Q7. Do you agree with Policy P2? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

see attached

see attached

see response and supporting documents

see attached response and supporting documents

see attached

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.
**********************************************

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

see attached letter

see attached documents

I am instructed by my client Gallagher Estates to submit representations to the Draft Local Plan Review consultation (December 2016).

The representations comprise of the following submissions:

* Representations to the Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan comprising of Pegasus Group Report with accompanying appendices:
o Site Location Plan (Appendix A); o Review of SHELAA (Appendix B); o Review of SMHA (Appendix C);
o Un-met Housing Need and the Duty to Cooperate (Appendix D)
o Chelmer Model Papers (Appendix E)

* Separate Background Documents relating to :
o Land at Damson Parkway , Solihull;
o Land at Four Ashes Road, Dorridge;
o Land off Bickenhill Road, Marston Green and;
o Land off Berkswell Road, Meriden

see attached documents

see submission and supporting documents from agent - Pegasus

see attached documents

I realise I have missed the formal consultation, but wanted to voice my opposition to moving the railway station. It is a costly proposal, totally unnecessary and wrong given the lack of funding in areas such as social care and education. PLEASE DO NOT TO THIS.

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

In response to the consultation please find below my response to the questions posted by Solihull Council.

Question 1 Do you agree that we have identified the right challenges facing the Borough? No not fully.

As a resident of Balsall Common living in the Parish of Berkswell I can mainly comment on the area in which I live.

Balsall Common Centre is exactly .5 mile from my house. The village centre is very small and the increase in population over recent years has meant the centre can no longer cope with the throughput of vehicles and parking in the area. In the plan there appears to be no mention of major improvements to this area but to suggest an increase of a further 1150 houses to the village. 800 of those dwellings are suggested for Barratt's Farm area which would cause further chaos in the centre of the village. Key to the plans must be the development of a potential new extension to a village possibly to the north of the village. I have witnessed several crashes of vehicles reversing into one another in the centre and some near misses with pedestrians. Safety should be a priority and facilitating parking is also important if the area develops. It is key to the growth of the village and needs to be reviewed.

Question 2 Do you agree with the Borough Vision we have set out? No I would refer to the answer in question 1. Balsall Common village centre on Staion Road needs to be reviewed for the longer term success of a growing village. It does not appear on the plan.

Question 3 Do you agree with the spatial strategy?
No as spatial strategy cannot fully be answered by a subjective criteria. It is a reasonable starting point but one that may need weighting. Transport links and terminal need planning at the same time as development. In 25 years from now electric vehicles could be the norm and there has to be plans now for access to charging points etc. Being near public transport can change. Berkswell station platform needs improvement for the future it may become an issue if trains were no longer allowed to stop at the station.
I do agree that Brownfield sites should be used in preference to Greenfield sites however in Balsall Common you have chosen to develop 3 Greenfield sites at odds with your categories. Why?

Question 7 Sustainable Economic Growth
For Balsall Common there needs to be a review of the centre and how people can access the facilities. Possibly developing a different facility either at the Station end of Station Road or possibly north of the village.

Question 11 Do you agree with P4 ?. No
To add a further 1150 houses to Balsall Common at the same time as having a HS2 line ploughed through the centre is ridiculous. Having 800 potential new houses confined in Balsall Common between Station Road, Meeting House Lane and Waste Lane (Barratt's Farm), together with the possibility of a new school with that area is not possible without easy access to facilities and the road network. There is little employment within the village and most people have to commute. The car is the main transport from the village and I estimate on the Barratt's Lane development at least a further 1200 vehicles with 2500 vehicle journeys per day extra without considering the new school! Not everyone wants to live in flats and there needs to be areas for social care within the community together with opportunities for bungalows at reasonable prices. These are not explored in the proposals. Whilst a by-pass is mooted it is not final and without that road, access for the housing in the confined area of Barratt's farm would be unsafe.

Question 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 I don't think the volume or locations are correct.

1 In Balsall Common all 3 sites are Greenbelt sites. Once the greenbelt is lost it will never be replaced and the amenity which is cherished by all residents and visitors making the village have a unique feel to it's location equidistant between Coventry and Solihull would be lost forever.

The Barratt's Lane site is one of the narrowest parts of the Meriden Gap and it would see erosion of limited greenbelt between Coventry and Balsall Common. The residents and visitors to Balsall Common value and cherish the open feel and countryside views for recreational walking and pursuits. Once built on it would cease to have the same appeal. In August the landowner showed plans for access to their site to be made from Station Road and by knocking down two cottages on Meeting House Lane as an access point directly onto the Lane. If the access onto MHL were to be accepted it would be an extremely unsafe situation. There are no pavements on Meeting House Lane and the width of the Lane would make it difficult to turn onto the lane especially for refuse vehicles, pantechnicons etc. Safety would be the major issue with the possibility of up to 2000 cars using the lane with pedestrians daily is unacceptable. Much would depend on whether or not a by-pass could be built as to whether Barratt's Farm would be right for access and for the building of so many houses. A school on the site would only aggravate the traffic situation within the site. I do not support the plan for 800 homes on this site.

Whilst Solihull have chosen 3 sites for development it may want to review this with the possibility of eliminating or reducing the units for Barratt's farm or even to look elsewhere completely if the by-pass is not approved. Why I would put this forward is that if access was difficult it may be worth investing in a larger area to the north of the village where a school and facilities could be located which would help to mitigate traffic in the village centre. In real terms the proposals from Solihull will not help the village unless facilities are made available on the area surrounding the Station. I would favour an area for growth in the north of the village to give direct access to the Kenilworth Road and provision of facilities to ease the burden on the village centre.

The Frog Lane site is not huge and the Windmill Lane site is infilling the triangle already being developed. Whilst I don't like to see development on the greenbelt I don't have a view on these small sites.

16 Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure to support these developments? No A defined route and by-pass is required. Room for multimodal transport developments and terminus is required. We have a Doctor's surgery but probably need more Doctor's for the growing size of population. A further affordable care home and day care facilities in the Barratt's farm area is probably needed. Car parking and village centre development (elsewhere) is required.

18 Improving Accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel.
Balsall Common's bus service is hourly. To get from Waste Lane to the A45 in Coventry by bus takes 45minutes to Coventry City Centre then wait for 15 mins for a 20 minute bus ride to take you back to the A45 arriving near your destination of 4.1miles away from Balsall Common in 1hr 20mins. This is why most households have 2 cars . This will mean a further increase in vehicle movements and problems in a village centre location.

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

See Attachment

Overall, the Theatres Trust is disappointing by the general lack of cultural content within this draft local plan. Culture plays a key role in developing vibrant town and village centres which are the economic and social heart of sustainable communities. Culture and cultural activity helps develop a sense of place and is what makes communities and places unique and special.

Cultural and community facilities support the day to day needs of local communities and help promote well-being and improve quality of life. While Policy P19, does mention the loss of community and social infrastructure will not be supported, the wording needs strengthening as it focuses on local services rather than cultural facilities, and a definition for social infrastructure is needed to avoid ambiguity and to properly reflect guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

As you would be aware, the NPPF provides clear directions about the importance of safeguarding and promoting culture activities and venues.
* One of the 12 core planning principles (paragraph 17) is the need to plan for culture to support social wellbeing and sustainable communities.
* Paragraph 23 recognises the important role town centres play in supporting communities and notes that cultural venues make a valuable contribution to the vibrancy and success of these centres.
* Paragraph 70 states that in 'promoting healthy communities', planning decisions should 'plan positively for cultural buildings' and 'guard against the loss of cultural facilities and services.'
* Paragraph 156 directs local planning authorities to ensure their local plan includes cultural policies that reflect the NPPF.

Recommended changes:

1) The policy is renamed 'Local Services and Community and Social Facilities' or similar to reflect the full purpose of the policy.

2) The accompanying text and the Glossary should contain an explanation for the term 'community and social facilities'. We recommend this succinct all inclusive description which would obviate the need to provide examples: community and social facilities provide for the health and wellbeing, social, educational, spiritual, recreational, leisure and cultural needs of the community.

3) The policy be enhanced with the following criteria:

Development of new community and social facilities will be supported and should enhance the well-being of the local community, and the vitality and viability of centres.

Major developments are required to incorporate, where practicable, opportunities for cultural activities, including providing public realm capable of hosting events and performances to widen public access to art and culture, including through the interpretation of the heritage of the site and area.

The loss or change of use of existing community and social facilities will be resisted unless
* replacement facilities are provided on site or within the vicinity which meet the need of the local population, or necessary services can be delivered from other facilities without leading to, or increasing, any shortfall in provision; or
* it has been demonstrated that there is no longer a community need for the facility or demand for another community use on site.

The temporary and meanwhile use of vacant buildings and sites by creative, cultural and community organisations will also be supported, particularly where they help activate and revitalise town centre locations and the public realm.

Council will apply the 'agent of change' principle, whereby if a development would potentially result in conflict between a cultural activity and another use, especially in terms of noise, then the development responsible for the change must secure the implementation of appropriate mitigation.

4) Alternatively, some of these standards could be used to enhance Policy P2 Maintain Strong, Competitive Town Centres

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.