematic and should have been extended. It has been rushed which has resulted in errors and issues.
• There were grounds for extending the duration of consultation beyond the minimum 6-week period, like other local authorities.
• COVID19 has caused disruptions to the circulation of local newspapers which is the primary means of communication on planning matters.
• Many of the supporting documents were uploaded immediately prior to consultation or afterwards which is not best practice.
• There were errors in the evidence base documentation such as the date of reports and broken links and missing files.
• The administration claimed that “there’s nothing new here” in the Plan which is misleading and jeopardises residents having their say.
• Many respondents have had difficulties using the consultation portal.
• It is poor procedure that the automated response from psp@solihull.gov.uk stated that if respondents didn’t reference page and paragraph numbers their responses would be discarded.
• The dates of when files were uploaded have not been provided which has hampered the ability to respond meaningfully.
• No date of publication was agreed by Full Council or Cabinet after the decision to approve publication.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14273

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

No sources or dates are stated for the data in the infographic on pg.2

It is incorrect to state ‘It wouldn’t be a local plan if it didn’t have difficult decisions to make’ as the plan doesn’t make decisions, elected members do.

The plan does not significantly boost the supply of homes for all, it does disproportionately for some, but not for others.

The plan is incompatible with the Climate Emergency and the pledges that the Council has made.

It is untrue to state there were no other options than the loss of Green Belt land. Some alternatives suggested have not been included or discarded.

Materials and construction methods account, disproportionately, for CO2 emissions of housing over the first 50 years of their use. There are no policy requirements on the climate impact of housing, meaning the Council will be unable to refuse applications that cause considerable harm to the environment.

Solihull Council’s target to be ‘net carbon zero’ is 2030. This is the West Midlands Combined Authority target.

Land at Arden Cross is not being maximised for housing, with some benefits not being realised and greater car dependency.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14286

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: L&Q Estates - Land at Four Ashes Road Dorridge

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Duty to Cooperate Comments - No information on any agreement reached on key strategic matters with partner local authorities or key stakeholders. No Statements of Common Ground are evident. No evidence of why the figure of 2000 has been arrived at.
Statements of Common Ground should be readily available showing that partner authorities are in agreement with any approach being undertaken. The apparent lack of these at this present time is a major issue and implies that there is no agreement. The approach taken by Solihull appears to contradict the approach taken by other LPAs within the HMA who have advanced local plan reviews. This needs to be explored in detail as there are major implications for the plan’s legal compliance otherwise.

Full text:

See attachments.

Land at four ashes road dorridge

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14340

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Mark Taft

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

• There seems to be no sustainable assessments contained in the plan.

Full text:

Draft Solihull Local Plan Response - objections and points to be considered

From Mark Taft Dec 2020
44 Langocmb road
Shirley , Solihull
West Midlands B90 2PR


• 5 % of green belt to be built on when there are other options
• Only 3000 housed planed for development on Hs2 Site - Could be treble this number.
• Not only helping to mitigate the road traffic congestion, but also saving valuable green belt, providing breathing space in the Blyth valley areas
• Little housing allowance has been considered in Solihull town Centre, where unwanted office accommodation could be repurposed.
• Little housing allowance has been considered in Chemsley wood area, which is classed as an urban renewal area and has better transport links.
• Site BL3 is designated as green belt of the highest value – why is it being built on?
• Doctors Services in Shirley are already not coping due to the high number of retirement home projects; indirectly causing doctors surgery’s to become unviable business units.
• Roads are already to capacity, making too difficult to get to the M42 for work travel.
• Houses are being built close to the Windmill in Balsall Common, a national monument. The outlook and site should be cherished not trashed by excessive building development.
• Blyth valley area is a known flood plain on mainly clay soil, while little of no recognition of this is given in the plan.
• Solihull should not have extra houses from Birmingham – this has not properly been addressed.
• National government guidelines state that Natural wildlife sites should have interconnecting routes, so why is site BL3, Bl2 allowed to be included.
• Alternate locations such as the Tisbury green golf course should be considered as its nearer the Station, and would allow preservation of the gaps between Shirley , Dickens heath and Cheswick green.
• There seems to be no sustainable assessments contained in the plan.
• On page 180 of the plan, it states it is expecting addition traffic to be feed through Haslucks green road and Bills lane. This is already highly congested already it is difficult to leave the local estates to get to work in the morning.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14346

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Paula Pountney

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

• I do not consider 6 weeks consultation to have been enough time for the public to have had time to adequately study the plan and it has very unfairly been pushed through under the cover of the pandemic. It’s almost like a smokescreen and other Councils have given people much longer to state their opinions and this can only be detrimental to Shirley!
• It’s really difficult to comprehend why the Developers have so much power over Councils to force development on the Green Belt? Shirley has 3 Green Party Councillors acting on our behalf that are opposed to so much development, particularly on the Green Belt in Shirley. Surely, in a democracy they should have a great deal of influence, after being voted for by the people of Shirley? How can Solihull Council impose this plan and believe it is fair and equitable to the already wonderful town of Shirley?

Full text:

Draft Solihull Local Plan Consultation Response – Objections and points to be considered.
From Paula Pountney -
44 Langcomb Road,
Shirley,
Solihull,
West Midlands, B90 2PR 10.12.2020

With reference to the above, I understand that one of the main objectives and directives of the plan is to distribute development throughout the borough which is clearly not the case in this plan, as 39% is disproportionately designated to Shirley, with at least 5% being on the green belt.
• There has been a huge amount of development in the Blythe area already in the last 5 – 8 years and a significant amount more than elsewhere, is being planned additionally and this fact seems to have been disregarded.
• Site BL3 is designated as highest value green belt so why build there, when there are clear alternative options?
• Site BL1 is not sustainable, with the only advantage being it is near to Whitlocks End Railway Station. It is wholly inappropriate because it is very high grade green belt land around Dickens Heath rated 7 and 8 status and should have been a red site on the very first round of sustainability appraisals. I understand that The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England has stated that in paragraph 11B of the National Policy Framework because the site has very high areas of ecological value, including at least 4 nature reserves very nearby and a high flood risk, the constraints are proven to be so bad, it’s justified that this land should not be included for development.
• National government guidelines state that Natural Wildlife sites should have interconnecting routes, so why is site BL3 and BL2 included in the plan?
• Why have only such a small number of dwellings - in the region of 3000, been designated for the HS2 site, when it could easily accommodate three times that number? It would be a much superior option with great transport links, job opportunities and much less environmental damage.
• Regeneration in Chelmsley Wood - which appears to have little housing allowance being considered for the town, which is classed as an urban renewal area. This would be a much more appropriate area for extra development environmentally and for future sustainability.
• As previously recorded at the Council, the Solihull Town Centre Masterplan should be brought forward including many suggestions made several years ago. Following the very sad demise of Shops such as those in the Arcadia Group and also soon to be closed - House of Fraser, much of the redundant shop and office space could be re-developed for housing accommodation. It’s a stark fact that since the pandemic, many more people work from home and much of the structure of people’s lives have completely changed and this alone should be a critical reason for the overhaul of the whole plan.
• Alternative locations – such as the Tidbury Green Golf Course Site should be strongly considered as it’s nearer the Railway Station, and would allow preservation of the gaps between Shirley, Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green, preventing coalescence of areas.
• Why have the Council not agreed to these suggestions, in order to protect the majority of the sites on the greenbelt? More importantly, the kind of homes that are most needed, in locations that promote sustainable travel.
• Loss of vast amounts of sports grounds/playing fields with no mention of where all this valuable resource could be re-located? This would result in a loss of health and well-being to the community, which would be a total disgrace!
• The pandemic has had a drastic effect on Doctors Services already completely stretched and failing to keep pace with current demand. This is due partly to the existing retirement and extra care facilities, with more to follow. We know that there is an ageing population and the demographic is 30% higher in this area than the national average. This presents a massive challenge to existing services and should be acknowledged and mitigated by the plan. This has not been addressed, as far as I understand.
• I believe that there has been no extra provision for Hospitals, Dentists and other services featured in the plan. Infrastructure investment has not been clarified and the mechanisms designed to ensure Developers pay fair costs have not been outlined. The consequences of this could be disastrous, as future health and wellbeing have not been addressed. It should be mandatory, in my opinion that Developers are held to scrutiny regarding the protection and enhancement of high quality health and social care Services.
• Roads will be totally gridlocked in Shirley. The traffic is already to utmost capacity, resulting in even more air pollution and noise. This will really exacerbate problems to access the M42. It is also a really terrible idea for additional traffic to be fed through Bills Lane and Haslucks Green Road, which is already highly congested at peak times.
• The Blythe Valley is a well-known flood plain on mainly clay soil, while little or no recognition of this is mentioned in the plan. We are worried about the risk of flooding at the bottom of Bills Lane and Haslucks Green Road, as it is already prone to flood round this area. Will the Council and Developers compensate for any future damage done, as it’s a big risk?
• Solihull should not have to take an extra 2000 houses from the Greater Birmingham area. Andy Street has overseen a lot of development in the centre of Birmingham on derelict and brown field sites and they have brought in an extra £434million to clean up these sites for homes and businesses, easing pressure on Green Belt sites.
• I have been directly advised by Andy Street’s office that Solihull Council are working hard to get a Local Plan in place to provide a safeguard to communities across the borough against a barrage of speculative and unwelcome planning applications. The email stated that the Council have been determined to maximise the use of sites like UK Central and Solihull Town Centre to ease the pressure on the Green Belt Sites. The email states that there is a genuine and serious attempt to meet the challenge and he will continue to work with the Council to do whatever he can to help them in their ambition to defend the Green Belt.
• Is this truthfully the case? As I mentioned earlier in the point about building more development in Solihull town centre, Chelmsley Wood and UK central, why can this not be undertaken before the undesirable outcome of building on the precious Green Belt?
• This plan should be considered unsound as due diligence does not appear to have been carried out on analysing sustainability of the individual sites.
• I do not consider 6 weeks consultation to have been enough time for the public to have had time to adequately study the plan and it has very unfairly been pushed through under the cover of the pandemic. It’s almost like a smokescreen and other Councils have given people much longer to state their opinions and this can only be detrimental to Shirley!
• It’s really difficult to comprehend why the Developers have so much power over Councils to force development on the Green Belt? Shirley has 3 Green Party Councillors acting on our behalf that are opposed to so much development, particularly on the Green Belt in Shirley. Surely, in a democracy they should have a great deal of influence, after being voted for by the people of Shirley? How can Solihull Council impose this plan and believe it is fair and equitable to the already wonderful town of Shirley?
• Finally, please re-consider this contentious, unfair, unfinished plan adversely affecting Shirley. If continued, it will be a drastic legacy for the Council which will ruin the character and identity of Shirley.
Thank you
Regards

Paula Pountney

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14359

Received: 05/12/2020

Respondent: Geoffrey Ward

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I would like you to understand that the consultation time offered by the council for the local population to acquire, digest, read, comprehend and react to the Local Plan is far too short. The entire plan contains over 10,500 pages with 30% being added on October 30th, the first day of the consultation period. To be given only six weeks to formulate a response is far too short a time.

Full text:

f.a.o. Spatial Planning
LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION RESPONSE
I would like you to understand that the consultation time offered by the council for the local population to acquire, digest, read, comprehend and react to the Local Plan is far too short. The entire plan contains over 10,500 pages with 30% being added on October 30th, the first day of the consultation period. To be given only six weeks to formulate a response is far too short a time.
It is acknowledged that the population of the U.K. is ageing but within Solihull, over 65’s make up 21% of the population and it has been said that they will number more than 50,000 by 2035.
Shirley has a 30% higher level of older people than the national average.
In recent years and indeed to date, Shirley has taken more than its fair share of retirement and care homes in comparison to the rest of Solihull. This has had a marked impact on Shirley as residents in these kinds of properties have particular needs and demands on local services, many of which are unable to cope at today’s levels of demand. Doctors are struggling, indeed at least one new care home is unable to find a local surgery at which to register its residents. Care services are well over subscribed in the area and south Solihull now has no primary care facility. Adding to the housing aimed at older people will only make matters worse. If these agencies are struggling now, what will be the impact of building even more homes in the area?
Of all the new housing proposed for the borough of Solihull more than 39% is planned to be in Shirley. This does not include the homes already completed such as those on what was the Powergen site and other windfall developments. If the proposed plans go ahead then much of the greenbelt land between Shirley, Cheswick Green and Dickens Heath will be lost forever.
Since the pandemic has closed so many shops and offices generally, I would question the need for so many extra new houses on virgin land. The empty / unused buildings could be repurposed for joint domestic / commercial use thus saving the greenbelt and keeping town centres alive.
No matter how much developers advocate that public transport is the way forward, and that narrow roads and little off road parking are a sign of the future, public transport in Shirley, away from the Stratford Road, is generally poor. The railway stations that serve the area are not easily accessed by road, pedestrian footpath or cycleway
Dickens Heath was built on the premise that the residents would be dissuaded by limiting the number of parking areas, garages and spaces not need to use cars and would instead, use public transport. The public transport in the area is so poor that most families in the village own at least two cars and there is a huge parking problem. The existing road system in and around Shirley is already far too congested. Access to the major routes such as the Stratford Road, the Alcester Road, the M42 and M40 are extremely busy now. Many more houses in the area would completely gridlock the road system.
Much of Shirley is built on clay and there is a considerable amount of local flooding, the newer areas of housing to be built have had to have ponds / pools incorporated in order to contain excess water, I understand this to be called SUDS (sustainable drainage system) and seems to be developer’s favoured way of overcoming the problem of flooding. These pools / ponds do not add to the attractiveness of a development being filled with reeds or similar and they are a danger, particularly to young children.
Speaking of children, there is one primary school planned in the development and not a single secondary school. The proposed homes will attract families and families mean children. Where are they meant to travel to for their education given the poor transport system already mentioned and the lack of access to get to bus stops or the stations? Schools, doctors, chemists, shops are more than a convenient walk away and generally will rely on existing narrow twisty country lanes many of which have no pedestrian footpaths. The distances involved are in many cases too far and too dangerous for mums with pushchairs and young children to negotiate. As there is only one primary school and no proposed secondary school many parents will have to transport their children by car. The only other alternative would be to cycle but the roads are too narrow and will have an undisputed inherent extra amount of traffic on them.
I understand that the average selling price of a new home proposed to be built on the various sites in Shirley will be over £340 000 meaning the developers will get a return of over £800 000 per acre, a far larger amount than they would make if they were to made to redevelop brown field or windfall sites which is what they should be encouraged to do as most of the required basic infrastructure is already paid for and in place.
I understand that people need homes but Shirley is being tasked with far more development than is fair or sensible, Chelmsley Wood is being regenerated, more homes could be built there where generally the infrastructure is already designed and existing, the new Arden development at the HS2 interchange can take more development of suitable homes not only the unaffordable ones that the developers are forcing on Shirley.
I feel that the Local Plan is being pushed through under cover of the pandemic with not enough time allowed for the general public to have their say. For the above reasons, I would like to register my objections to it.
Geoffrey Ward

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14465

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Spelling/Grammar Errors-
- Repetition at para 10 as it states- ‘capitalise on maximising’.
- Spelling error at para 18- should be brought not bought.
- Spelling error at pg.16 bullet point 3 – should be from not for.
- Para 44 (first sentence) does not make grammatical sense. Changing “will” to “aims to be” would be appropriate.
- For clarity Para 71 should refer to ‘Information Communication Technology’ not ‘ICT’.
- Policy P2 Criteria 3 iii – change ‘forecast’ to ‘forecasted’.
- Policy P2 Criteria 3 iv- change ‘mode’ to ‘modal’.
- Policy P2 Criteria 3 v- change ‘street’ to ‘streets’.
- Policy P2 Criteria 3 v- commas required ‘attractive active frontages which encourage vibrant and active street life and create’.
- Policy P2 Criteria 3 vi- change ‘creating legible’ to ‘creating a legible’.
- Policy P2 Criteria 10- remove erroneous ‘f’.
- Para 116 bullet point 2- change ‘competitive socialising’ to ‘Leisure and entertainment’.
- Policy P3 Criteria 3- missing bracket. Additional bracket to be added after the addition of "where appropriate, waste management".
- Policy P10 Criteria 14- errant full stop.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14499

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Rosconn Strategic Land

Agent: DS Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

With this uncertainty and wide variation in figures and even accepting that Solihull is confirming that a contribution will be made to the shortfall there appears to be no confirming documentary evidence that Solihull’s figures have been agreed by the HMA authorities and that Solihull has met its duty to cooperate either in its evidence base or confirmed within the DSP

Full text:

See attached form and written representations

Attachments: