Q2. Do you agree with the Borough Vision we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

Point 87.
Dickens Heath Village was specifically designed to be an independent village with its own infrastructure. The village has been continually expanded and expanded - the current additions are still being built. The village infrastructure simply cannot cope. Main Street was built as a collection of local shops that residents could easily walk to. This has been lost, with cars parked everywhere is has become unsafe and the local businesses suffer.

Whilst I understand the need for extra housing I feel Dickens Heath has had more than its fair share.
These plans propose expanding it by 60% without any additional amenities.

The moto on Dickens Heath's coat of arms is 'In the Countryside we Flourish'. Families moved here in promise of a semi-rural village life.

I think it is vital to have an allocation of homes spread out over the borough but that in areas such as Berkswell, Hampton, Catherine DB etc. there should be a level of protection so just to add small developments. These areas are historically important and should be protected.

In the allocation of houses there should be a fair distribution of sizes at all developments and not limit that which comes to the open market. The recent TW development in Knowle was disappointing in that only two 3 no. bedroom houses were available for general release.

The 2012 National Planning Policy Framework states that the Green Belt has five functions: 'to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character or historic town; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land'. In short, it helps to keep the spatial and material character of England's cities static.

I fail to understand how the planned housing developments meet these requirements as they are mostly green belt.

The proposals provide an excellent balance if new developments are required in the rural villages without destroying the atmosphere of these communities .

Adding more housing in greenbelt areas detracts from the vision. Building the proposed additional housing on the existing country side will not solve the traffic and schooling issues specifically in the Balsall Common area. Both the school and local facilities are currently over capacity, without the additional of 1600 plus cars and kids. Nothing in the proposal caters for this increase and a considerable lack of consideration to this.

I disagree. The vision should stress that the Green Belt between Balsall Common and Coventry - the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap - will have been protected.

Paragraph 86 states that an alternative route by-passing Balsall Common will have been provided. It assumes that this will be within the Borough - probably through the Barrett's farm parcel - which need not be the case. Coventry have plans for a new road from the A46 near Kenilworth, past Warwick University and Burton Green and linking to the A45. This road will remove much through traffic from the village and no other by-pass should be considered until Coventry's plans are finalised.

The vision states that new housing will have been built in Dorridge but none is identified in the rest of the plan.

The vision does not explain how the impact of building and on-going use of HS2 will be minimised. Balsall Common will be affected more than any other part of the region apart from the Hub itself and needs more extreme protection.

The Vision and Spatial Strategy would perhaps be more honest if it declared that sustaining this part of the Meriden Gap is impossible and would not be attempted. If this is not the policy, this must be stated clearly, and every effort must be made to protect it and the Draft Plan is totally deficient in this regard.

Knowle needs long stay car parking included in the local plan, and primary schools need either expansion of a new primary school built.

I cannot support proposed housing that is accepted as being remote from most facilities.i can only support large scale housing if it is conditional on providing infrastructure such as new schools,sports facilities , new parks better parking in the centre and at the station and a promise of relief for the already strained Kenilworth Road..We deserve much more than just housing.
The objectives are commendable but we need to ensure that each site produces infrastructure for the settlement. Schools, all weather pitches, better parking and where possible roads that bypass the centre and moves the traffic past.

The vision should stress that the Green Belt between Balsall Common and Coventry - the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap - will have been protected.
The Meriden Gap should be preserved from incursion by housing as the HS2 route corridor runs through this precious green lung between Coventry and Solihull.
With regard to Balsall Common it is imperative that the infrastructure is put in place to accommodate the proposed 25% increase in households before any house building is undertaken. It is also preferable that new development is to the north or north-west of the village to reduce local traffic through the village.
Green belt will be further eroded by the proposed trunk road from the A46, by Warwick University and onto the A452 or A45 for access to the HS2 hub but it should alleviate the need for a by-pass through Balsall Common.
The vision does not explain how the impact of building and on-going use of HS2 will be minimised. Balsall Common/Berkswell will be affected more than any other part of the region (apart from the Hub itself) and SMBC need to mitigate this impact not exacerbate it.
No new housing has been allocated to Dorridge despite this being mentioned in point 84.

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.

Does not include the vision that essential infrastructure improvements will be delivered for existing communities that will be affected by large scale housing development.

Do you agree with the Borough Vision?
The centre of Balsall Common will certainly not continue to thrive in the way that is sought if the developments along the Kenilworth Road (A452) and Frog Lane take place. These developments will mean hundreds more cars on the road along Windmill Lane, (a quiet rural lane with an historic Windmill), Kelsey Lane, Kenilworth Road and Balsall Street, leading up to the one and only school in the village. If you look on google maps you will see the existing severe congestion along the A452 already. My children go to Berkswell school and as it is I go right round the edge of the village to avoid the main road as it is frequently at a stand still or moving very slowly along at 9am in the morning. The people who would be living on the Kenilworth Road estate, in particular, would largely be using there cars to get anywhere, hence a massive increased congestion and parking problem for the village. Access to the village centre is much more difficult from this side of the village and most people in there daily lives would not walk that distance along a busy main road. The only option is walking along Meeting House Lane, down which for a large part, there is no pavement. I have been based in the village for over 30 years and can honestly say from my experience of living in the village that this is certainly the wrong side of the village to be developing. Firstly, it is green belt land (Government policy dictates that non-green belt land should be used first for development). There will be plenty of land to be developed nearer the sites allocated for HS2. Secondly, there isn't the infrastructure or services available on this side of the village to accommodate more housing and at the same time maintain the pleasant nature of the village. If 1200 are to be added to the village (I note the same number as in Knowle and Dorridge), the Council needs to make sure that services are provided at the same time. Knowle has a long High Street and small Mall with numerous shops and Dorridge has its own high street with large Sainsburys. How will Balsall Common's small village centre cope with this porportionally massive increase in numbers of cars and people? Housing shouldn't be developed in these locations as it will destroy the village. Rather, development should take place at a reasonable distance away from existing development with significant conditions being placed on developers to provide services, green areas separating new development from existing development and a new school. In addition, good walking access to the village and train station should be essential. As it is, the car park at Berkswell station isn't big enough to accommodate existing numbers of cars and people travelling by train park all along Riddings Hill. I understand that there have been proposals by Bryant Homes, which would satisfy a lot of the above and that these have not been taken up. In the site proposed (although it is also near the Kenilworth Road), new residents would be able to walk to a new school on the new development, walk to new amenities, and also walk through the existing Lavendar Hall Park to the existing shops and the train station. There would be much more connectivity with the village, without relying on the existing services in full and encourage more people to walk, as the means of doing so would be much easier. Just because the Kenilworth Road site is considered of slightly less greenbelt worth, does not automatically mean that it should be developed first. There are so many other social considerations (many of which you may be unaware of as you probably have not lived here) that must be taken into account in ensuring that Balsall Common maintains its vibrant and more rural nature and a place where people continue to choose to live. These are surely your objectives.

Developing the Kenilworth Road and Frog Lane sites is the wrong side of the village to be developing. There aren't the services nor the infrastructure to accommodate such a development. It would lead to massive increased congestion and parking issues. There would be no connectivity with the existing village nor services, (such as the shops and the train station), which would mean that car usage would be essential by these residents. The proposed Bryant homes site, for example, would be much better as new residents would be able to walk to existing services and new services would be provided.

Largely I agree with the vision but I think the idea for housing and moving between housing and workplace is flawed. Particularly object to large % of housing around Shirley, Dickens Heath etc. We may be villages but we are becoming 'go no where' as the roads grind to a halt.

Solihull remains one of the most successful medium sized towns not only in the Midlands but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. That did not happen by chance. The decision in 1974 to become a Metropolitan Borough Council, rather than be swallowed by Birmingham has proved to be one of the most pivotal decisions in the town's history. It allowed Solihull to grow and flourish. Our Schools have become beacons for excellence. Solihull is still seen as the aspirational destination for many families within the wider West Midlands. The price of houses has grown in the town substantially higher in percentage terms over the last thirty years than any other town in the region. Such success has brought new business, a vibrant town centre and a confident and prosperous work force. The challenge over the next 15 to 30 years is to ensure that the success of the borough continues and that every member of its community can share in the continuing bright future.

Who can say that Solihull will have more equality and a healthier lifestyle for its residents? Taking away a vast area of green belt in one area i.e> Shirley, Dickens Heath, will not lead to healthier lifestyles as residents' outdoor activities will not be as accessible.

para. 74 - The two proposed housing sites west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley would not protect and enhance the natural environment of the rural village of Dickens Heath, and therefore these two proposed housing sites do not support the borough vision stated in chapter 4
para. 83 - The two proposed housing sites west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley would not protect the best of the Green Belt.
Para. 87 - The above two proposed housing sites would result in the loss of open countryside around the village of Dickens Heath.

It feels somewhat contradictory. You stress the importance of protecting the green belt, yet significant development will occur around Balsall Common. These objectives are at odds.

No, the Vision needs to include something specific about Sporting Activities/Sports Facilities, to give confidence that the Council does care about, and wishes to plan appropriately for, Sporting Activities in Solihull.

A general statement, or appropriate statements within relevant sections of the Vision, is required about Sporting Activities/Sports Facilities, such as - 'In promoting Health and Well Being, Solihull will have a wide range of facilities for outdoor and indoor sporting activities, to meet the needs of its residents, with the Council working with existing agencies, clubs and sports providers to improve existing facilities.'

I can see the vision you paint for Balsall, Berkswell etc but I don't see how what you are proposing meets that need or meets the vision. Through the document what you vision and what you are proposing are at odds. The Traffic problem in Balsall is to the southwest of the town -where you are proposing significant development and no where in this document have you taken any account of the JLR development in Fen End, rumoured to have 3000 employees.

Whilst I support some aspects of the vision, the areas selected, particularly those in green belt away from major roads or rail links are completely wrong. We have the M42, A45 and West Coast main line running through our borough, as well as the planned HS2. The areas selected for development do not take advantage of these. The Arden Triangle proposal in particular would destroy Knowle and I believe is a lazy option being taken based in the ambitions of the Arden academy with little regard to the impact on the village.

In Para 67, the proposed vision is one
"Where everyone has an equal chance to be healthier, happier, safer and prosperous".
I suggest the following amended vision:
"Where everyone has an equal chance to be healthier, happier, and fulfilled".
I do not believe it is within the Council's power to make people safer, except in relation to road transport (which should be a given) and to health which is already covered in the vision statement. Similarly prosperity mainly depends on national government and worldwide circumstances (outside of Council control) and the likelihood is that people will become less prosperous over the coming years due to these factors. I have therefore deleted the words safer and prosperous from the vision statement, but have added "fulfilled" since by increasing the local cultural opportunities, Solihull people can become fulfilled which can be more important than prosperity alone.

Ref 86.
I would add that the following sentence:
"Open green spaces should to be provided, centrally located with the enlarged village, in keeping with previous development"
The fields to the east of meeting house lane are a valued local amenity, used by many dog walkers and children. Similar to the Riddings Hill development, in which Lavender Hall park was developed as an open space for the community, a similar accessible local space, in a central location should be protected for.

see attached letter received via email

Whilst the actual fabric of the centre of Knowle will be protected as far as development is concerned the character of the village will be destroyed by the proposed completely inappropriate development of the two proposed sites for housing. The infrastructure is already overloaded and the vehicles associated with 1,050 homes will cause massive issues.

There is available space for housing around Catherine de Barnes where the main business development is due to take place around HS2 and the airport expansion - the housing will then be directly next to where the jobs will be.

Letter from Agent - Turleys - see attached

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

Again, there is no mention of Balsall Common centre; the vision should include improving the centre.

Solihull Local Plan Review
Consultation Submission

I refer to the following areas proposed for housing development:

1. Proposed Housing Allocation 4 West of Dickens Heath
This development will result in the loss of a significant number of playing fields and sports amenities that are close to south Shirley and Dickens Heath. Research shows that "Regular physical activity reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia and some cancers by at least 30%." The UK Government has a clear policy (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/get-active-to-get-healthy) to encourage people to take regular exercise to reduce the possible impact of obesity with its attendant impact on not only the health of our nation but the cost to the NHS in treating obesity. These open spaces and sports and leisure facilities should not be lost whilst the health of our population is declining.

2. Proposed Housing Allocation 12 South of Dog Kennel Lane
This development will considerably reduce the open countryside between Shirley and Dickens Heath. This is contrary to the NPPF which seeks to retain individual communities and to resist coalescence of villages. In para 83 the plan talks about "The network of strong and vibrant communities across the Rural Area will have been sustained with a range of local facilities and services that are readily accessible on foot and by bicycle and that are appropriate to the scale and hierarchy of the settlement" whereas the plan seeks to extend many communities and leave only a small strip of dividing land.

3. Proposed Housing Allocation 13 South of Shirley
This development will considerably reduce the open countryside between Shirley and Dickens Heath. This is contrary to the NPPF which seeks to retain individual communities and to resist coalescence of villages.

In Para 87 there is no recognition of the new development at Lowbrook and Tidbury Green Farms for 387 houses in Tidbury Green. The plan review should recognise the reality of house building that has taken place in and around Dickens Heath. Since 1989 when approval was given for 700 houses to be built in Dickens Heath the area has seen approval for over 1500 houses plus the expansion of Dickens Heath from 700 to over 1500 houses, with the attendant loss of green space and little or no increase in amenities or leisure facilities.

Whilst the Borough has a vision to "retain its sense of identity both in its urban and rural area (including appropriate protection of the Green Belt); and the quality of the environment that make it a special place." It is difficult to reconcile that statement with the level of house building that has and will be taking place at considerable cost to the green belt (Site 4, 12 and 13 are all in the green belt.).

Conclusions
The Local Plan Review should seek other ways to meet its housing needs other than extending urban areas by pushing their boundaries into the green belt, and should not build on existing sports and leisure facilities that are close to urban areas unless there is a clear replacement and extension plan.

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.