Q6. Do you agree with Policy P1A? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

It makes sense to develop Blyth Valley Business park in this way

A new settlement should be built at Blythe Business park area because the road infrastructure supports this

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.

I agree to the proposal, however I question if access along the A3400 and M42 etc. can actually cope with an increase in traffic.

The amount of residential properties in the draft seems too high and will take up green belt.

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

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.

Building in the Meriden Gap will increase the merging of Balsall Common with Coventry

Solihull is not a 'village' it needs to fulfil it's potential.

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?

This is yet more sprawl development

see representation on behalf of Ellandi LLP

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 agree sustainable economic growth is important

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.

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.

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.

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached response

see letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

see letter from agent on behalf of landowner

original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter

see attached response

see attached response by agent on behalf of Extra MSA group

see attached documents