Q3. Do you agree with the spatial strategy we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Housing :-

"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 ALL Greenbelt land where there are alternative PDL sites available; especially those in Balsall Common known as Barratt's Farm and Windmill Lane. The latter is an historical site in which no development should be allowed to encroach into and ruin.
The reasons for my objection are below.

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. If Balsall Common must be subjected to yet more development, it seems ridiculous that greenbelt can be released when there are so many other brownfield sites available.

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".

Buses to and from the village are infrequent (1 an hour) and there is such heavy demand for the train service from Berkswell station that trains are often full to capacity. The inadequate parking at the train station results in neighbouring roads being used as car parks for the full day and over night having a negative impact on movement around the edge of the village.

Within Balsall Common itself and its surrounding hamlets is often grid locked, particularly at rush hours and school run times or when a nearby major road has issues and traffic diverts through the village. Parking in the village and surrounding area of Berkswell is extremely limited and it is difficult to actually get to the amenities due to volume of traffic.

The local primary schools are already oversubscribed and bursting at their seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing. Traffic around the schools is a huge danger to the young children.

These sites are all considerable distance from the schools and amenities, and there would undoubtedly be a huge increase in volume of traffic as it would be considered too far to walk.
Balsall Common is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car.

Windmill Lane and Meeting House Lane will become even more of a "rat run". The volume of traffic already using Windmill Lane and Meeting House Lane as a cut through is high and the speed of this traffic is also already dangerous.

These sites 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

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 light of the above, I would 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) These sites removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Properties and IM Land.

We would like to submit a formal response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation on behalf of Stoford Properties. As part of our response, please find attached our Representations Letter.

see letter
I would like to state for the record, my strong objection to the proposal for 700 new dwellings on Site Allocation 4 (west of Dickens Heath) in the Solihull Local Plan Review.

Please see attached the following submission to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation.

We have produced the following documents to form part of our submission:

* Covering Letter
* National Motorcycle Museum Site Location Plan
* The Hub drawing

see response and supporting documents

In accordance with the consultation deadline for the Draft Local Plan Review, please find attached the following sent on behalf of our clients Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd:

* Letter addressing our representations on behalf of our client Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
* Appendix 1 Proposed Allocation Plan Layout
* Appendix 2 Grove Road, Knowle Promotional Document

see attached response and supporting documents

Please see attached an e-copy of the response letter and associated documents which comprises the Borough Council's representation, comments and concerns/objections arising from the Solihull Local Plan consultation

see attached

Please find attached Persimmon Homes Central's representations in response to the draft plan published November 2016. Also attached are our site specific representations regarding our site at Tythe Barn Lane, Dickens Heath, which forms part of the strategic allocation.

submission by agent on behalf Federated Scrap and proposal land at Jacobean Lane Copt Heath

Representations on behalf of Schools of King Edward VI in Birmingham

GVA is instructed to submit representations to the Local Plan Review 'Draft Local Plan' consultation process.
Please therefore find attached a Representations document (which includes appendices), that provides our client's comments on the Draft Local Plan.

Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan

see letter and site map

Please see attached the following submission to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation.

We have produced the following documents to form part of our submission:

* Solihull Draft Local Plan Representations (Framptons, February 2017)
* Appendix A - Green Belt, Landscape and Masterplanning Report (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix B - A Vision for Tidbury Green (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix C - Review of SDLPR Sustainability Appraisal - (JAM Consult Ltd, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 1 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 2 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Figures (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix E - Infrastructure and Utilities Note (WSP, February 2017)

On behalf of the forum, I am submitting the attached document as the considered view of the Neighbourhood Forum members in response to the consultation to Solihull Council's Draft Local Plan. The response relates in particular to the implications for the KDBH area.

In order to capture and then reflect the views of forum members and residents, the forum has held three public meetings; in December 2016 and January and February of this year. Feedback has been gathered on each occasion and we have also invited and received comments via e-mail.

We also have a body of evidence that reflects residents' general views, concerns and aspirations for the area from the residents survey conducted in 2016.

In addition, we have reviewed the proposed housing allocations, for the KDBH area as outlined in the draft plan against the Council's published methodologies and evidence base to try to understand how they were determined.

We believe that the document is a balance and objective representation of the Forum member's views.

We have also encourage members to submit their own individual responses, following the instructions on your website. This should ensure that you have the full spectrum of views.

see letter

Challenges
1. 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?
Vision

No.
Challenge C - Balsall Common village centre suffers from many of the challenges listed for Solihull, Shirley, and Chelmsley Wood Centres.

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

No.
The vision seems to rely on increasing transport dependency. It implies that employment growth will necessitate people travelling from outside the area to work within Solihull, and Solihull residents travelling long distances outside the Borough to go to work. A better strategy would be to focus on creating local employment, with the transport growth aimed at transporting materials and goods. Transport of people for employment purposes could be reduced by improved broadband network infrastructure and tele-working.
the spatial strategy seems to run counter to the wish in para 74 for preserving the environment.
There doesn't seem to be any proposals to meet the aspiration in para 75 to reduce carbon emissions.
In para 86 it's said growth will occur on the edge of settlements which will inevitably increase traffic and transport need, and runs counter to the aspirations in paras 72 and 75. A bypass for Balsall Common is proposed without consideration of the impact on the viability of the village centre, the environment, or existing residents.

Spatial Strategy
3. Do you agree with the spatial strategy we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Sustainable Economic Growth

No.
The proposed significant expansion of rural settlements is in conflict with the stated preference and national policy of giving preference to brown field sites, and does not recognise the absence of high frequency public transport in most of the Borough.
Given the shortage of housing land to meet the Government's housing targets, it is essential that all new development is to a high density to reduce the land-take.

4. Do you agree with Policy P1? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
There doesn't seem any plan to mitigate the increased traffic, congestion, carbon emissions, air quality degradation, and noise disturbance. The land should not be developed until after the aggregate resources have been extracted. Renaming the area as Arden Cross is simply tacky and tasteless. It already has a name, Middle Bickenhill.

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

No.
Balsall Common centre has suffered from the loss of business premises, the loss of the Health Centre to a greenfield site on the edge of the village, inadequate parking, the lack of a bus station, and now a proposal to divert through-traffic. A comprehensive development plan is required to address all these issues.

Providing Homes for All
11. Do you agree with Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
The shortage of land and the need for housing means that there should be a significant increase in density and the provision of smaller homes.

12. Do you agree with the level of affordable housing being sought in Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
The affordable housing provision should be greater than 50% for all sites - which would require development of an individual house to be "affordable".

14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?

No.
The housing target should just meet local needs. Excess requirements should be met in the rural expanses in neighbouring counties, who are expected to have a "duty to cooperate". Solihull should not cater for Birmingham overspill. Solihull Borough has essentially reached capacity in terms of housing provision, and a Predict and Provide policy will lead to a continuous decline in the quality of the environment and to the detriment of residents.

15. Do you believe we are planning to build new 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?

No.
The planning objectives of re-using previously-developed land and creating new settlements have been ignored. Areas such as Balsall Common are being encouraged to sprawl in contravention of accessibility, sustainability, and Green Gelt policies. The Green Belt analysis has not been conducted in line with the NPPF as non-defensible boundaries have been used. The scores attached to preserving the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap are too low and irrational. Balsall Common seems to have been singled out for concentrated and disproportionate expansion, in contrast to areas such as Dorridge, which has far better public transport. In particular, sites 1 and 3 appear to have been chosen for administrative convenience rather than compliance with local and national policies.
Preference should be given to developing brown-field sites and to raising the housing density generally.

16. 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.
With regard to Site 1, the proposed highway access is completely unsuitable and will put traffic onto residential roads. No "bypass" is proposed, but with the lack of funding the proposals are likely to create a rat-run that will cause further environmental harm for residents. There is no strategy to deliver bus service and school provision. With regard to Site 3, it is far too distant from the village centre to benefit from the quoted infrastructure improvements.

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

No.
Para 267 is incorrect, the HS2 Environmental Impact has been assessed on the basis that no road improvements would be needed south of the A45. It is highly unlikely that people will travel from south of Balsall Common to HS2 at Middle Bickenhill when there are nearer and more convenient alternatives at Warwick. In addition, the current railway is available to feed the new station via the People Mover. The additional housing proposed for Balsall Common is wrongly sited if it creates additional commuting traffic. There are alternative sites to the north of Balsall Common that would have good access to new employment sites and would not require road improvements.
One reason for abandoning the bypass for Balsall Common was the need to maintain the vitality of the village centre retail options. The proposed new housing would be too far from the centre to offset any loss of through-custom. The A452 only becomes congested when there are problems on the motorway network, and there is no identified need for improved capacity. Much of the traffic is generated within the village. Capacity is limited by the traffic lights at the south of the village, and improvements to that junction should be the first to be considered if demand increases.
There doesn't seem to be any justification for expensive projects like Metro and Sprint (Policy 8A). The passenger demand should first be proven by running bus services. The main factors limiting greater use of public transport are: service interval; unreliability; lack of real-time information; primitive or non-existent waiting shelters; absence of evening services; difficult access for the less agile. Berkswell Station has an irregular service with 40 minute waiting times, and has had a marked reduction in the quality of the waiting facilities. It is difficult for the disabled to board the trains due to the platform gap.
The service interval target (Policy P7) has been increased from 15 minutes between busses and 20 minutes between trains. Rail services have been dropped from the policy, and should be specificed with the same targets as for busses. The previous target intervals were too long for many users, but the proposed 30 minute wait is far too long. The rural area generally has only an hourly service, and few dwellings are within 400 metres of a stop, so Policy P7 is hugely optimistic and unrealistic.

Protecting and Enhancing our Environment
19. Do you agree with the policies for protecting the environment? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
There should be a clear policy for requiring solar PV on all new buildings, and prohibiting green-field solar farms. In addition, policies should encourage use of solar PV in paved areas etc. There should be clear architectural/design standards for all solar PV installations.

Promoting Quality of Place
20. Do you agree with the policies for quality of place? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Health and Supporting Local Communities

No.
Policy P16 should be expanded to include requirements to identify unrecognised archaeological remains during any development. A more integrated approach should be adopted to finding traces of early settlement in the area. All works in new areas should be preceded by geophysical surveys.
Policy P17 should specify Balsall Common as inset in the Green Belt and protected like the other named settlements.

21. Do you agree with the policies health and supporting communities? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
Policy P20 does not provide sufficient long-term protection for public open space. All such areas should be designated as Village Greens, and green spaces in new developments should be dedicated as Village Greens by the developers.

Delivery and Monitoring
22. Do you agree with the Policy P21? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
Policy P21 should be clearer about spending all "planning gain" within the affected communities. In addition, all new developments should only be approved following agreement of a detailed strategic site plan agreed within the community.
**********************************************

Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Plan Consultation
Please find attached a representation from Gladman into the above referenced consultation

Dear Sirs,

The local plan has major flaw- the new infrastructure and economic activity centres (UK central and HS2 hub) are in the north-east of the borough and the majority of the development is sited in the south of the borough. This means that the workforce for the new economic areas will be crossing the borough on a regular basis. There are no plans for new infrastructure to link the housing to the economic activity areas, the roads, in particular the M42 and the A4141 are already at capacity at peak periods. It would be better to site the housing near to the economic activity areas.

The housing development allocations in Knowle go far beyond what the current infrastructure can cope with. your stated objective is to retain the historic core of the village. With the increased traffic having no alternative but to cross the village through the High St, this will become constantly clogged with traffic, which will increase pollution and could lead to damage to fragile foundations of the historic buildings. If this plan is accepted the green belt will be lost, but as important a 20% increase in the number of homes in the area will destroy the nature of the area and the village of Knowle as we know it.

The vision states that the developments will be in Dorridge, Bentley Heath and Knowle. The plan shows only development in Knowle and the majority of traffic leaving the development with be going North to Solihull on the A4141 in Knowle.

The plan shows housing at a density which has recently been achieved in 2 new developments in Knowle. The experience of this density is that there are traffic problems, no suitable locations for recycling storage, little green space. One only has to look back but a few years to see that overcrowded developments become the substandard housing of the future. If due to lack of space people find it difficult to keep the area tidy (dustbins in the road etc, no where to store a bike, no where to keep equipment for maintaining the exterior) work will not be done and the area will become unpleasant for the majority.

We are not a London Borough where public transport links mean a car is not necessary. Current bike routes end at the most dangerous points, at junctions or roundabouts and it is therefore unrealistic to bank on the prospect of people managing in our areas without a car. Developments will need space for cars and people.

Your vision for expansion of the Town centre does not take into account the expectation that shopping in the high street will decline over the next 20 years. An extension to Touchwood is not needed, and if built, will further destroy the character of Solihull.

Yours faithfully

Dear Sir/Madam

Please can you confirm receipt of this email, as significant research and analysis has been undertaken in writing this response and would be grateful to know that this has been taken into account. See response to consultation below.

Kind regards
Sarah Smith

Start of response

14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?
An extra 15,000 houses in an area that currently only has 86,000 houses seems an extraordinarily high number. The population of Solihull is around 207,000 people, compared to a national population of 64.1 million people. The Government's target is to build 1,000,000 new homes by 2020 (i.e. over its 5 year tenure). For the sake of argument, Solihull should be looking to build 0.32% of these houses based on its population, which is 3,229 houses over a 5 year period, which is only 9,687 over a 15 year period. Therefore, there is no justification to aim to build over 15,000 more houses at the expense of the quality of the surrounding area.

15. Do you believe we are planning to build new 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?
No. There are too many developments, too focussed on the area south of Shirley where roads are already too busy and there is no space to widen roads or provide new infrastructure. Traffic congestion on Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane and the surrounding area is already extremely bad at rush hours, and it is increasingly difficult to turn out of Tanworth Lane near the doctor's surgery due to the large volume of traffic coming from the new development in Dickens Heath. Proposed allocations 12 and 13 will exacerbate these problems significantly by putting an extra 1,450 houses on them - potentially an extra 2,900 cars, not to mention the extra 400 houses and 800 cars on the TRW site (plus any additional commuters if there is to be additional employment on that site). Even if new roads are built to access the Stratford Road, there are already traffic jams on the Stratford Road trying to get onto the M42, so putting extra traffic onto the Stratford Road is not going to resolve traffic problems, but will make them worse.
More of these sites should be focussed around the HS2 site if that is one of the main draws for new housing in Solihull. In particular, there are a number of sites marked as lower quality green belt land nearer the HS2 development that aren't being earmarked for development such as parcels of land RP18 and RP19 just north of Hampton in Arden on the Green Belt Assessment report 2016 (both plots of land only have a grading of 4, compared to RP69 and RP65 both graded as 6 but the latter have been earmarked for building allocations 12 and 13 even though they serve a better green belt purpose).
There are also a number of poorer quality greenbelt areas around Dorridge which would be more suitable for development. These areas would be closer to HS2, and are also closer to a better quality train-line than that in Shirley or Dickens Heath. Housing in Dorridge would provide commuters with access to around 72 trains per day to Birmingham (compared to only 45 on the Shirley line), and would also provide easy access to commute to London via either the existing Chiltern service, Birmingham International or the new HS2. In particular RP34 only has a grading of 3, and other sites are graded 4 or 5 (RP33, RP41, RP39, RP40, RP48, RP47, RP45). It would be preferable if you considered these sites to proposed allocations 12 or 13.
The added benefit of building around Dorridge is that Arden School is (I believe) being rebuilt on a new site, so this would be an ideal opportunity to rebuild a new, larger, fit for purpose school to cater for significantly higher numbers instead of trying to extend existing schools on their existing grounds.
There is a triangle of land near to proposed housing allocation 4, bounded by Houndsfield Lane, Tilehouse Lane and the railway line. This does not appear to have been included in plans, even though RP72 only has a green belt grading of 4 and there is already a proposed development near there, and it is significantly more convenient to access Whitlocks End railway station than proposed allocations 12 and 13. It may be that some housing could be put on here, or it may be that there's a plan to extend station car parking here.
There is also a number of green belt sites in the north of the borough within already built up areas around Kingshurst, Fordbridge etc. These are all poorly performing green belt areas, and the green belt strategic review has even highlighted some that do not perform their green belt functions at all. It would be preferable if these areas could be used. As they are amidst built up areas anyway, it would be possible to build at a higher density here, without the development being out of character for the area. (RPs 01, 02, 03, 79, 06, 08).
An area where a lot of space that has already been removed from the green belt which could be more efficiently used and should be considered before any new green belt building, is the huge car parking areas around the NEC, airport and station. Were some of these to be turned into multi-storey car parks, then a number could be released to build housing on, and these would provide significant brown-field sites and save removing further land from the green belt. These would also provide good access to the proposed new employment site north east of Land Rover.
In addition the density of housing being proposed seems to be very low. Both proposed allocations 12 and 13 seem to only be around 20 dwellings per hectare. To reduce the impact on the green belt, build higher density developments in fewer areas (particularly if one of the drivers for new housing is single person households). This was highlighted in the Government's Planning Policy Guidance note 3 suggesting a net density of 30-50 dwellings. If your intended figure of 36 dwellings per hectare is net (which I assume it must be), then it would be in keeping with the same to reduce the space used and build higher density developments, rather than only 20 dwellings per hectare. Look at alternatives for putting parking under houses to use less space. Consider terraces rather than semi-detached, or consider low rise flats. Higher density developments can be significantly more environmentally efficient than lower density developments, and can also allow residents of the new and existing developments to enjoy green belt countryside that hasn't been destroyed.
With regard specifically to proposed allocation 13 (south of Shirley), if this site were to be used (but I would prefer it if it wasn't), it would be preferable to build higher density further away from Stretton Road to provide a full field's gap (not just the narrow strip of bridleway and amenity land) between the estates to still allow for a significant band of open space. This land provides enormous intrinsic benefit to local residents and it would be a huge blow to the area for it to be built upon. It is possible to walk for over an hour on a circular route without having to go on more than a few metres of road. This provides good health and stress-relieving benefits for local people. This would be lost by developing this area. The fresh air would be replaced by polluted air from thousands of extra cars sitting in traffic jams, and would be detrimental to all impacted.
In addition, this area of grassland is important for drainage in the area. Building more tarmac and impermeable surfaces on this area is likely to have knock-on impacts for existing and future residents.
It is also an area that provides a large open space for wildlife and significant numbers of trees.

16. Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure35 required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are they?

Schools local to proposed allocations 11, 12 and 13 already have two or three form entries at primary school level where they used to be single form entry. It is difficult to envisage how much additional capacity these schools can really withstand before it has a detrimental impact on their ability to provide the outstanding education that they are renowned for.
This would exacerbate congestion of the significant numbers of cars dropping or collecting pupils from Lighthall School, and Woodlands School (and all of the other schools in the borough) and the knock on impact on local residents who live around these schools.
At school start and finish times there are already severe issues with driving round the estate surrounding Stretton Road, parking, school delivery lorries. I have personally nearly been killed on my bicycle trying to get to the station by parents turning their cars in our road without looking, and also run off the road by a school food delivery lorry on the roundabout on Shakespeare Drive.
Roads around proposed allocations 11, 12 and 13 are already overcrowded, and they are not convenient for train travel without using a car to get to the station, or an extended walk. Parking already became a problem at Shirley station with the growth of Dickens Heath. Several years ago it became impossible to find a parking space at Shirley station unless you arrived before 7.30am. This led to the expansion of Whitlocks End station parking and the extension of the line to Whitlocks End instead of Shirley, but with the scale of housing being proposed, again I can't see how the train infrastructure on this line could stand the scale of the proposed housing. Perhaps extra buses may be proposed but they won't be able to get through the gridlocked traffic, and it will then take up to an additional hour from Shirley to get into Birmingham by bus.
Tanworth Lane, Stretton Road, Stratford Road, Dog Kennel Lane are all already severely congested due to Dickens Heath traffic, leading to extra pollution in the area. To extend further would cause even more congestion and pollution. It is unfair to existing residents to prevent them from being able to get to places due to additional congestion. It is already the case that it can take longer to drive from Withybrook Road to the TRW site than it does to walk on the occasions my husband needs to take his car to work. It can take 20 minutes to drive that mile, purely due to the Dickens Heath traffic. By adding further housing developments in this area, this will become impossible. The residents of Shirley won't be able to get onto the M42 in the morning, or return home in the evening as the Stratford Road and adjoining roads will be gridlocked.
Regarding pollution, in the 25 years we've lived here and run a local Scout troop, we've seen the number of children with asthma increase dramatically, which appears to be due to pollution from the Stratford Road, and the Council should feel responsible for the impact of their decisions on local residents.
We have seen nothing in the plan about nursery provision. This needs to be addressed as it is difficult to find nursery places in the area. On a personal level, we have enrolled our daughter at Active Angels nursery for when I return to work, and a very significant factor in choosing this nursery was that it backed on to open fields, so she wouldn't be inhaling the fumes of the Stratford Road every day. However, if proposed allocation 13 is built, not only in due course will there be lots of houses and cars, but in the meantime, she'll be attending nursery on a building site with heavy lorries and heavy plant in operation rather than the fields and open spaces that was a major factor in choosing this site. We're now uncertain whether the nursery will even exist in the future. We've also missed our opportunity to book into our other nursery choices now, because it is necessary to obtain places so far in advance.
For the number of houses you're proposing, it will be required to have additional secondary schools. It is not feasible to extend existing ones as you will not be able to get any more cars there or back in the mornings and afternoons. The new schools will need space and access roads. Several primary schools as a minimum must be considered in these plans.
Good quality, well lit cycle paths separate from traffic (but not slower to use than the road) should be drawn into any of these planned developments and linking to major sites. With the increase in traffic on the roads, Solihull's roads will become even more dangerous for cyclists (and pedestrians). The poor design of Dickens Heath leading to significant levels of on-street parking has made it dangerous to cycle through here as drivers are impatient to wait to pass. Similar problems could easily happen with any of these new sites if not well designed.
I think it is likely that there is a significant flooding risk by building allocations 12 and 13. Certainly the fields around allocation 13 are always boggy and muddy in winter. The drains at the top of Hathaway Road at the junction with Shakespeare Drive overflow in any heavy rain. I would envisage this getting significantly worse if allocation 13 is built on, and this large area of grass/marshland is removed. The drainage system of the whole area would need to be significantly improved.
End of response

see letter

joint submission by Arden Academy & Mr Ved Goswami re: Arden Triangle site 9 Knowle
see attached documents

see attached letter

petition submitted by Solihull Ratepayers - 34 pages containing 361 signatures

I am a Balsall Common resident Kelsey Lane.

I believe the Residents of Balsall common have already been subjected to a significant loss of our Greenery from the slow and drip like infill of the recent years. We are experiencing a significant increase in traffic from the general developments of the area more recently the Kenilworth road. My road, Kelsey lane used to have a very gentle rural flow of traffic and is now regularly at a complete gridlock. Both myself and husband are doctors who are required on-call to get to our hospitals within 25minutes for trauma cases - within the last 6months the traffic has increased so that on occasion we have been unable to exit our own driveway. The traffic flow this end of town particularly at rush hour times is not coping with the current flow. To increase this volume would be madness.

Furthermore:

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

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 light of the above, I would 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.

My wife and I strongly object to your proposals for housing development in Knowle and support the contents and sentiments of the attached document prepared by KDBH Neigbourhood Forum

My wife and I strongly object to your proposals for housing development in Knowle and support the contents and sentiments of the attached document prepared by KDBH Neigbourhood Forum

Letter of Objection to House building in Balsall Common

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference 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 light of the above, I would 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 a 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.

On a personal note any development on the site adjacent to the "Doctors Surgery" located on Hall meadow Lane / Riddings Hill will result in a significant decrease to the already low levels of light available in my North Facing property and would therefore have a detrimental impact on my families right to light and general well-being.
I refer you again to the previously mentioned point 3 which states:
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.
Yours sincerely,