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?
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 237
Received: 15/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Felicity Wheeler
It should also ensure that HS2 brings employment and commercial opportunities to the area rather than Solihull becoming a 'commuter village' for London.
It should also ensure that HS2 brings employment and commercial opportunities to the area rather than Solihull becoming a 'commuter village' for London.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 285
Received: 15/01/2017
Respondent: Mr Charles Ayto
Yes
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.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 383
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Miss Mary Bree
Key principles are fine but the impact of the details is in question e.g. JLR development impacting on the green belt
Key principles are fine but the impact of the details is in question e.g. JLR development impacting on the green belt
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 435
Received: 26/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Price
Again, economy is important to Solihull.
Again, economy is important to Solihull.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 608
Received: 01/02/2017
Respondent: Graham Jones
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 developed as proposed in my representation:
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.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 723
Received: 03/02/2017
Respondent: Mr David Roberts
Probably in the most part they work , but the dependency on the locality on JLR is worrying.
see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 841
Received: 01/02/2017
Respondent: D Pick
Agent: Nigel Gough Associates
Not taken sufficient account of link between provision of new employment and provision of housing. Should be above the 'balancing requirement'.
Land at Dickens Heath/Tidbury Green well located to Blythe Valley Business Park.
see attached letter from agent
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 882
Received: 07/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Evans
5-YES
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.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 973
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Peter Wreford
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
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
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1112
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Emma Harrison
Need to prioritize reduction in pollution, congestion and develop local energy plan to ensure that carbon reduction targets can be met.
Need to prioritize reduction in pollution, congestion and develop local energy plan to ensure that carbon reduction targets can be met.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1237
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)
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.
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,
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1421
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Andrew Burrow
I support this
I support this
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1456
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Yasmine Griffin
I agree with sustainable economic objectives
I agree with sustainable economic objectives
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1599
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council
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.
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.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1748
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Natural England
Natural England broadly agrees with the key objectives which relates to the protecting and enhancing of natural assets and takes climate change into consideration.
Natural England broadly agrees with the key objectives which relates to the protecting and enhancing of natural assets and takes climate change into consideration.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1799
Received: 10/02/2017
Respondent: Messrs Wheeldon & Gooding
Agent: Nigel Gough Associates
Agree and support.
see attached letter re: Land Fronting Old Damson Lane
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1829
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin
The objectives, if met, would make a beneficial contribution to the borough and its
residents, so I support them.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1888
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor A Hodgson
I support the objectives of policy P1.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1984
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Balsall Parish Council
agree
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
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2221
Received: 12/03/2017
Respondent: Jenny Woodruff
Yes, I agree with these objectives.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2262
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Meriden Parish Council
Agree with the challenges and objectives addressed by the policy.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2301
Received: 06/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs A Wildsmith
Agent: John Cornwell
Support.
see letter from agent on behalf of landowner
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2438
Received: 16/03/2017
Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council
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.
original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2497
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Urban Growth Company
Agent: ARUP
Supportive of the overall principles and opportunities to realise significant economic growth in order to maximise the full potential of the wider UK Central and specific Hub area.
The HGIP demonstrates a larger capacity for growth than is outlined in the Draft Plan.
The overall number of dwellings (1000) should be greater and the HGIP sets out a figure of at least 1500 homes over the plan period, rising to 3-4000 beyond 2032.
The HGIP outlines the overall growth ambition plan and sets out development outputs and infrastructure requirements to support the level of growth.
see attached letter and supporting document (The UK Central Hub Growth and Infrastructure Plan)
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2706
Received: 10/02/2017
Respondent: Ms D Spavin & Mr S Milner
Agent: Nigel Gough Associates
support the objectives of P1
see attached letter re: site 20 employment land
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2855
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch
P1 Central Hub Area includes the 'UK Central':
- not located at a public transport hub; instead a road-served location. The HS2 station will generate car traffic and not reduce it
- No floorspace is given in the Plan for the 'UK Central' proposals east of the M42
- effect of development on the road system, M42 in particular, not addressed in the Plan
Policy P1 should be reviewed and revised to put limits on the development proposed at UK Central. make clear that the UK Central proposal called is not required to meet the employment needs of the Borough.
see attached documents
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3001
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross Road) Ltd
Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd
Generally agree with the objectives in P1.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3191
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Karl Peter Childs
Agree in principle.
see written response attached
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3283
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: J Maddocks & family
Agent: Nigel Gough Associates
Not taken sufficient account of interlink between provision of new employment and provision of housing.
Our view that housing should be significantly above the balancing requirement.
see response by agent on behalf of J Maddock & family
Land fronting Dickens Heath Raod/Birchy Leasowes Lane & Tilehoue Lane
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3821
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: John Parker
Agent: DS Planning
Lack of confidence that level of residential development will come forward within the plan period.
No certainty on timeframe of HS2 development, UK Central Hub Area in general and precise uses and percentages of different land uses in Hub.
Concern about effects of future Airport plans and its land requirements to expand.
see attached