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?
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1668
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Judith Parry-Evans
Challenge E: by proposing housing development on the east side of Balsall Common this narrows the green belt between Balsall Common and Coventry to a far greater extent than if development took place to the north, west or south of the settlement where the distance to Knowle would remain significant.
Challenge N: construction of HS2 and establishment of construction service area is planned 2017/8 - 2025/6. This timing will co-incide with proposed Barratt's Farm development and use of Hallmeadow Road, A452, Kelsey Lane/Waste Lane. This could cause major community disruption and difficulty and needs addressing.
Challenge E: by proposing housing development on the east side of Balsall Common this narrows the green belt between Balsall Common and Coventry to a far greater extent than if development took place to the north, west or south of the settlement where the distance to Knowle would remain significant.
Challenge N: construction of HS2 and establishment of construction service area is planned 2017/8 - 2025/6. This timing will co-incide with proposed Barratt's Farm development and use of Hallmeadow Road, A452, Kelsey Lane/Waste Lane. This could cause major community disruption and difficulty and needs addressing.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1669
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Linda Homer
Challenge K - 'Protecting and enhancing our natural assets' should give equal weighting to the natural environment that borders Shirley. We have lost too many of these areas already and important areas for wildlife in Shirley should be maintained.
Challenge E - 'Protecting key gaps between urban areas and settlements' is not being followed in allocations for Shirley.
Under "Challenge K - Protecting and enhancing our natural assets" I was disappointed to see that there isn't equal weighting given to the natural environment that borders Shirley. Allocation 13 is an area of biodiversity and habitat of value, an important area for local wildlife in Shirley. We have lost too many of these areas already.
Challenge E - Protecting key gaps between urban areas and settlements.
Building houses on Allocation 13 is contrary to the objectives of this challenge. I live in Shirley South adjacent to the Green Belt and can testify to the biodiversity that still exists in this area and the benefits it brings to the local residents and the area.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1695
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Andrew Baynes
There is nothing about sustaining or promoting architectural excellence. The quality of the built environment will become ever more important as the volume of it increases. The plan shows that landmark buildings (e.g. the TRW building) will be demolished - there is nothing to suggest that architectural merit will be a consideration in any form for its replacement. The Parkgate development suggests that Solihull is happy to promote profit at the expense of any kind of distinctive architecture.
I have nothing about sustaining or promoting architectural excellence. The quality of the built environment will become every more important as the volume of it increases. The plan shows that landmark buildings (e.g. the TRW building) will be demolished - there is nothing that suggests that architectural merit will be a consideration in any form for its replacement. The Parkgate development suggests that Solihull is happy to promote profit at the expense of any kind of distinctive architecture.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1721
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Bolette Neve
I agree with the challenges identified. It is essential to keep green spaces allowing for safe places for children to play and go for walks. Currently the Kenilworth Greenway is under threat because of HS2. The Barrett's Farm land is essential for families on the Berkswell side of Balsall Common and is used by all for dog walking and weekend walks.
I agree with the challenges identified. It is essential to keep green spaces allowing for safe places for children to play and go for walks. Currently the Kenilworth Greenway is under threat because of HS2. The Barrett's Farm land is essential for families on the Berkswell side of Balsall Common and is used by all for dog walking and weekend walks.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1734
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Natural England
Natural England broadly agrees with the challenges your authority has identified as facing Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council.
Natural England broadly agrees with the challenges your authority has identified as facing Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1735
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Jennie Lunt
Agree mostly with the challenges, however they are too focused on special projects and not enough recognition regarding the challenges we face as a community just to retain the status quo. Plan is largely silent on educational facilities for children, particularly in light of the housing growth that is so focused on in the plan. Solihull is well known and recognised throughout the UK for it's excellent education and this will be severely affected by the growth forecast.
In the main I agree with the challenges set out above, however I think they are too focused on special projects and not enough recognistion regarding the challenges we face as a community just to retain the status quo. I would particularly like to highlight that the local plan is largely silent on educational facilities for children, particularly in light of the housing growth that is so focused on in the plan. Solihull is well known and recognised throughout the uk for it's excellent education and this will be severely affected by the growth forecast.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1769
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Mr John Outhwaite
I disagree with "Challenge G" - do think that the council should be spending time and money addressing the needs to this community
I am submitting my comments to the Local Plan Review.
I am unable to submit my comments by your preferred method of the portal because that does not work properly, I am unable to access that (a matter which is subject to a separate complaint).
My comments are as follows
1 Firstly, the document is very long, there is no summary and it is full of jargon. In my opinion it fails the "plain English" test. It is full of obfuscation which makes it quite difficult to understand what is being proposed. If the Council really wishes to have meaningful consultation with council tax payers then there needs to be simpler communication.
Specific and general comments on the document are :-
2 I disagree with "Challenge G" - Gypsy & Traveller issues. I fundamentally object to the massively disproportionate amount of Council time and effort and council tax payers money that is expended on this very small section of the "community". These people are not part of the community, they do not wish to be part of the community, they just want to take advantage of the community.
3 Opening up of Green Belt Land around Damson Parkway/Old Damson Lane for use by JLR and other companies associated with car manufacturing. - I object to this proposal ( and I have objected to the planning submission by JLR for their LOC). There is no need for this suggested development to be immediately adjacent to the JLR plant, anywhere reasonably close would be perfectly suitable. I am very concerned by the inference in the document that because the despatch facility which has recently been built used green belt land then it is acceptable to use more green belt land for JLR convenience. That is in my view completely wrong. Obviously there was no other practical option for the despatch facility than the one approved (which I why I commented in support - with reservations - about that application).
4 New Housing developments - by the time I got to this section of the document I had already spent about an hour trying to understand earlier sections of the report, so I was beginning to lose the will to live, therefore I am not fully clear as to what is being proposed here. However I am clear that the plans for housing development, particularly affordable homes, are completely inadequate. The country as a whole faces a massive shortage in affordable housing and much more land needs to be released to provide major developments. I would much rather see further housing development around the periphery of the town than the proposed industrial development
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1788
Received: 10/02/2017
Respondent: Ms D Spavin & Mr S Milner
Agent: Nigel Gough Associates
support the release of green belt land for employment uses.
see attached letter re: site 20 employment land
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1796
Received: 10/02/2017
Respondent: Messrs Wheeldon & Gooding
Agent: Nigel Gough Associates
Support challenges and objectives relating to UK Central Hub area
see attached letter re: Land Fronting Old Damson Lane
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1808
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Chris Williams
agree, but would like to see more details in the LP re how economic inequality will be tackled.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1825
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin
Supports 2 challenges (K & E) in the DLP. but would like to see Shirley South mentioned with reference to these challenges.
Inequality and climate change are also supported as challenges which the DLP is addressing, but would like to see more prominence in the LP for how these will be addressed.
Also too much emphasis is given to JR/ BAirport as drivers of the local economy and would want to see the LP address the role/place of other businesses in the borough's development.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1864
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor K Macnaughton
Challenges seem appropriate but not always clear how they will be addressed.
Challenge A - need to consider impacts of increased population on social infrastructure, including green spaces.
Challenge C - Need to consider attractiveness of walking and cycling opportunities to the intended audience. Consideration for cyclists needs to cater for all levels of experience.
Growth is important but direct investment in improvements is also required. Need SMEs too.
Challenge F - means used to address it is inadequate. Concern that benefits of Solihull Connected may never be realised if all available enthusiasm is poured into the pursuit of growth.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1881
Received: 29/01/2017
Respondent: Alan Dick
appreciates the challenges which the borough is facing and commends the presentation and content of the DLP
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I have been advised by my local parish council (Berkswell) to address you directly, as well as to the former, re my concerns over the above report, where it applies to the housing development plans for Balsall Common.
May I first of all say that I fully appreciate the challenges that SMBC face over the next 5-10 years and thus commend you on the contents and presentation of the draft report. However, in relation to Balsall Common, whilst I am not against the need for additional housing in the immediate vacinity per se, I would urge SMBC to consider the following points before any final decision is made.
1) As you are no doubt aware, Balsall Common village will be blighted by the advent of HS2, especially during the construction phase, which may very well start within the next 2 years, with our section of the project lasting for anything up to 10 years. During this period, our village will be transformed into a 'building site' with storage locations dotted around the environs, the construction of a 'temporary' living facilities for HS2 employees and the endless movement of HGV vehicles. It therefore seems unreasonable and unfair to burden our community further with additional construction work within the same timeframe, when conceivably, this additional housing requirement could be accommodated elsewhere within the borough.
2) On the other hand, if Balsall Common has to be seen to be 'taking its share' of the extra housing requirements, then why could this not happen to the west side of the village, where there is plenty of land available. It would of course mean that these houses would be further from the village centre, but this would be a small price to pay to avoid the potential monumental 'bottle-neck', which would arise from the construction of 800 proposed houses on the Barratt's Farm area in such close proximity to HS2.
3) As I am sure many residents in Balsall Common will have already indicated, the present infrastructure in Balsall Common is already 'creaking at the seams', especially from a schooling, recreational, parking/shopping perspective. This has arisen directly from extensive house building projects within the village, both past and present - we need to learn lessons from this experience. Whilst infrastructure issues have been mentioned in the report, there are no specific details which address these problem and therefore it would be irresponsible to forge ahead with extra housing without addressing the same. I would respectively suggest that an integrated plan for the village is required, covering for example, additional housing (if required), schooling, maintenance of/addtional recreational areas/facilities, retail/parking amenities, road network system, public transport. If this was forthcoming, then not only would this engender a greater degree of goodwill from the local community, but equally importantly, would hopefully prevent the real risk of destroying the amenable characteristics of our village, which the present plans are in danger of doing.
I look forward to receiving further communication from SMBC on this important subject, via our parish council, and trust that common sense will ultimately prevail. Thank you for reading this correspondence, and I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to acknowledge receipt.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1884
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor A Hodgson
Generally agree.
Challenge K - disappointed that there wasn't equal weighting given to some of the natural environment that borders Shirley, as was given to the Arden landscape (excepting the River Blythe area).
Pleased that both inequality and climate change have been identified as being challenges that the Borough needs to address but how inequality will be tackled is not explained.
The plan seems overly reliant on a few businesses (JLR, NEC airport) and there is a risk of inequality worsening if the plan is too centred around a few businesses.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1947
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
Agree
see attached response
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1948
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Extra MSA
Agent: Pegasus Group
Challenges D,E,H & M need to refer to need for Motorway Service Area.
see attached response by agent on behalf of Extra MSA group
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1962
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Caudwell Properties (100) Ltd
Agent: Caudwell Properties (100) Ltd
Support challenges identified.
Objective to meet own housing needs accords with Housing White Paper.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1978
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: NFU West Midlands
Challenge N - further consideration needs to be given to impact of HS2 on farms and rural businesses:
Loss of agricultural buildings and homes.
Severance of existing farmsteads.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1980
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Balsall Parish Council
Support challenges H and N as critical for Balsall Common. Due to the implications of HS2 construction traffic on Balsall Common, suggest that the haul route for HS2 construction traffic is progressed within the Solihull Local Plan to meet challenges H and N. This could double as a future relief road.
It is not clear that the need for school provision is recognised sufficiently in the challenges. Suggest a specific objective that sufficient school provision is made for increased population of new housing.
see attached report
Balsall Parish Council resolved at the Council meeting on 15 February 2017 to submit this report in response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Consultation ending 17 February 2017
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2035
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Transport for the West Midlands
Welcome challenges noted in the Plan.
Not all transport challenges been noted, in particular connectivity issues which could constrain growth.
1) West Midlands motorway network - subject to heavy congestion, traffic delays and poor journey reliability.
2) Increasing capacity and overcrowding issue on rail.
3) Planning for demographic changes. E.g. over 65s increasing car dependency.
4) Challenge H should include transport barriers to specific developments e.g. Birmingham Airport.
see letter
"Overall we are very supportive of the plan and its in alignment with our Movement for Growth and SEP. But we have raised some points concerning parking policy, and more promotion of walking and cycling. "
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2082
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Notcutts Limited
Agent: Lichfields
Whilst meeting the aspirations of "key businesses" (Challenge D) is important, the Council should also support smaller businesses and employers in the Borough.
One of the key challenges currently facing retail businesses such as Notcutts is increased competition from online shopping.
Driving need to invest in existing premises, to present an attractive alternative offer.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2089
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council
In general yes, but they are not addressed in an appropriate manner in terms of the location and quantum of new housing against the need to protect the Meriden Gap. The allocation of land to the east of Balsall Common conflicts with the challenge to safeguard key gaps between settlements such as the Meriden Gap.
Balsall Common is omitted from Challenge D. The improvement of Balsall Common centre should become a strategic objective for Solihull.
see attached response
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2145
Received: 09/02/2017
Respondent: The NEC group
Welcome the revisions to P1 in the DLP from the SIO version, and provision within the Policy to support residential and other business uses on this site.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2148
Received: 09/02/2017
Respondent: The NEC group
Agree with the challenge and make comments on challenge D
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2150
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: SMBC - Public Heath & Commissioning Directorate
Challenges A, C, H, J, K
Are acknowledged with infrastructure that promotes physical activity, a key facet of a healthy lifestyle, that addresses the health inequalities, values the built and green infrastructure and that supports the creation of a health led environment will be crucial to creating a whole system that encourages activity rather than mitigate against it.
To this end Public Health has identified in the draft WM combined authority physical activity strategy supports the adoption of the Sport England and Public Health England 'Active by design' principles and specifying the Lifetime Homes standard in housing.
I've reviewed the proposed plans from a public health - improving health through physical activity perspective and I make the following comments:
Challenges A, C, H, J, K
Are acknowledged with infrastructure that promotes physical activity, a key facet of a healthy lifestyle, that addresses the health inequalities, values the built and green infrastructure and that supports the creation of a health led environment will be crucial to creating a whole system that encourages activity rather than mitigate against it.
To this end Public Health has identified in the draft WM combined authority physical activity strategy supports the adoption of the Sport England and Public Health England 'Active by design' principles and specifying the Lifetime Homes standard in housing.
With respect to the specific policies or options further comment is offered as follows:
P15
We would advocate the adoption of the Sport England/Public Health England Active Design principles as a means of creating the environment to help get people active and sustain that activity creating the health benefit required in the Borough.
P7
Remove '/or' from first sentence after bullet iv) and the following paragraph on the basis that both forms of active travel need to be promoted in order to maximise take of these sustainable forms of transport that also promote health.
P15
The specification of Lifetime homes standard is supported. There needs to be a reference to 'the creation of civic spaces that promote physical activity'.
P18
i) By including 'that promote' sport and 'the differ needs of the diverse population that may use a development'
And rather than 'contribute' in ii and iii 'deliver'.
The reference needs to be to 'accessible' open spaces.
P20
There is a needs to make explicit reference the playing pitches as part of the sports & recreation provision and the playing pitch strategy as evidence.
UK central
As well as encouraging 'improved public transport' there needs to be 'improved opportunities for walking and cycling'.
HS2
Make a significant contribution to the transport issues associated with HS2 with a transport infrastructure that maximises the forms of active travel to and within the site creating a more sustainable and healthier development.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2163
Received: 13/02/2017
Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association
Challenge A - needs to recognise poor public transport links between settlements in the rural area which lead to isolation and inequality. Link to challenge J "improving health and well-being".
Challenge E - some site allocations go against these objectives.
Challenge F - No real provision to improve public transport. New builds should incorporate renewable energy sources.
Challenge H - No definitive statements that poor public transport in the rural area can be improved. Statements are aspirational rather than practical.
Challenge J - No detail that sustainable additional educational facilities will be built should the individual sites be allocated.
see attached response
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2213
Received: 12/03/2017
Respondent: Jenny Woodruff
I agree that the plan has identified the right challenges.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2244
Received: 13/03/2017
Respondent: Birmingham City Council
Support the objective in Challenge B 'to ensure that provision is made for an appropriate proportion of the HMA shortfall in new housing land consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan.' However, BCC is of the view that this objective does not currently translate into an appropriate strategy which takes into account the scale of the housing shortfall.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2258
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Meriden Parish Council
Needs a more joined-up approach. Plans should not look at development in isolation; the impact of growth and development on communities is a challenge.
Maintain the affordability of dwellings by designing them so that there is no scope to increase their size.
Support the need to maintain rural communities.
HS2 challenge (N)needs to be strengthened. Construction will impact on local communities.
A challenge for Meriden is the loss of key services and isolation from being between HS2 and the proposed garden city.
Need to prioritise senior population needs.
Objective to encourage sustainable travel, yet rural public transport provision is decreasing.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2279
Received: 06/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs A Wildsmith
Agent: John Cornwell
All supported in general, in particular Challenges B and D.
see letter from agent on behalf of landowner