Q8. Do you believe the right scale and location of development has been identified? If not why not?
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 288
Received: 15/01/2017
Respondent: Mr Charles Ayto
No, the scale for town centre development, both business and residential is a little too large to be accommodated by the town's main arterial routes. Some of the additional development would be best suited for North of the borough to help with the economic and employment prospects of the area.
see letter for full text
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.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 380
Received: 22/01/2017
Respondent: Miss Mary Bree
see 7
see 7
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 438
Received: 26/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Price
Considering the Shirley area and the A34, some development is needed. The Parkgate development has been at at great cost to retailers on the A34 and the decline of shops and businesses. Shirley has been neglected, sadly, and it looks unsightly. The Powergen site of course remains unsightly and it should be the first site to be developed. Unfortunately Shirley Park lost space so I hope no more will be taken. A 34 traffic management will need major improvements with extra cars in the area.
Considering the Shirley area and the A34, some development is needed. The Parkgate development has been at at great cost to retailers on the A34 and the decline of shops and businesses. Shirley has been neglected, sadly, and it looks unsightly. The Powergen site of course remains unsightly and it should be the first site to be developed. Unfortunately Shirley Park lost space so I hope no more will be taken. A 34 traffic management will need major improvements with extra cars in the area.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 673
Received: 17/01/2017
Respondent: Councillor J Tildesley
does not consider that appropriate level of residential accommodation has been set for Solihull Town Centre, which will have an impact on the town centre
see attached letter received via email
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 720
Received: 03/02/2017
Respondent: Mr David Roberts
The 3 centres of the TC do not need to expand to swallow up areas of Tudor Grange Park and a new station. NO !
see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 885
Received: 07/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Evans
8-See previous answer to Q3
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: 984
Received: 11/02/2017
Respondent: Colin Davis
pointless moving the rail station and not the councils job to build a station. it will be decided by the rail and network company based on money and it doesnt seem to make economic sense
pointless moving the rail station and not the councils job to build a station. it will be decided by the rail and network company based on money and it doesnt seem to make economic sense
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1031
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Angela Faithfull
I don't really know. We will have a better idea if there is enough provision when the early phases are complete. If more is needed it will need to be provisioned.
I don't really know. We will have a better idea if there is enough provision when the early phases are complete. If more is needed it will need to be provisioned.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1032
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Angela Faithfull
The table is comprehensive.
The table is comprehensive.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1069
Received: 13/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Kevin Thomas
There is no reference the requirement to develop Balsall Common centre. Proposed build will fundamentally change the the locality and will overwhelm existing shopping and associated provision. Recent residential infill has exacerbated the problems.
As such the scale of development demands a strategic approach to the development of the centre and should be lead by SMBC (the local Balsall Parish Council having already shown itself as not up to the task given its recent actions in respect of the NDP).
Policy P2 needs to reflect this strategic need.
See comments re Balsall Common centre in 7 above.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1425
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Andrew Burrow
Seems right
Seems right
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1610
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council
HHPC do believe the scale and location of development is correctly identified in the Local Plan. Developments such as Touchwood have been effective in raising the quality of the environment in these areas.
HHPC do believe the scale and location of development is correctly identified in the Local Plan. Developments such as Touchwood have been effective in raising the quality of the environment in these areas.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1812
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Chris Williams
see response to Q7
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1832
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin
as per answer to q7
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1891
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor A Hodgson
I support the general approach presented in policy P2. The outline is along the right lines but there is very little detail provided with regard to the approach in all of the areas included. I am obviously aware that an Economic Plan for Shirley document exists. Should there not be some cross referencing?
The plans for Solihull town centre seem to offer the opportunity for higher density residential space in a location with good transport connections.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1986
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Balsall Parish Council
Question what the definition is for a town centre. Why not apply the principles to Balsall Common. There is an opportunity for a focus of retail activity and services for the local community around a much needed improved village centre.
The growth proposed in Balsall Common is not to meet local needs but needs of the Borough and wider HMA. Growth will turn the village into a town.
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
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2113
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: ALDI Stores Ltd
Agent: Turley
Only one of the six proposed Solihull Town Centre Masterplan Opportunity Sites allows any opportunity to accommodate retail development.
It is important that the Local Plan allows sufficient flexibility for new retail investment to come forward on appropriate town centre sites.
The Homer Road Civic Buildings site is well linked to Touchwood and would make a logical extension to the primary shopping area.
Suggest the plan is amended to recognise that the two sites comprising the Homer Road Civic Buildings could come forward separately and that the former Magistrates Court site is identified as being suitable for a discount foodstore.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2224
Received: 12/03/2017
Respondent: Jenny Woodruff
Without understanding the economic impact of other scales of development I can not comment.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2265
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Meriden Parish Council
Yes agree for Meriden.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2304
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: 2442
Received: 16/03/2017
Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council
HHPC do believe the scale and location of development is correctly identified in the Local Plan.
Developments such as Touchwood have been effective in raising the quality of the environment in these areas.
original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2481
Received: 07/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Mark Wilson
Welcome part on Chelmsley Wood town centre.
However, weak on detail - needs investment and modernisation. Is under-used, no night time economy and facilities are scarce.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2617
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Caudwell Properties (100) Ltd
Agent: Caudwell Properties (100) Ltd
Sapphire Court shown on Solihull Town Centre Masterplan to be located within an 'Area of Influence'.
Concern no reference to 'Area of Influence' contained within Policy P2.
Do not consider that development of wider area is dependent on relocation of train station.
Periphery of Solihull Town Centre is predominantly residential and would be an appropriate, sustainable location for new housing, contributing towards meeting the housing need and would support the character and function of the Town Centre.
Request that supporting text is amended to reflect this, and omit reference to the relocation of the train station.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2621
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Chiltern Railways
Understand the benefits that a new station would bring to the town.
Have following concerns:
Uncertainty over future of current site could preclude investment in the meantime.
Technical issues to overcome include:
moving station further south could result in it being built on a slope. Could be overcome but additional cost implications and disruption;
Cost of relocation in tens of millions of pounds;
Urge for timely decision in order to mitigate risk of needed short and medium-term improvements.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2857
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch
- relocating Solihull station to south of the main centre and close to Touchwood Court should be progressed, along with some housing at the present station and bus station site.
- a new station should be provided between Solihull and Olton at Wadleys Road
- Mell Square location can provide more housing than anticipated
Shirley Town Centre
- Amend P2 re Solihull Gate retail park (will become housing and that its retail uses will be encouraged to relocate to Shirley Town Centre). It is a site which would be ideal for high-density housing (up to 800 dwellings)-
see attached documents
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3006
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross Road) Ltd
Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd
agree with scale and location of development.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3194
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Karl Peter Childs
Agree that Solihull town centre would benefit from relocation of train station.
Developments of Shirley High Street are welcome, but are hindered by busy traffic on A34.
Support residential development close to Shirley High Street, but opportunities may be limited.
Could review residential capacity on Powergen site.
see written response attached
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 4355
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Arden Academy & Mr V Goswami
no comment to make
joint submission by Arden Academy & Mr Ved Goswami re: Arden Triangle site 9 Knowle
see attached documents
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 4387
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mr J Allen
Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd
It is considered that the right scale and location of development has been identified for the main centres considered within Policy P2.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 4732
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Wendy Cairns
worrying that SMBC does not feel it is able to address to impact on Balsall Common centre. existing centre resources/infrastructure cannot meet needs of planned housing growth.
see attached letter