Q5. Do you agree with the key objectives that development is expected to meet as identified in Policy P1 are appropriate? If not why not? Are there any others you think should be included?

It should also ensure that HS2 brings employment and commercial opportunities to the area rather than Solihull becoming a 'commuter village' for London.

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.

Key principles are fine but the impact of the details is in question e.g. JLR development impacting on the green belt

Again, economy is important to Solihull.

As noted above, Policy P1 should relate to the Solihull MBC area as a whole with the UK Central Hub area text as one of the sub-policies.
The Key objectives for Solihull (under the proposed revised Policy P1) should be as follows:

Development proposals within Solihull will be expected to demonstrate how they achieve the following key objectives:
* Contribute towards growth and place making aspirations of the local communities.
* Maintain the character and cohesiveness of local communities.
* Ensure that connectivity within and beyond Solihull to create an integrated approach with adjacent local authorities.
* Make an appropriate contribution towards infrastructure provision
* Do not impede the provision of infrastructure necessary to support development elsewhere within Solihull.
* Encourages the use of modes of travel other than the private car, and particularly public transport
* Incorporate high quality design aspirations for both the development and public realm.
* Encompasses sustainability principles, including support for growth and innovation, the development of strong, vibrant and healthy communities, minimising the use of natural resources and incorporating low carbon and renewable energy principles.

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

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.

Economic consideration is limited by considering JLR solely in context of Lode Lane. It is a multi site business, whose staff live all across the borough, and together with nature of its components and product contribute significantly to Solihull's traffic flows. As the business develops there may be opportunities for more employment, but the increased housing need and volume increases are more certain and should be reflected in traffic flow planning

Need to prioritize reduction in pollution, congestion and develop local energy plan to ensure that carbon reduction targets can be met.

Yet again development is centred upon the attractive locations along the M42 / M40 corridor. This will result in sprawl as well as an overheating economy. Solihull should be working with the other boroughs of the West Midlands to spread economic activity to help areas where development is required not adding to an already vibrant area,

I support this

I agree with sustainable economic objectives

The key objectives identified are appropriate, but other policies (such as P8) must be assessed against these to ensure that development within the UK Central Hub Area support other policies, notably P9.

Natural England broadly agrees with the key objectives which relates to the protecting and enhancing of natural assets and takes climate change into consideration.

see attached letter re: Land Fronting Old Damson Lane

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached report
Balsall Parish Council resolved at the Council meeting on 15 February 2017 to submit this report in response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Consultation ending 17 February 2017

see letter

see attached letter

see letter from agent on behalf of landowner

original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter

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

see attached letter re: site 20 employment land

see attached documents

see letter

see written response attached

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

see attached