Q1. Do you agree that we've identified the right challenges facing the Borough? If not why not? Are there any additional challenges that should be addressed?

I think far to much emphasis is being placed on HS2, especially associated with housing growth. It is implied in the document that this will provide major benefits, I see no proof of this it is all supposition. In order for somebody to make use of HS2 and save 20 minutes they would have to travel a fair distance slowly via bus or train, it would be far easier to travel to Solihull station and use the existing train network to get to London or to Birmingham that way.

Additional challenges:
Spreading the required housing burden evenly across the whole borough rather than blighting key areas

I disagree. There is far too little emphasis on challenge E.Protection of Green Belt. Protection of Green Belt while also providing land for development is probably the most difficult challenge the Borough faces.

Also there is almost no mention of protecting and increasing access to the countryside in terms of footpaths and cycle tracks.

The green belt should still be protected, care taken to ensure nothing is built on flood plains. More cycling routes should be developed.

These challenges seem quite comprehensive but Challenge E is critical to preserving the character of Solihull. . It is how SMBC respond that will be the key to success.
Challenge J objectives could include the provision of safe cycle routes throughout the borough

see attached letter for full text . Generally supportive and the letter comments on each of the 23 questions.

Where I generally agree with most of the points highlighted in the consultation I do not agree with them all and post my concerns and suggestions.

Although there is reference to green infrastructure and infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of High Speed 2. There is no detail about the infrastructure, i.e, roads, doctors, schools etc required for the additional housing. This makes it difficult to make informed comments,

But we feel a major additional challenge is infrastructure.
Solihull MBC must ensure improved infrastructure addresses the increasing requirements of development and population growth in Balsall Common and Berkswell. In addition to the proposed massive increase in housing the area will be adversely affected by HS2 cutting the community in two.

there is no mention of provisional of healthcare or schooling while meeting these needs. should this not be an integral part of the plan?

I broadly agree with the challenges and objectives set out. However, many of them, such as health and education concerns relating to the people living in the North of the Borough are beyond the ability of the LPR to have any significant impact. "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink."
In our society, as it has developed, we can no longer accommodate free movement of travelers and gypsies.

The challenges listed are important.

An additional challenge should be specifically to ensure that development includes infrastructure needs to meet the growing population size

The impact of additional congestion on the local roads from the proposed new housing sites needs to be assessed. The internal roads within Dickens Heath are already experiencing congestion during peak hours in the morning and do not have the capacity to accommodate additional traffic from the proposed housing sites west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley. Proposed sites 12 and 11 would also worsen the existing congestion and cause traffic to back up into Dickens Heath.

I support the challenges identified but I consider that Challenge C (Conserving the qualities of the Mature Suburbs, rural settlements and characteristics of the wider rural area that make those places attractive areas to live) when the Council is completely going against the challenge by effectively destroying the character of Knowle village in seeking to develop 1,050 new homes in very close proximity to the village.

How can the Council rural area that make those places attractive areas to live; when it is seeking such unnecessary and inconserve the qualities of the Mature Suburbs, rural settlements and characteristics of the wider appropriate development.

No, Challenge J should include a specific Objective in terms of Sporting Activities/Sports Facilities, to give confidence that the Council does care about, and wishes to plan appropriately for, Sporting Activities in Solihull.

An appropriate Objective could be - 'Promote indoor and outdoor sporting activities, by supporting the provision of appropriate facilities and working with existing agencies, clubs and sports providers to maintain existing facilities and also, where existing facilities are lost to new development, seeking the provision of replacement facilities.'

Agree that sustaining the attractiveness of the Borough should be a priority but building on the greenbelt wont achieve this - should be a last - not first - option. I refer particularly to the development southwest of Balsall Common where not only are you not protecting gaps between urban areas and settlements but given the highly visible nature of the Frog Lane are detracting from it i don't see how you improving the health and wellbeing if you remove playing fields and allotments. The impacts of High Speed 2 to Basal are huge - will coincide with housing developments!

Challenge H

I recognise the need for more housing but none of this need can be sensibly met unless the approach to public transport around Solihull is bolder.

For example, Challenge H currently identifies the poor north-south public transport links, but why has this need been singled out when there is a massive need in the Knowle/Dorridge area? The challenge is therefore Solihull wide.

The draft Plan is proposing a further 1000 homes plus windfall homes in Knowle, and yet the plan does not include any specific proposals to address the lack of public transport. For context, the number of people using public transport, walking or cycling to work from Knowle is 15%. This is very low and mainly reflects the poor level of public transport in the area. The Plan assumes that people travelling from Knowle to the NEC/business park area and the new UK Central will be by car on the M42.

From 2000 until now, approximately 1000 new homes have been added in the Knowle area, but since that time bus service connectivity and frequency have reduced. Train services from Dorridge have not improved since 2000 with a number of trains no longer stopping at Dorridge station. These changes have meant that since 2000 most new households have had to travel by car, as noted above, whilst no improvements have been made to the road network in the area. The effect of these policies over many years is that traffic congestion is now the key issue in Knowle and Dorridge.

Yet, the Council is now proposing an additional 1000 homes for Knowle, but these developments must be supported by the necessary infrastructure. Appendix 1 identifies proposed infrastructure improvements very local to the new developments, whereas the issue is that the new householders will find it very difficult to get beyond their immediate locality to work, be it in Solihull, NEC, UK Central or anywhere else. This is because of the poor public transport and the restricted road infrastructure outside the immediate Knowle area. The scope of Appendix 1 is completely inadequate and should be expanded to show the wider infrastructure needs across Solihull.

To address the above issues, the Plan should include an ambitious public transport scheme, such as a new tram system, to provide high speed connections between Solihull, Knowle/Dorridge and the NEC/UK Central. Such a scheme will take some time to put in place, and therefore as an immediate and short-term solution a Park and Ride scheme must be implemented. As easy win would be to put a Park and Ride terminus adjacent to the proposed new M42 service station, with another terminus, for example, adjacent to the Windley Garden Centre on the Warwick Road.

As regards new roads/by-passes, the draft plan states that "The 2013 SLP concluded that the need to retain safeguarding of the lines was no longer justified. In relation to Hockley Heath and Knowle, there is nothing to suggest that this conclusion needs to be revisited." (Para 266). This is not correct. The statement in the 2013 SLP was made prior to the adoption of the proposed additional 1000 homes in Knowle and in the context of improvements to public transport services proposed at the time. Since that time, public transport services have in fact deteriorated and in the new draft plan the proposed public transport improvements are very limited and vague. Whilst I would much prefer a sound public transport solution as discussed above, past performance suggests that it is unlikely that public transport improvements will be delivered and therefore the Knowle by-pass cannot be dismissed until an ambitious public transport scheme (such as proposed above) has been approved and delivered.

Challenge J

Air quality is a massive challenge for Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath because of the fumes from the M42 and because of the emissions due to the high degree of congestion on local roads. This issue could be part of Challenge J, but it is so important I suggest it should be a separate challenge.

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

Balsall Common has grown hugely and is now planned to grow even further. Improving the centre should be one of the key challenges that the Council addresses.

I agree that the challenges listed are important but others are some missing. E.g. three important bottlenecks through the centre of Solihull. 1: The large car park on Monkspath Hall Road is used by traffic from the M42. A large scale car park is required that avoids clogging the road past St. Alphege, e.g. expand Mell Square car park across the Morrisons car park. 2: Sort the traffic in/out of Solihull School at peak times. 3: Sort out the roundabout by the train station.
There is no talk of future autonomous transport and more ideas needed on safer cycling.

see attached letter from agent

RESPONSES 1-YES
2-YES
Spatial Strategy
3- The size of the proposed developments around rural villages appears out of proportion to the size of the villages themselves. This is particularly exemplified in Balsall Common. The proposed by pass that would create an area of land between it and the A452 that would eventually be filled in with future housing developments.
The alternative options would be to concentrate future housing developments closer to the local areas of employment-JLR, Airport, NEC, Motor Cycle Museum, Birmingham Business Park and Hams Hall. There are sites available around Bickenhill, the junctions of the M6 AMD M42,Melbecks Garden Centre and even perhaps the site that was proposed for the new National Football Stadium before the new Wembley got the nod.
There are also areas around Water Orton and Coleshill which could be considered Sustainable Economic Growth
4-YES
5-YES
6-YES
7-YES
8-See previous answer to 3 9-YES
10-See previous answer to 3 PROVIDING HOUSES FOR ALL 11-YES
12-The principle of 50% affordable housing is laudable but judging by past local developments around Balsall Common this is never realised. The current Elysian Gardens Development is a case in point. The proportion of larger 2-5 bedroom detached houses always seem to dominate these development I suspect so the land owners and developers and landowners can maximise their profits.
13-No opinion
14-NO-Why should we have to take on a proportion of Birminghams number of development in the HMA. If you travel by train in from Berkswell to New Street their are plenty of unused brown field sites to be seen, are these not an option as green belt is cheaper to develop.
15-NO-Refer to answer to question 3.The main reason for the size of the "Barratts Farm" development appears to be to get funding from the developers to fund the proposed bypass to relieve congestion on the A452.As mentioned before this will inevitably lead to further infill development. The infrastructure of the village barely copes as it is, parking in the "thriving village centre" is already positively dangerous. Cars reverse out from both sides of the roads and there are frequents bumps and pedestrians being knocked over, I suspect a future fatality is inevitable.
16-As identified the infrastructure within Balsall Common is small. There is a lack of capacity at the primary and secondary schools. They are already over subscribed and have lack of space to expand into. Re-siting them would take them out of their central position where most pupils can walk to. If that were to happen additional school runs would be inevitable adding to the traffic congestion.
It is identified in the report that parking at the train station is inadequate, Hallmeadow road has become the unofficial overspill(part of the proposed bypass)
Extra parking is proposed but where. The only land by the existing car park is not being considered for the housing development because of recurrent flooding. As detailed in the report the number of car to house ratio at 1.6 is the highest in the borough so compounding the problem. As a regular cyclist I can assure you that adding cycle lanes on already narrow roads will not work.
The village centre is quoted as "thriving" in your report, the only useful development recently has been the addition of the Costa store where local people can meet up over coffee and socialise.
An obvious opportunity that has been lost is the development of the disused office block and
parking area for housing by the Co-op. This would have been an obvious site for a public funded facility for recreation and social needs-i.e. citizens advice, meeting area for the elderly/vulnerable and planned activities for the teenagers. Instead as before it has gone to the more profitable housing option. The village centre as it is has nowhere to expand to, and if moved would completely change the individuality of Balsall Common.
The only existing facility within the village that could cope with an increased local population is the new health centre. With an increase in patient number there will follow increased funding and an ability to employ more doctors and associated staff. The village badly needs a public funded development as previously mentioned that could provide recreational and social facilities
for the whole age range. The existing youth club is barely used for lack of activities leaving the streets and the park for the kids to fill their free time.
If the proposed developments do go ahead-3 in Balsall Common far more thought needs to be put into the impact they will have on theses small rural communities. The whole purpose of developing the concept of greenbelt and the greenbelt acts was to stop the creepage of large towns/cities into rural areas so they can keep their own unique character and charm. Increased urbanisation of the countryside between the cites of Birmingham and Coventry flies in the face of this agreed and accepted philosophy
17-YES
IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY AND ENCOURAGING SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL 18-YES
PROTECTING AND ENHANCING OUR ENVIRONMENT.
19-YES
PROMOTING QUALITY OF SPACE
20-YES
HEALTH AND SUPPORT OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
21-YES AND NO-There is an historic under funding of health care between Birmingham and Solihull as reflected by our local CCGs overspend and the combined Birmingham CCGs underspend. Perhaps this issue needs to be addressed at a Governmental level but it grates somewhat when we are expected to provide additional housing sites to make up for Birmingham's shortfall.
DELIVERING AND MONITORING 22-YES
ANY OTHER COMMENTS
23-I refer to my previous comments about the purpose of greenbelt and attach a document which I think is self explanatory.

see letter

with houses & jobs come families & children , Solihull schools are already oversubscribed, GP surgeries and hospitals beds full , how do the council propose finding places for the additional populus ?

Balsall Common should be included as a key centre if over 1000 new homes are to be built

One stated challenge is to retain the nature of the Borough.
A key challenge therefore is for the growth of the Borough to be managed:
*whilst keeping Balsall Common:a rural village
*& at the same time, improving the village centre
*& preventing its growth into a small commuter town
This growth trend must be stopped, because if not, the nature and character of Balsall Common WILL BE IRREVERSIBLY DAMAGED.

its an impossibility to answer just yes on no to such a long list of challenges. I object fundamentally to Solihull taking extra homes and eroding the Boroughs Green belt to accommodate birminghams shortfall.

Balsall Common village centre is highly congested and would benefit from reorganisation to improve access and the flow of traffic around the area.

Balsall Common needs a plan for it's centre now. If 1000 more homes are built it won't cope.

HS2 works coinciding with this scale of development will overwhelm local roads

Yes however in addition to the challenges indentified should be added:
Ensure the infrastructure is sufficient to meet the needs of the growing population