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?

original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter

see attached letter and supporting document (The UK Central Hub Growth and Infrastructure Plan)

see attached document to supplement online submissions

Response to Draft Housing Plan
I have attempted to respond to Solihull Council's draft housing plan using the online portal this afternoon. However, I have found the website to be very confusing and circular in nature. I could not access the online form for responses, despite clicking on hyperlinks for 'direct access to the online form'. As a result, I am emailing the key points that I wish to make instead. However, I would be grateful if the Council would review the approach that it takes to consultations in the future and consider the accessibility and clarity of its webpages.

Question 1 - I believe that the following key challlenges should also be included:
* Improving the range and number of facilities in Balsall Common, including the town centre, without this creating further problems with traffic and car parking
* Retaining the character and attractiveness of rural and semi-rural locations in the borough
Question 2 - I believe that my responses to question 1 should also form part of the vision for the plan, namely:
* Improving the range and number of facilities in Balsall Common, including the town centre, without this creating further problems with traffic and car parking
* Retaining the character and attractiveness of rural and semi-rural locations in the borough
Question 3 - I agree that brownfield sites should be selected ahead of greenfield sites. However, the distribution of planned new homes within the plan does not seem to reflect this strategy sufficiently. For example, greenfield sites in Balsall Common seem to have been allocated a very large number of new homes, particularly relative to its current size when other more developed areas of the borough that may benefit from regeneration or be better able to absorb expansion have not. I believe that this will be damaging to the character and attractiveness of Balsall Common and that it would be better for all communities in Solihull for new homes to be built in smaller numbers per development but in more locations spread throughout the borough. The present plan seems to place the burden on a small number of locations.

The current spatial strategy does not take sufficient account of the disruption that will be caused in communities by HS2 and how building new homes in the same areas may compound the difficulties experienced. Balsall Common will I expect, for example, experience significant issues from HS2 such as construction traffic, potentially at the same time as disruption from the building of a large number of new houses and infrastructure to support them. This needs to be taken into account when making final decisions on sites so that particular parts of the borough are not shouldering the burden of multiple developments at the same time, whilst other areas remain undisturbed. All areas need to make a fair contribution to the sustainable development and success of the area.

Please see response to question 15 for further comments on considerations for the spatial strategy/choice of locations.

Question 7 - Balsall Common should be listed as a town centre requiring a masterplan. Now, even before new homes are developed, the centre suffers from significant traffic problems (speeding, congestion, parking problems) and too few facilities. If the number of homes planned for Balsall Common proceed, a master plan is vital to ensure that the area remains a pleasant, desirable and prosperous place.

Question 15 - I believe that the locations selected should include consideration of ease of access to employment. For example, it seems strange that there are not more sites in or near the Dickens Heath/Monkspath/Blythe Valley area to enable ease of access to jobs at the business park and in the area south of the airport and east of Land Rover to enable ease of access to the jobs at both of those sites. The proximity of significant numbers of employment opportunities and transport links are much better in those areas than some of the sites selected (e.g. Balsall Common, Knowle). I also believe that those areas would be better able to absorb expansion without damage to the character of the area. For example, Dickens Heath features modern housing developments already and additional similar developments would be in keeping with its current design/character.

If the number of new homes cannot or is not spread more evenly around the borough and plans for Balsall Common to have the number of homes suggested proceed, I would welcome these being in smaller numbers across more developments. I believe that this would allow the town to expand in a more managed way that is in keeping with its character, limits the amount of green space and natural habitat being lost in each part of the town and manages the additional traffic more evenly. I am quite concerned about such a large number of homes being planned for Barrett's Farm for a number of reasons, including:
* This will create a large volume of additional traffic for a small number of routes
* The nearby town centre will not be able to cope with the additional demand and has little room to expand
* The location is a beautiful natural habitat for a range of wildlife and the public footpaths are a well-used and well-enjoyed feature of the area
* Having such a large estate of new build houses is not in keeping with the unique and semi-rural character of the area
I would welcome some of these being located in other parts of the borough or, at least, other parts of the town. For example, I believe that a developer owns land near Oakes Farm Shop off Balsall Street East and that this would be a good location for some of the homes currently planned for Barrett's Farm because:
* This part of Balsall Common is less congested
* It is serviced by a main road that could take the additional capacity
* There is a farm shop/cafe and a pub within close proximity
* There is space for the development of additional facilities, unlike in the town centre which is close to Barrett's Farm
* Pressure would be taken off the town centre, which is currently very busy with traffic and people relative to its size
It also would seem to make more sense in terms of ease of access to road and rail networks, as well as the health centre, for new developments in Balsall Common/Berkswell to be nearer to Hallmeadow Road, Truggist Lane, Riddings Hill, Lavender Hall Road etc.

I am sure that there are also other locations in Balsall Common and neighbouring villages/towns (e.g. Berkswell, which appears to have not been earmarked for any expansion) where the homes could be spread out in smaller numbers to make growth more manageable and easily absorbed.

Question 16 - If the number of homes planned for Balsall Common proceeds, I believe that the following infrastructure is required is addition to new schools and GP surgeries:
* Traffic calming measures in and around the town centre, including Station Road, Kenilworth Road and Meeting House Lane to counteract the volume and speed of traffic that already exists and will be exacerbated by new developments. I live on Meeting House Lane and the speed bumps and chicane that are there already are already ineffective at discouraging people from using the road as a 'rat run' and driving at high speeds to and from the town centre (e.g. because the speed bumps are very small and very spaced out). My cat was recently killed as a result of a speeding driver on my road. I am very concerned about the number of houses that may be built on Barrett's Farm and make the noise, volume and speed of traffic on the road even worse. I would ask that the Council would consider not having a vehicle access point from Meeting House Lane to the Barrett's Farm development (or off other similar residential roads) and instead ensure that access points are from main roads designed to manage this sort of capacity. I would also welcome Meeting House Lane being made a no-through route (e.g. being blocked off half way down near the Catholic Church/Tennis Club) or at least having more chicanes/single file traffic and more frequent/higher speed bumps , pavements being built all of the way down and any other appropriate traffic calming measures.
* More green spaces e.g. nature reserves, parks, play areas, cycle tracks, walking routes/public footpaths
* Extension of the by-pass (Hallmeadow Road) so that it provides ease of access to new housing (e.g. the Barrett's Farm development) and takes pressure off other routes in the area. At the moment, this road is underused and does not provide much of a useful route to anywhere
* Extension of the Kenilworth Greenway and the ability to access this by bike from Balsall Common (at the moment, it is not possible to access the Greenway on a bike without having to lift this above stiles/gates, which is very frustrating)
* More frequent and later night rail services from Berkswell to and from Birmingham New Street and International
* Additional bus routes and more frequent services
* Supermarket on the outskirts of the town (e.g. off the by-pass)
* Additional shop, bar and restaurant premises (but not all in the current town centre)
Question 22 - I understand that there may be good reasons why the Council may want/need to divert some of the CIL payments, new homes bonus and profit on the sale of Council land to areas other than those where the new homes are built in order to support prosperity and growth across the borough. However, I think that it is important that those communities who experience the disruption of new homes being built, their local area being changed (e.g. loss of natural habitats and greenfield sites, change in area character) and the impact of additional people/traffic in the area are compensated through sufficient additional infrastructure and facilities for managed and sustainable growth before the profits relating to those developments are used elsewhere. Diverting profits to areas of the borough which have not had new developments should be in exceptional cases only and where the minimum required needs of those in the development areas to manage the impact on their community effectively have been met first. I would also say that if developments were more evenly spread across the borough, it would be easier to justify sharing the benefits across the borough, too.

I hope that this response is helpful.

Please find attached my response to your questionnaire which includes my personal concerns regarding my own land which appears to be included in the potential Barrett's Farm development but which has in fact never been offered by me for development.

see 3 separate letters
1) Land to the rear of Meriden C of E Primary School, Fillongley Road, Meriden
2) Land Hampton Lane, Solihull
3) Land Windmill Lane / Kenilworth Rd, Balsall Common

see attached documents

see attached letter

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan (DLP).

In response to 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 believe that improving the centre of Balsall Common has failed to be recognised as an additional key challenge that Solihull Council needs to address. The current facilities within Balsall Common centre struggle to support the existing populace so could not support up to an additional 1350 houses.

In response to Q2:

"Do you agree with the Borough Vision we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?"

I do not agree with the vision set out. It neither provides for improving the centre of Balsall Common nor outlines how it will need to change in order to cater for the needs of a growing local community. There is already insufficient parking for the current populace. The vision for Balsall Common fails to note the need for improvements to local facilities, services and public transport which would encourage more sustainable travel patterns and improved connectivity to surrounding communities.

The inclusion of a generic statement that 'Schools will have continued to thrive and grow' appears naive. The primary school is already at capacity and the required growth will not be possible at its current location. Relocation of this facility should be considered alongside the other significant developments which have been proposed.

I also do not agree with part of the vision which describes that 'an alternative route will have been provided to relieve traffic from the Kenilworth Road'. Any such alternative route will result in a further loss of greenbelt, an increase in traffic and act as a catalyst for additional development.

In response to Q3:

"Do you agree with the spatial strategy we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?"

I agree with a strategy and approach where areas of previously developed land (Brownfield) are selected ahead of non-developed land (Greenfield) and areas with good public transport links are considered ahead of those with poorer public transport links.

However, I do not agree that the appropriate growth opportunities have been correctly identified within DLP paragraph 108. I do not understand why Green Belt and Greenfield sites are identified as locations where growth should be focused when there are a number of Brownfield sites (e.g. part- PDL site 240 - Land north of Balsall Common) which do not feature within LPR proposed sites. This is contrary to the guidance as set out within:

a. The strategic objectives of this document (DLP paragraph 96), and
b. "Step 1: Planning for the right homes in the right places" of the Government's "Fixing our broken housing market" white paper by "maximising the contribution from brownfield and surplus public land" (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/590043/Fixing_our_broken_housing_market_-_housing_white_paper.pdf)

In response to Q7:

"Do you agree with Policy P2? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?"

I do not agree with Policy P2 as I believe the challenges facing the centre of Balsall Common in light of the proposed housing growth have failed to be recognised and its own master plan is needed. Specifically there is a need to ensure that the provision of parking in the village centre meets the needs of retailers and residents, whilst not acting as a constraint to development.

In response to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In response to Q16

"Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are they?"

No - parking facilities at Berkswell Station are already insufficient to support the current need. This results in vehicles needing to park elsewhere e.g. along Hallmeadow Road. An increase in the population would put further strain on this facility and as such I believe additional parking facilities are required.

In response to Q18

"Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?"

Policy 7 is only concerned with the proximity to and the frequency of bus services. A defining factor for commuters' transport mode choice is the destination or the appropriateness of the service. e.g. Whether a dwelling is within 400m of a bus stop is irrelevant if the service cannot deliver you to your destination in a timely manner.

In response to Q22

"Do you agree with the Policy P21? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?"

Policy 21 does not specifically state that all CIL payments, new homes bonus or the profit on the sale of Council land for housing should be spent in the areas where the housing is built. I strongly believe that such payments received for a development should be allocated to the directly affected community.

In response to Q23

"Are there any other comments you wish to make on the Draft Local Plan?"

The proposed addition of up to 1350 houses to Balsall Common, representing a sizeable increase in population (>25%), will have a significant impact on the character of the village. It will remove the local distinctiveness of the area, characterised by its open countryside setting, sense of remoteness, distinctive fieldscapes and woodland assets. All of this is in direct conflict with the statement (DLP paragraph 86) that "the local distinctiveness of the area... ...will have been protected".

Furthermore, I support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

see letter

Solihull Local Plan Review - Sport England consultation response
Sport England would like to make the following comments:

Borough wide Challenges
Sport England support the identification of Challenges H, J and K. These Challenges are consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and are consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.

Policy P15: Securing Design Quality
Sport England, in conjunction with Public Health England, has produced 'Active Design' (October 2015), a guide to planning new developments that create the right environment to help people get more active, more often in the interests of health and wellbeing. The guidance sets out ten key principles for ensuring new developments incorporate opportunities for people to take part in sport and physical activity. The Active Design principles are aimed at contributing towards the Government's desire for the planning system to promote healthy communities through good urban design. Sport England would commend the use of the guidance in the master planning process for new residential developments. The document can be downloaded via the following link:
http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/active-design/

Through our statutory role, non-statutory role (major housing schemes) and our involvement with strategy development (evidence base Para 73 of NPPF) and our involvement through the local plan process we seek to ensure that Active design is utilised in the determination of planning applications and is embedded in Planning Policy P15 in order to influence the design and promote healthy communities and active lifestyles.

Policy P18: Health and Well Being
Support is offered for the principle that provides support for proposals which encourage healthy and active lifestyles. This is consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.

The use of Health Impact Assessments for larger developments is welcomed as these can help ensure that developments give appropriate consideration to how environments can be created which allow healthy and active lifestyles to take place.

Policy P20: Provision for Open Space, Childrens Play, Sport, Recreation and Leisure
The protection and provision of sports facilities is supported. However it is not clear whether or not the reference to the protection of existing facilities in Part A of the policy includes playing fields. It would be useful to provide clarity in this regard.

Sport England considers that Part A of the policy should be more specific as to the clear evidence required to demonstrate that sports facilities (particularly if these include playing fields) are surplus to requirements. Sport England would only accept a robust and up-to-date strategic assessment (e.g. a Playing Pitch Strategy or Built Facilities Strategy).

Sport England object to the section of Part A of the policy which allows the loss of playing fields and other sporting facilities where there is a substantial community benefit. This approach does not accord with the relevant national planning policy contained within para 74 of the NPPF and it is not clear what 'substantial community benefit' would involve. The NPPF requires that the proposed development is for alternative sports provision, the need for which clearly outweighs the loss.

Part B should also reference the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy as the evidence base to demonstrate the need for playing pitches associated with the additional demand created by new housing developments. The occupiers of new development, especially residential, will generate demand for sporting provision. The existing provision within an area may not be able to accommodate this increased demand without exacerbating existing and/or predicted future deficiencies. Therefore, Sport England considers that new developments should contribute towards meeting the demand that they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. The level and nature of any provision should be informed by Solihull's forthcoming Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) and any future Built Facilities Strategy (BFS). It is anticipated that the Solihull PPS will be completed before the publication of the revised Solihull Local Plan.

If this demand is not adequately met then it may place additional pressure on existing sports facilities, thereby creating deficiencies in facility provision. In accordance with the NPPF, Sport England seeks to ensure that the development meets any new sports facility needs arising as a result of the development. Solihull Local Plan should reflect this need in its local policies.

Site Allocations
Sport England would object to the allocation of any sites which would result in the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities unless evidenced by a robust and up-to-date evidence, as required by paragraph 73 NPPF.

Sport England are aware that work is currently underway on the completion of an up-to-date Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS). The PPS should be used to determine whether or not the playing field proposed for allocation is surplus to sporting requirements by demonstrating that there is an excess of playing fields in the catchment. If this cannot be demonstrated then the playing field or formal recreation land would need to be replaced with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality.

In the absence of an up-to-date PPS to justify the loss of playing field (and other sporting facilities) or confirmation of replacement with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality Sport England object to site allocations 4, 8, 15, 16 and 18; these site allocations would result in the loss of playing field land and other sporting facilities. Sport England will also object to any other site allocations which involve the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities without the necessary evidence or replacement facilities.

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan (DLP).

In response to 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 believe that improving the centre of Balsall Common has failed to be recognised as an additional key challenge that Solihull Council needs to address. The current facilities within Balsall Common centre struggle to support the existing populace so could not support up to an additional 1350 houses.

In response to Q2:

"Do you agree with the Borough Vision we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?"

I do not agree with the vision set out. It neither provides for improving the centre of Balsall Common nor outlines how it will need to change in order to cater for the needs of a growing local community. There is already insufficient parking for the current populace. The vision for Balsall Common fails to note the need for improvements to local facilities, services and public transport which would encourage more sustainable travel patterns and improved connectivity to surrounding communities.

The inclusion of a generic statement that 'Schools will have continued to thrive and grow' appears naive. The primary school is already at capacity and the required growth will not be possible at its current location. Relocation of this facility should be considered alongside the other significant developments which have been proposed.

I also do not agree with part of the vision which describes that 'an alternative route will have been provided to relieve traffic from the Kenilworth Road'. Any such alternative route will result in a further loss of greenbelt, an increase in traffic and act as a catalyst for additional development.

In response to Q3:

"Do you agree with the spatial strategy we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?"

I agree with a strategy and approach where areas of previously developed land (Brownfield) are selected ahead of non-developed land (Greenfield) and areas with good public transport links are considered ahead of those with poorer public transport links.

However, I do not agree that the appropriate growth opportunities have been correctly identified within DLP paragraph 108. I do not understand why Green Belt and Greenfield sites are identified as locations where growth should be focused when there are a number of Brownfield sites (e.g.part- PDL site 240 - Land north of Balsall Common) which do not feature within LPR proposed sites. This is contrary to the guidance as set out within:

a. The strategic objectives of this document (DLP paragraph 96), and
b. "Step 1: Planning for the right homes in the right places" of the Government's "Fixing our broken housing market" white paper by "maximising the contribution from brownfield and surplus public land" (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/590043/Fixing_our_broken_housing_market_-_housing_white_paper.pdf)

In response to Q7:

"Do you agree with Policy P2? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?"

I do not agree with Policy P2 as I believe the challenges facing the centre of Balsall Common in light of the proposed housing growth have failed to be recognised and its own master plan is needed. Specifically there is a need to ensure that the provision of parking in the village centre meets the needs of retailers and residents, whilst not acting as a constraint to development.

In response to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In response to Q16

"Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are they?"

No - parking facilities at Berkswell Station are already insufficient to support the current need. This results in vehicles needing to park elsewhere e.g. along Hallmeadow Road. An increase in the population would put further strain on this facility and as such I believe additional parking facilities are required.

In response to Q18

"Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?"

Policy 7 is only concerned with the proximity to and the frequency of bus services. A defining factor for commuters' transport mode choice is the destination or the appropriateness of the service. e.g. Whether a dwelling is within 400m of a bus stop is irrelevant if the service cannot deliver you to your destination in a timely manner.

In response to Q22

"Do you agree with the Policy P21? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?"

Policy 21 does not specifically state that all CIL payments, new homes bonus or the profit on the sale of Council land for housing should be spent in the areas where the housing is built. I strongly believe that such payments received for a development should be allocated to the directly affected community.

In response to Q23

"Are there any other comments you wish to make on the Draft Local Plan?"

The proposed addition of up to 1350 houses to Balsall Common, representing a sizeable increase in population (>25%), will have a significant impact on the character of the village. It will remove the local distinctiveness of the area, characterised by its open countryside setting, sense of remoteness, distinctive fieldscapes and woodland assets. All of this is in direct conflict with the statement (DLP paragraph 86) that "the local distinctiveness of the area... ...will have been protected".

Furthermore, I support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable

Response to Solihull MBC 23 question extended consultation on the draft local plan
Question 1 are the right borough challenges identified
Will the impact of Brexit have a material effect on the total number of homes needed in the Borough?
Question 2 agreement with the Borough Vision
Only In a very small part yes, but it is clearly written from an urban Solihull-centric perspective, once more bringing into disrepute the belief that Solihull successfully combines a well-balanced combined Urban and Rural vision. Looked at from a holistic position, Solihull MBC in this draft proposal will not be satisfied with following their own policies until an urban jungle is built through the most vulnerable and narrow portion of the Green Belt between Balsall Common and Coventry City.
SMBC fought a huge battle at enormous cost to preserve this piece of land from a coal mine development; why is it now prepared to sacrifice this precious 'lung' between two major city conurbations?
Balsall Common is already a congested community with poor infrastructure and very poor public sector connectivity with the local economic centres which are primarily to the East and South ie NOT Solihull and this is the way traffic flows at peak times.
Further, no consideration has been given to considering sites to the South and West of the settlement toward the considerable economic development driven by JLR at their Fen End site, where they plan to site 2,000+ engineers. Many of these people will seek homes in Balsall Common and, therefore, to reduce cross-village traffic any major development should be on the West side of the village. Similarly, if a village bypass should ever be needed then consideration should be given to siting this on the West side.
Adding the proposed disproportionate housing and its resulting population to Balsall Common in sensitive and fragile Green Belt areas will simply make the problems worse and continue the belief that SMBC will ignore its own Policies when they do not suit political goals.
Question 3 agreement with Spatial Strategy?
The approach defined for sites being appropriate for development as written looks good with the right priorities, but unfortunately they have not been adhered to in this draft plan.
Barratt's Farm land is Greenfield land not Brownfield land and has significant drain off issues. Additionally, as stressed above, the village is virtually bereft of effective public transport.
The demolition of the Meriden Gap Green Belt and its impact on the local ecology of the green fields, ancient hedge rows and trees will directly affect the existing local residents and families who extensively use the area and its many crisscrossing footpaths for open air exercise and leisure activities. The additional traffic emanating from such a large increase in housing will add to the air pollution caused by poor control of the take-off and landing heights from Birmingham Airport, especially the northern turn over the settlement.
If this land is built on, then the drain off problem identified above will represent a risk to local adjoining properties to the north and south.
This area is already under severe threat of noise and Greenbelt erosion from HS2.
Piling in some 800 homes with shops, a school and other amenities with poor access to existing roads is a planning nightmare.
The site between Windmill Lane and the A452 Kenilworth Road to the South of the settlement is broadly a Brownfield site, BUT it is also proposed for a density of housing which is too high. This will generate traffic onto the narrow Windmill Lane that has poor visibility junctions at each end, or onto the A452 Trunk road with difficult North and South junctions.
Question 7 regarding sustainable Economic Development?
Good principles, but again not seriously considered in the draft plan with no consideration of the disproportionate building of houses on an already congested and ill planned village centre.
Question11 policy P2 providing homes for all
The total proposed housing numbers are grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing community and will have a very significant detrimental impact on the size, shape, character and environment of Balsall Common as a Rural Village. It is also noticed that while mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.
Question 15 appropriateness of draft proposed sites.
As mentioned throughout this response, Solihull MBC have failed to follow their own Policies in establishing the appropriateness of the chosen sites and yet proposals for a new village on a brown field site development to the north of the region have been ignored. This is also true of potential sites to the South/East of Solihull toward Hampton in Arden and Catherin de Barnes, these being closer to the proposed new High Speed HS2 interchange.
Question 16 completeness of required supporting infrastructure to complement the proposed draft development?
While Doctors and Schooling infrastructure is mentioned, no mention is made of shopping, banking etc and banks are currently withdrawing from Balsall Common. A lack of action on the site to the rear of the Co-op shop has caused it to be isolated from other retail outlets and has exacerbated the lack of any sense of a cohesive village centre. Car parking facilities in the Village are very limited and in some areas dangerous.
Question18 sustainable Travel
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport, apart from Birmingham focused rail, is very, very poor in the area.
Question 22 Delivery
CIL payments for local development should be focussed in the local area for locally requested and agreed infrastructure improvements.
Question 23 Any other comment
No explanation has been given to the fact that a grossly disproportionate number of houses are proposed to be built in Balsall Common in important and sensitive Green Belt land compared with elsewhere in Solihull Borough. Areas such as Dorridge, Knowle, Chadwick End and Fen End to the South are in less sensitive and less pressured areas of Green Belt land.
There is a very strong perception in the Balsall Common area that Solihull MBC have abandoned the Greenbelt and consciously discarded their own policies and values and have consequently lost what trust they had as a result.
It also appears from the draft local development plan consultation information booklet that land belonging to Lynda Beasley (Wyer) and Michael Cooper has been included in the proposed Barratt's Farm development. We assume this error will be rectified. In the event this development does proceed we would expect a barrier to be put in place to protect livestock on the above mentioned fields.

see attached letter

see written response attached

Please find attached the response to the review of the Draft Local Plan from the Hampton-in-Arden Society. Representatives of the Society have attended a number of briefing events together with members of the Parish Council and this is therefore a joint response.

see response from agent for the Governors of Solihull School

see response by agent on behalf of J Maddock & family
Land fronting Dickens Heath Raod/Birchy Leasowes Lane & Tilehoue Lane

I am instructed by my client Gallagher Estates to submit representations to the Draft Local Plan Review consultation (December 2016).

The representations comprise of the following submissions:

* Representations to the Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan comprising of Pegasus Group Report with accompanying appendices:
o Site Location Plan (Appendix A); o Review of SHELAA (Appendix B); o Review of SMHA (Appendix C);
o Un-met Housing Need and the Duty to Cooperate (Appendix D)
o Chelmer Model Papers (Appendix E)

* Separate Background Documents relating to :
o Land at Damson Parkway , Solihull;
o Land at Four Ashes Road, Dorridge;
o Land off Bickenhill Road, Marston Green and;
o Land off Berkswell Road, Meriden

see submission and supporting documents from agent - Pegasus

see response and supporting documents

see attached response and supporting documents

see attached document to supplement online submissions

see attached document to supplement online submissions

see attached

Response to Solihull MBC 23 question extended consultation on the draft local plan
TO WHOM THIS MAY CONCERN
Responses to the questionnaire regarding extended consulatation on the draft local plan.
Question 1 are the right borough challenges identified
Will the impact of Brexit have a material effect on the total number of homes needed in the Borough?
Question 2 agreement with the Borough Vision
Only In a very small part yes, but it is clearly written from an urban Solihull-centric perspective, once more bringing into disrepute the belief that Solihull successfully combines a well-balanced combined Urban and Rural vision. Looked at from a holistic position, Solihull MBC in this draft proposal will not be satisfied with following their own policies until an urban jungle is built through the most vulnerable and narrow portion of the Green Belt between Balsall Common and Coventry City.
SMBC fought a huge battle at enormous cost to preserve this piece of land from a coal mine development; why is it now prepared to sacrifice this precious 'lung' between two major city conurbations?
Balsall Common is already a congested community with poor infrastructure and very poor public sector connectivity with the local economic centres which are primarily to the East and South ie NOT Solihull and this is the way traffic flows at peak times.
Further, no consideration has been given to considering sites to the South and West of the settlement toward the considerable economic development driven by JLR at their Fen End site, where they plan to site 2,000+ engineers. Many of these people will seek homes in Balsall Common and, therefore, to reduce cross-village traffic any major development should be on the West side of the village. Similarly, if a village bypass should ever be needed then consideration should be given to siting this on the West side.
Adding the proposed disproportionate housing and its resulting population to Balsall Common in sensitive and fragile Green Belt areas will simply make the problems worse and continue the belief that SMBC will ignore its own Policies when they do not suit political goals.
Question 3 agreement with Spatial Strategy?
The approach defined for sites being appropriate for development as written looks good with the right priorities, but unfortunately they have not been adhered to in this draft plan.
Barratt's Farm land is Greenfield land not Brownfield land and has significant drain off issues. Additionally, as stressed above, the village is virtually bereft of effective public transport.
The demolition of the Meriden Gap Green Belt and its impact on the local ecology of the green fields, ancient hedge rows and trees will directly affect the existing local residents and families who extensively use the area and its many crisscrossing footpaths for open air exercise and leisure activities. The additional traffic emanating from such a large increase in housing will add to the air pollution caused by poor control of the take-off and landing heights from Birmingham Airport, especially the northern turn over the settlement.
If this land is built on, then the drain off problem identified above will represent a risk to local adjoining properties to the north and south.
This area is already under severe threat of noise and Greenbelt erosion from HS2.
Piling in some 800 homes with shops, a school and other amenities with poor access to existing roads is a planning nightmare.
The site between Windmill Lane and the A452 Kenilworth Road to the South of the settlement is broadly a Brownfield site, BUT it is also proposed for a density of housing which is too high. This will generate traffic onto the narrow Windmill Lane that has poor visibility junctions at each end, or onto the A452 Trunk road with difficult North and South junctions.
Question 7 regarding sustainable Economic Development?
Good principles, but again not seriously considered in the draft plan with no consideration of the disproportionate building of houses on an already congested and ill planned village centre.
Question11 policy P2 providing homes for all
The total proposed housing numbers are grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing community and will have a very significant detrimental impact on the size, shape, character and environment of Balsall Common as a Rural Village. It is also noticed that while mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.
Question 15 appropriateness of draft proposed sites.
As mentioned throughout this response, Solihull MBC have failed to follow their own Policies in establishing the appropriateness of the chosen sites and yet proposals for a new village on a brown field site development to the north of the region have been ignored. This is also true of potential sites to the South/East of Solihull toward Hampton in Arden and Catherin de Barnes, these being closer to the proposed new High Speed HS2 interchange.
Question 16 completeness of required supporting infrastructure to complement the proposed draft development?
While Doctors and Schooling infrastructure is mentioned, no mention is made of shopping, banking etc and banks are currently withdrawing from Balsall Common. A lack of action on the site to the rear of the Co-op shop has caused it to be isolated from other retail outlets and has exacerbated the lack of any sense of a cohesive village centre. Car parking facilities in the Village are very limited and in some areas dangerous.
Question18 sustainable Travel
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport, apart from Birmingham focused rail, is very, very poor in the area.
Question 22 Delivery
CIL payments for local development should be focussed in the local area for locally requested and agreed infrastructure improvements.
Question 23 Any other comment
No explanation has been given to the fact that a grossly disproportionate number of houses are proposed to be built in Balsall Common in important and sensitive Green Belt land compared with elsewhere in Solihull Borough. Areas such as Dorridge, Knowle, Chadwick End and Fen End to the South are in less sensitive and less pressured areas of Green Belt land.
There is a very strong perception in the Balsall Common area that Solihull MBC have abandoned the Greenbelt and consciously discarded their own policies and values and have consequently lost what trust they had as a result.
It also appears from the draft local development plan consultation information booklet that land belonging to Lynda Beasley (Wyer) and Michael Cooper has been included in the proposed Barratt's Farm development. We assume this error will be rectified. In the event this development does proceed we would expect a barrier to be put in place to protect livestock on the above mentioned fields.

see attached written rep

see attached letter and supporting annotated map

Please find attached a response to the Solihull Local Plan Review consultation on behalf of Colchurch Properties Limited who are promoting land to the south of Station Road, Balsall Common.

This response comprises a 'Vision Document' which includes the following sections,

Foreword (inset)
1. Introduction
2. The Vision
3. Planning Background
4. Draft Local Plan 2016 Consultation Response
5. The Concept Masterplan (not including figures which are within the hard copy and CD issued separately)
6. Transport and Access

see attached