Q6. Do you agree with Policy P1A? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 159
Received: 12/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Adrie Cooper
It makes sense to develop Blyth Valley Business park in this way
It makes sense to develop Blyth Valley Business park in this way
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 222
Received: 14/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Adrie Cooper
A new settlement should be built at Blythe Business park area because the road infrastructure supports this
A new settlement should be built at Blythe Business park area because the road infrastructure supports this
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 286
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: 384
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Miss Mary Bree
I agree to the proposal, however I question if access along the A3400 and M42 etc. can actually cope with an increase in traffic.
I agree to the proposal, however I question if access along the A3400 and M42 etc. can actually cope with an increase in traffic.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 436
Received: 26/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Price
The amount of residential properties in the draft seems too high and will take up green belt.
The amount of residential properties in the draft seems too high and will take up green belt.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 721
Received: 03/02/2017
Respondent: Mr David Roberts
Yes, in the most part . Now you've relaxed planning but this ignores Application 2016/0275 MAJFOT
see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 883
Received: 07/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Evans
6-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: 998
Received: 11/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Caroline Drake
Building in the Meriden Gap will increase the merging of Balsall Common with Coventry
Building in the Meriden Gap will increase the merging of Balsall Common with Coventry
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1029
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Angela Faithfull
Solihull is not a 'village' it needs to fulfil it's potential.
Solihull is not a 'village' it needs to fulfil it's potential.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1036
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Angela Faithfull
Please include provision for the arts and art groups. Arts council funding has reduced significantly can Solihull try and address this through growth and innovation?
Please include provision for the arts and art groups. Arts council funding has reduced significantly can Solihull try and address this through growth and innovation?
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1238
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)
This is yet more sprawl development.
This is yet more sprawl development
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1328
Received: 09/02/2017
Respondent: Ellandi LLP
Agent: Williams Gallagher Town Planning Solutions
Object to lack of suitable guidance to define appropriate scale for retail and leisure elements identified for Blythe Valley Business Park to ensure they do not compete with existing or planned facilities elsewhere. The policy should set a suitable threshold beyond which an impact assessment is required to test the consequences of proposals, to be informed by an updated Retail and Leisure study, and ensuring that development is delivered only when the development itself requires it. It should ensure no standalone or destination retail or leisure development beyond that required for the primary function.
see representation on behalf of Ellandi LLP
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1422
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Andrew Burrow
I support policy P1A with the caveat that the introduction of new distribution or warehousing activities will be discouraged in view of the congestion of principal roads within the borough including the M6, M42 and A452 and the need to use valuable greenbelt land for jobs of high economic value.
I support policy P1A with the caveat that The introduction of new distribution or warehousing activities will be discouraged in view of the congestion of principal roads within the borough including the M6, M42 and A452 and the need to use valuable greenbelt land for jobs of high economic value
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1457
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Yasmine Griffin
I agree sustainable economic growth is important
I agree sustainable economic growth is important
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1588
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Portland Planning Consultants
The approach to Blythe Valley Park is not supported. It is introducing support for uses in a location which is essentially is unsustainable and whilst the generally poor take up of the original commercial development is probably disappointing to the developers this should not be used as a valid justification for promotion of further classes of development in an unsustainable location.
The approach to Blythe Valley Park is not supported. It is introducing support for uses in a location which is essentially is unsustainable and whilst the generally poor take up of the original commercial development is probably disappointing to the developers this should not be used as a valid justification for promotion of further classes of development in an unsustainable location.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1606
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council
The final paragraph of P1A remains a potential for benefit to the surrounding communities, and HHPC would urge SMBC to ensure that facilities within the BVP development contribute to the needs of surrounding communities in addition to the needs of the BVP development itself.
Policy P1A Blythe Valley Business Park, has failed to translate into planning policy and will require review given the result of recent planning approvals. HHPC would have expected the views expressed within P1A to have translated into planning policy in spite of the draft status of the Local Plan (given this is clearly SMBC's direction in the area of BVP). The sentence indicating that development should proceed "...within the context of a masterplan to demonstrate how integration would be achieved between existing and planned facilities and with the network of villages that lie nearby..." has been ignored by the developers of the site. In addition the recent zero CIL rating (as opposed to a lower figure, albeit > 0) will significantly reduce the potential for the development to be "...provided in a way that benefits the wider area including nearby communities...". The final paragraph of P1A remains a potential for benefit to the surrounding communities, and HHPC would urge SMBC to ensure that facilities within the BVP development contribute to the needs of surrounding communities in addition to the needs of the BVP development itself.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1663
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Eric Homer
I agree with Policy P1A especially if the Blythe Valley Business Park development is supported by well planned residential development that will create an overall sense of place and a more sustainable location. There should be an integration of residential and business developments at the Blythe Valley Business Park and not building homes away from job growth areas on greenbelt land especially Allocation 13.
I agree with Policy P1A especially if the Blythe Valley Business Park development is supported by well planned residential development that will create an overall sense of place and a more sustainable location. There should be an integration of residential and business developments at the Blythe Valley Business Park and not building homes away from job growth areas on greenbelt land especially Allocation 13.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1672
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Linda Homer
I agree with Policy P1A especially if the Blythe Valley Business Park development is supported by well planned residential development that will create an overall sense of place and a more sustainable location. There should be an integration of residential and business developments at the Blythe Valley Business Park and homes should not be built away from job growth areas on greenbelt land especially Allocation 13.
I agree with Policy P1A especially if the Blythe Valley Business Park development is supported by well planned residential development that will create an overall sense of place and a more sustainable location. There should be an integration of residential and business developments at the Blythe Valley Business Park and not building homes away from job growth areas on greenbelt land especially Allocation 13.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1830
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin
Blythe Valley Business Park borders both a Site of Special Scientific Interest and
floodplain. Any development there should pay careful regard to both of these issues.
Furthermore, the present arrangements at the site offer very poor public transport
connectivity. For any development to be viable would require consultation with public
transport providers to ensure that this doesn't become an isolated community, or
inaccessible (except by car) place to work.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1868
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor K Macnaughton
Policies P1 and P1A I'm encouraged by the implication here that currently underused land in places such as Blythe Valley and the NEC could be used for a broader range of development, including housing.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1889
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor A Hodgson
I support the objectives of policy P1A.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2103
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council
Support for Policy 1 and 1A but planning rules should be used to discourage distribution or warehousing in UK Central area because of the negative impacts this will have on the road network. Development should be focussed on high productivity, high talent enterprise.
see attached response
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2222
Received: 12/03/2017
Respondent: Jenny Woodruff
Yes, this is business park with plenty of room for development
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2263
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Meriden Parish Council
Policy 1A - Agree. You put Blythe Valley Business Park logically in the right place close to M42/M40 links; now housing being developed, it is good integration if community services are developed there too.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2294
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Canal & River Trust
Further clarity within this policy as to what is expected in terms of the wider connectivity for the Blythe Valley development to ensure the overall aim of the policy to integrate and connect the development to the wider area is realised through the development management process. In particular, the towpath offers benefits in terms of providing a sustainable traffic free route.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2302
Received: 06/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs A Wildsmith
Agent: John Cornwell
Support.
see letter from agent on behalf of landowner
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2439
Received: 16/03/2017
Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council
Would have expected the views expressed within P1A to have translated into planning policy in spite of the draft status of the Local Plan. The sentence indicating that development should demonstrate integration with surrounding areas and facilities has been ignored by the developers of the site. The zero CIL rating will reduce the potential for the development to benefit the wider area and nearby communities. Urge SMBC to ensure that facilities within the BVP development contribute to the needs of surrounding communities in addition to the needs of the BVP development itself.
original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2529
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
Welcome the intention to protect and enhance the natural environment.
As this phrase is within the policy wording, we suggest that the policy also helps address objective K which could be added to the list.
see attached response
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2606
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Extra MSA
Agent: Pegasus Group
Support aspirations for growth at Blythe Valley Park.
Highways England have documented in their Holding Objection letter (24 November 2016) the many significant shortcomings in the consideration of the traffic implications for the M42 mainline and M42 slip roads resulting from a MSA located alongside this Junction.
Additional traffic using Junction 4 will significantly and detrimentally impact on access to Blythe Valley Business Park and other key economic assets located north of Junction 4 (towards Shirley) which require access via the A34 and Junction 4.
see attached response by agent on behalf of Extra MSA group
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2856
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch
The proposed 600 dwellings on land currently designated in the adopted Plan for Blythe Valley Business Park already have outline planning permission. No use would be served now by examining alternatives to Policy P1A, which is already being implemented.
see attached documents