Q3. Do you agree with the spatial strategy we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 25
Received: 08/12/2016
Respondent: Mr Matthew Taylor
There is always a risk that these infilling and add-ons will spiral out of control, but what is suggested seems reasonable. Mostly smaller developments so not to burden the infrastructure in place, with larger ones, around Knowle and Balsall common, Dickens Heath, Cheswick Green etc. where there is stronger infrastructure.
there is always a risk that these infilling and add-ons will spiral out of control, but what is suggested seems reasonable. Mostly smaller developments so not to burden the infrastructure in place, with larger ones, around Knowle and Balsall common, Dickens Heath, Cheswick Green etc. where there is stronger infrastructure.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 36
Received: 15/12/2016
Respondent: Mr Steven Webb
101 - The term 'less accessible' is a bit unclear, Does this mean a location that is difficult to reach due to being out of the way from other area's or simply that it is difficult to travel to and from ?
Taking the land between Hampton Lane and Lugtrout lane for instance, on the face of it is near to the town centre so potentially has a lot of local services, and geographically it could be considered to be very near the town centre, however transport around that area is constantly at a standstill.
101 - The term 'less accessible' is a bit unclear, Does this mean a location that is difficult to reach due to being out of the way from other area's or simply that it is difficult to travel to and from ?
Taking the land between Hampton Lane and Lugtrout lane for instance, on the face of it is near to the town centre so potentially has a lot of local services, and geographically it could be considered to be very near the town centre, however transport around that area is constantly at a standstill.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 49
Received: 20/12/2016
Respondent: Mr Jason Gardner
With the large central growth areas potentially growing even more and with HS2 on the horizon, the need for additional housing around the borough must definately be considered, in particular around the South Solihull / Knowle area where there is undeveloped land currently green belt but which could be used.
I think with the large central growth areas potentially growing even more and with HS2 on the horizon, the need for additional housing around the borough must definately be considered, in particular around the South Solihull / Knowle area where there is undeveloped land currently green belt but which could be used.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 59
Received: 23/12/2016
Respondent: Mr Andrew Freeman
The appropriateness of the spatial strategy for waste management is uncertain, as proposals lack appropriate detail and justification and data sources dated.
.
Overview and Summary
Coverage of the subject is wanting. In many important respects, the proposals are lacking appropriate detail and justification. Data sources seem dated.
The justification for the proposals, and their effectiveness, in questionable. There is no detailed indication of what waste management facilities are needed and when. The appropriateness of the spatial strategy is uncertain.
Unjustified selection of an Area of Search in the Green Belt seems to be contrary to Government policy.
Inadequate guidance is available to providers of waste management facilities on what is needed and what is likely to be approved, where and when.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 85
Received: 02/01/2017
Respondent: Graham Brown
I believe that the solutions that you have proposed are an excellent mix of meeting future requirements and have considered not only housing but the infrastructure that will be required(especially educational facilities) for the population that will occupy the properties. The land you are proposing to use gives a good balance between the use of green belt and the road infrastructure ,so as to minimise the negative impact on existing road networks around the smaller villages .
I believe that the solutions that you have proposed are an excellent mix of meeting future requirements and have considered not only housing but the infrastructure that will be required(especially educational facilities) for the population that will occupy the properties. The land you are proposing to use gives a good balance between the use of green belt and the road infrastructure ,so as to minimise the negative impact on existing road networks around the smaller villages .
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 94
Received: 06/01/2017
Respondent: Mr Adrian Jones
Summary
1) Site Alloc 20 site will probably reduce the number of people employed in the midlands within JLR supply chain.
2) By freeing up the land identified in allocation 20 will create an uninterrupted length of commercial land in excess of 5 miles from Lode Lane in the West to beyond the current NEC site in the East.
3) The buildings proposed by JLR for the logistic centre are totally disproportionate in terms of scale and height.
4) JLR will take the cheapest solution as they have demonstrated already.
5) Several thousand homes East/North East of Lugtrout Lane will be negatively affected
Detail
These comments relate to the land identified as allocation 20. It is mainly in response to part question 3 and in part question 4 and the associated paragraphs concerning the potential for JLR ie Cl.134.
For sake of clarity I will number my concerns, I am strongly against this proposal:
1) By enabling JLR to develop the logistics centre and further on this site will probably reduce the number of people employed in the midlands within their supply chain, this has got to be a consequence of this proposal. Therefore there is no argument on employment benefits to the region.
2) By freeing up the land identified in allocation 20 will create an uninterrupted length of commercial land in excess of 5 miles from Lode Lane in the West to beyond the current NEC site in the East. I do not agree that this is acceptable under good planning design.
3) The buildings proposed by JLR for the logistic centre are totally disproportionate in terms of scale and height, they will be within a very short distance of the road, stand 18 m high being the tallest commercial building in the borough, will be visible from all major routes including the A45 and are totally out of keeping with what was a quiet residential area. It is abundantly clear to me that the authority will have little interest in the details of what they propose in the future, this has been demonstrated already.
4) JLR will take the cheapest solution as they have demonstrated by constructing that dreadful bridge over the main road close to gate D on Damson Parkway. This could have been taken under the road but it would have cost more. This reminds me of the sort of thing being built on the Jaguar Castle Bromwich site in the mid 1980's. The dispatch area should never have been approved, the traffic is a nightmare and when you approach the area you think you are driving into an industrial park. The only way to restrict this further is at a high level.
5) Justification for this proposal is partly reliant on the fact that consent has been given for other developments in the area however such consents should never have been given.
6) There appears to me to be only two parties benefiting from this and they are JLR and Solihull Council who will be able to benefit from an increase in non-domestic rates.
Several thousand homes East/North East of Lugtrout Lane will be negatively affected by this proposal with no benefit at all. As there is no mention of a compensation scheme to those residents the proposal should be omitted from the plan.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 97
Received: 06/01/2017
Respondent: Mr Matthew Bragg
The proposal is not a balanced approach. The 'needs of the borough' need to be spread across the borough to be fair and proportionate.
The proposal is not a balanced approach. The 'needs of the borough' need to be spread across the borough to be fair and proportionate.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 117
Received: 10/01/2017
Respondent: Andrew Hodge
I understand SCC favours the decision to commence the larger residential developments at Arden school and Knowle Football club. The numerous smaller infill options have been excluded from the council draft plan. I applaud this decision which delivers maximum housing growth potential without blighting large areas of rural Knowle and Dorridge for relatively little housing occupancy upside. Representations to pursue smaller infill options should be resisted - they underestimate the corrosive nature of suburban sprawl into green belt land and the negative economic impact on the Solihull borough of reducing the mix of suburban/rural housing stock across the region.
I understand SCC favours the decision to commence the larger residential developments at Arden school and Knowle Football club. The numerous smaller infill options have been excluded from the council draft plan. I applaud this decision which delivers maximum housing growth potential without blighting large areas of rural Knowle and Dorridge for relatively little housing occupancy upside. Representations to pursue smaller infill options should be resisted - they underestimate the corrosive nature of suburban sprawl into green belt land and the negative economic impact on the Solihull borough of reducing the mix of suburban/rural housing stock across the region.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 158
Received: 12/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Adrie Cooper
Some of the proposed housing development is to far away from the JLR/HS2 and would add to the already congested transport infrastructure and would impact the already congested roads and parking in the village of Knowle/Dorridge in particular
Some of the proposed housing development is to far away from the JLR/HS2 and would add to the already congested transport infrastructure and would impact the already congested roads and parking in the village of Knowle/Dorridge in particular
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 198
Received: 13/01/2017
Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Wheeler
The allocation of housing units for Balsall Common represents at least a 25% increase over its current size - most of it in the Meriden Gap. This is unacceptable.
In respect of Balsall Common I totally disagree with the Spatial Strategy. The development sites proposed ignore the principles previously stated in several aspects.
It makes no mention of the use of existing Brown field or heavily developed Green field sites although this is stated to be a guiding principle.
It proposes releasing Green Belt land to the East of Balsall Common ( not North-east as stated in Option G) for the building of 800 houses - all in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap. Coventry City Council are already considering housing development on the Tile Hill/Burton Green side of the Gap making it narrower still.
The allocation for Balsall Common is 1150 houses - increasing the village size by 25%. Developers typically find ways to increase their allocation once outline approval in granted - as seen at the existing Windmill Lane site. SSHELAA 2016 estimated yield for the three chosen sites to be 1633 and no doubt developers would see this as their target. (The SHLAA report from 2012 estimated the maximum yield from the then Barrett's Farm site - which was about half the new area proposed - to be 2463 units. It also said this site was too large and had suitability issues) This, together with development of Brown field/windfall sites could easily more than double the 1150 and completely overwhelm all the services necessary to support them.
I suggest another look at possible sites in Dorridge and Barston - away from the Meriden Gap.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 220
Received: 14/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Adrie Cooper
New settlements should not be allowed in the KDBH area as this will erode the green space between KDBH and Solihull
New settlements should not be allowed in the KDBH area as this will erode the green space between KDBH and Solihull
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 235
Received: 15/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Felicity Wheeler
Any significant expansion of rural villages/settlements should be directed away from other conurbations and not reduce the green belt between Coventry, Burton Green and Coventry.
No mention is made of using Brown field or previously developed Green field sites although this is said to be a guiding principle.
The LPR evidence base is flawed. Although it purports to use a pseudo-scientific method to identify sites the actual scoring is subjective and in some cases incorrect.
There are sites in Dorridge and Barston which may be more suitable and are further from the boundary with Coventry thus protecting the Meriden Gap.
Any significant expansion of rural villages/settlements should be directed away from other conurbations and not reduce the green belt between Coventry, Burton Green and Coventry.
No mention is made of using Brown field or previously developed Green field sites although this is said to be a guiding principle.
The LPR evidence base is flawed. Although it purports to use a pseudo-scientific method to identify sites the actual scoring is subjective and in some cases incorrect.
There are sites in Dorridge and Barston which may be more suitable and are further from the boundary with Coventry thus protecting the Meriden Gap.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 261
Received: 12/01/2017
Respondent: Historic England- West Midlands Region
Strategic objectives fail to fully reflect that local plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Strategic decisions should be made having regard to the great weight that needs to be applied to the protection and enhancement of the historic environment.
The limited number of 'Guiding Principles Generally in Support' fail to reflect this.
Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment.
The conservation of heritage assets should be seen as a positive place shaping principle/objective reflected in the plan to deliver sustainable development.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 283
Received: 15/01/2017
Respondent: Mr Charles Ayto
In part, I appreciate the points noted but some allowance should be made to developing isolated settlements. It should not be the preserve of a select few to live in these isolated settlements but opened up to others while preserving the nature of the location as best as possible. I do not agree with the ranking order as set out in options A - G. Option G is possibly the easiest to bring to fruition in a relatively short space of time, especially where existing public transport links exist, such as close by (within relatively easy walking distance bus stops.)
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.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 339
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association
Para. 96.
Strategic objectives sequential approach should start with and include the development of Brown Field Land.
Para. 96.
Strategic objectives sequential approach should start with and include the development of Brown Field Land.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 361
Received: 20/01/2017
Respondent: phillippa holroyd
more use of infill and less of green belt should be considered especially around the areas heavily impacted by the M42, HS2, Jaguar land rover, airport & proposed service station
more use of infill and less of green belt should be considered especially around the areas heavily impacted by the M42, HS2, Jaguar land rover, airport & proposed service station
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 365
Received: 20/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Caroline Gooding
Agent: Mrs Caroline Gooding
I agree partly in that non green belt land should be allocated first for development. However, no green belt land need be used as there is enough non green belt land that may be used by developers and permitted by the Council.
I agree partly in that non green belt land should be allocated first for development. However, no green belt land need be used as there is enough non green belt land that may be used by developers and permitted by the Council.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 374
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Miss Mary Bree
I don't like option G. If you are developing the UK central hub, HS2 etc it would make sense to build residential property nearby to reduce commuting, the need for a lot of travel and pollution.
I don't like option G. If you are developing the UK central hub, HS2 etc it would make sense to build residential property nearby to reduce commuting, the need for a lot of travel and pollution.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 433
Received: 26/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Price
The number of houses to be built in the Shirley, Dickens Heath area is too many and will further expand the urban town of Shirley affecting green belt, increasing traffic to a ridiculous level on already very busy roads.The existing roads, Bills Lane, Haslucks Green Road, Tilehouse Lane, Tythebarn Lane, Dickens Heath Road, Shakespeare Drive are already congested at certain times of the day. The A34 and junction 4 of the M42 are congested throughout the day.
The number of houses to be built in the Shirley, Dickens Heath area is too many and will further expand the urban town of Shirley affecting green belt, increasing traffic to a ridiculous level on already very busy roads.The existing roads, Bills Lane, Haslucks Green Road, Tilehouse Lane, Tythebarn Lane, Dickens Heath Road, Shakespeare Drive are already congested at certain times of the day. The A34 and junction 4 of the M42 are congested throughout the day.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 455
Received: 27/01/2017
Respondent: Mr Terry Hughes
Because Point 96 Section A should specifically give priority first to Brownfield Sites
Because Point 96 Section A should specifically give priority first to Brownfield Sites
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 464
Received: 28/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Jane Carbray
para. 92 - the proposed housing sites west of Dickens Heath, south of Dog Kennel Lane Shirley and south of Shirley do not protect the open countryside within the Solihull Green Belt.
para. 102 - the two proposed housing sites west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley should be discouraged since they represent "a disproportionate addition to a settlement that only has a limited range of facilities". Although Dickens Heath has a primary school it is oversubscribed and has a waiting list for entry. The internal roads within Dickens Heath are already congested with no capacity for additional traffic.
para. 92 - the proposed housing sites west of Dickens Heath, south of Dog Kennel Lane Shirley and south of Shirley do not protect the open countryside within the Solihull Green Belt.
para. 102 - the two proposed housing sites west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley should be discouraged since they represent "a disproportionate addition to a settlement that only has a limited range of facilities". Although Dickens Heath has a primary school it is oversubscribed and has a waiting list for entry. The internal roads within Dickens Heath are already congested with no capacity for additional traffic.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 478
Received: 29/01/2017
Respondent: Mr Michael Scott
I disagree with the amount of growth planned for Balsall Common. It seems disproportionate to many other areas (i.e. Dorridge, Hockley Heath, Tidbury Green etc). I'm also not convinced that enough focus is paid to expanding the mature suburbs and brownfield sites.
Balsall Common will no longer be the aspirational place that you currently pitch it as. Kenilworth Road is already too busy, the high street is too small, schools are over-crowded and we are already subject to increased flight noise and soon, the HS2. The current proposals ruin the greenbelt.
I disagree with the amount of growth planned for Balsall Common. It seems disproportionate to many other areas (i.e. Dorridge, Hockley Heath, Tidbury Green etc). I'm also not convinced that enough focus is paid to expanding the mature suburbs and brownfield sites.
Balsall Common will no longer be the aspirational place that you currently pitch it as. Kenilworth Road is already too busy, the high street is too small, schools are over-crowded and we are already subject to increased flight noise and soon, the HS2. The current proposals ruin the greenbelt.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 481
Received: 31/01/2017
Respondent: Mr Stephen Hill
No, the Spatial Strategy 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. Such a statement would also provide support for the subsequent sections/policies relevant to Sporting Activities and reassurances where policies could result in the loss of existing Sports Facilities.
A general statement about facilities for Sporting Activities is required in the Spatial Strategy, such as - 'Solihull will need a range of facilities for outdoor and indoor sporting activities, to meet the needs of its residents.'
No, the Spatial Strategy 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. Such a statement would also provide support for the subsequent sections/policies relevant to Sporting Activities and reassurances where policies could result in the loss of existing Sports Facilities.
A general statement about facilities for Sporting Activities is required in the Spatial Strategy, such as - 'Solihull will need a range of facilities for outdoor and indoor sporting activities, to meet the needs of its residents.'
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 484
Received: 29/01/2017
Respondent: Ms Judith Tyrrell
Solihull's "enviable record" of and delivering growth in a way which enhances the Borough whilst not undermining its attractiveness is now in doubt. Particularly for Balsall Common. The failure of our MP to secure tunneling of HS2 throughout the borough will have a huge effect on its attractiveness, as will the years of hosting a building compound to the east of BC. In addition the routing of aircraft over the village will diminish its attractiveness meaning people will travel here - but likely live elsewhere.
Solihull's "enviable record" of and delivering growth in a way which enhances the Borough whilst not undermining its attractiveness is now in doubt. Particularly for Balsall Common. The failure of our MP to secure tunneling of HS2 throughout the borough will have a huge effect on its attractiveness, as will the years of hosting a building compound to the east of BC. In addition the routing of aircraft over the village will diminish its attractiveness meaning people will travel here - but likely live elsewhere.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 519
Received: 30/01/2017
Respondent: Mr Adam Hunter
I Believe solihull is focusing on extending current developments but has not fully considered brand new sites in the east and south where there a large areas of land available. Whilst more complex than developing exiting areas such as dickens Heath. Adding more housing to already over extened sites like dickens Heath is now fundamentally altering the boroughs make up and merging solihull completely with birmingham, and other surrounding areas, removing the green rural feel to the bourgh.
I Believe solihull is focusing on extending current developments but has not fully considered brand new sites in the east and south where there a large areas of land available. Whilst more complex than developing exiting areas such as dickens Heath. Adding more housing to already over extened sites like dickens Heath is now fundamentally altering the boroughs make up and merging solihull completely with birmingham, and other surrounding areas, removing the green rural feel to the bourgh.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 603
Received: 01/02/2017
Respondent: Diane Duftane
Concentration of houses in one area
Concentration of houses in one area
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 606
Received: 01/02/2017
Respondent: Graham Jones
Para 104 sets out the guiding principles. An additional guiding principle should be to give priority to releasing land (greenbelt and non-green belt) to facilitate a rapid transit system, preferably a tram system.
Over recent years the Council has released land for housing in locations which then restrict and hamper the development of a rapid transit system, thereby hindering the future development of both houses and jobs, which is the situation we are now in. A more strategic approach to transport planning is needed within the spatial strategy.
Para 104 sets out the guiding principles. An additional guiding principle should be to give priority to releasing land (greenbelt and non-green belt) to facilitate a rapid transit system, preferably a tram system.
Over recent years the Council has released land for housing in locations which then restrict and hamper the development of a rapid transit system, thereby hindering the future development of both houses and jobs, which is the situation we are now in. A more strategic approach to transport planning is needed within the spatial strategy.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 691
Received: 05/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Roger Cook
Chapter 99 - where is the balance between dispersed and concentrated housing development in Knowle. There is none - it has been concentrated solely on two sites. However, even dispersed development is not acceptable as it will still create additional pressure in Knowle and Dorridge which cannot support the increase in residents, housing and infrastructure.
Chapter 102 - point 2 the development of significant housing will completely go against the objective stated in that it would result in a disproportionate addition to a settlement that only has a limited range of facilities.
Also being proposed on Green Belt land.
Chapter 99 - where is the balance between dispersed and concentrated housing development in Knowle. There is none - it has been concentrated solely on two sites. However, even dispersed development is not acceptable as it will still create additional pressure in Knowle and Dorridge which cannot support the increase in residents, housing and infrastructure.
Chapter 102 - point 2 the development of significant housing will completely go against the objective stated in that it would result in a disproportionate addition to a settlement that only has a limited range of facilities.
Also being proposed on Green Belt land.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 692
Received: 02/02/2017
Respondent: Genting Solihull Ltd
Agent: Turley
Support Growth Option E (UKC Hub and HS2) as the most appropriate opportunity for where growth should be focussed. This will enable the delivery of the UKC Masterplan and HS2 Growth Strategy, including major growth opportunities and place-making potential around the HS2 Interchange Station, such as the NEC.
Letter from Agent - Turleys - see attached
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 704
Received: 03/02/2017
Respondent: Mr David Roberts
These plans are housing plans in the main. they are not accompanied by any sensible infrastructure ideas for the settlements suggested e.g. Knowle no extra schools, roads will be excessively imposed on. The High Street needs a By Pass. With proposed housing numbers like these villages will final seize up.
see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages