Q9. Do you agree with Policy P3? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 223
Received: 14/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Adrie Cooper
development around the HS2 site is a must
development around the HS2 site is a must
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 289
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: 439
Received: 26/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Price
Existing commercial land is the most appropriate land to develop.
Existing commercial land is the most appropriate land to develop.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 717
Received: 03/02/2017
Respondent: Mr David Roberts
You have not allocated enough land for employment if GBSLEP predictions are correct
see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 886
Received: 07/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Evans
9-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.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1033
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Angela Faithfull
Yes please and as soon as possible. Lets connect better.
Yes please and as soon as possible. Lets connect better.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1078
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Paul Joyner
The development around HS2 interchange is another infringment on the Green Belt and the Meriden Gap.
The development around HS2 interchange is another infringment on the Green Belt and the Meriden Gap.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1095
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Mr William Cairns
Ambitious
Ambitious
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1117
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Emma Harrison
It is important to ensure taht sites are made available to sustain the attractiveness of the Borough for people who live, work and invest in Solihull and secure sustainable economic growth.
It is important to ensure taht sites are made available to sustain the attractiveness of the Borough for people who live, work and invest in Solihull and secure sustainable economic growth.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1241
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)
The vision here is to be applauded BUT all of the sites identified are close to the Motorway networks and lend themselves to traffic generating development. This will result in ever more sprawl.
The vision here is to be applauded BUT all of the sites identified are close to the Motorway networks and lend themselves to traffic generating development. This will result in ever more sprawl.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1426
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Andrew Burrow
Support
Support
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1651
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: M7 Real Estate Ltd
Support the allocation of site SLP25 and confirm that no more than 3 ha of the site will be developed for employment. The majority of the site will be brought forward for residential development in line with the residential site allocation 11.
Site SLP25 is identified as an employment allocation of 18.5 ha. Footnote 21 acknowledges that the area will reduce following the preparation of a site masterplan. As the owners of the site, we confirm our commitment to work with Solihull MBC to prepare a masterplan for site SLP25 ('The Green'). We also fully endorse the residential allocation at this site ('Allocated Site 11') and confirm at this stage that we anticipate that no more than 3 ha of the site will be brought forward for employment development. The majority of the site will be brought forward for residential development.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1745
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Natural England
Natural England broadly supports Policy P3, in particularly when considering the criteria that there is no significant harm to the local environment, including landscape quality and character.
Your authority should consider policy wording to add that where possible enhancement of the local environment should be taken into consideration.
Natural England broadly supports Policy P3, in particularly when considering the criteria that there is no significant harm to the local environment, including landscape quality and character.
Your authority should consider policy wording to add that where possible enhancement of the local environment should be taken into consideration.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1813
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Chris Williams
do not agree with this policy. the policy does not include the chelmsley wood, castle Bromwich, and NS Regeneration areas outside BBP/NEC as locations for employment. the policy as currently drafted is doing a disservice to addressing challenge A.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1833
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin
P3 doesn't take full account of the North of Solihull and the employment needs
of that community. I'm also aware that some sites are sensitive to local concerns.
Neither the Draft Local Plan Review or the Solihull Local Plan make these sites clear, so would not like to comment on their suitability
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1860
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Stephen Holt
Agree with much of P3 but there needs to be greater recognition of the need to creat more employment in the north of the Borough. There is a danger of over emphasis on large concentrations of hi-tech employment at the expense of small scale start-ups requiring simple low cost premises. Some areas of North Solihull may be more suitable for such developments.
Travel between north and south is still difficult for people without cars and it is essential that the imbalance between jobs in the north and south is reduced to assist in reducing unemployment in the north.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1870
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor K Macnaughton
Policy P3 doesn't include any areas in the north of the borough outside the existing business areas. It's important for tackling inequality that other areas are included. A reliance on people travelling long distances for employment is contrary to the aims of reducing the need to travel and exacerbated by the slow public transport links in much of this area. Transport companies whose primary objective is not the generation of profit are desperately needed in the Borough and the Council could consider assisting in their creation.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1892
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor A Hodgson
I do not support policy P3 in the way it is presented. It currently focuses on the larger employment areas. There needs to be a parallel focus on the development of local employment opportunities where people live in terms of small and medium sized enterprise start up. We cannot totally rely on people travelling to high performing economic areas for work.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1987
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Balsall Parish Council
Additional land form Green Belt is required for HS2 line, M42 junction and the new motorway service station development.
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: 2086
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Notcutts Limited
Agent: Lichfields
Agree with approach to encourage creation of new small and medium sized enterprises in both urban and rural areas to help facilitate growth in a broad variety of locations.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2226
Received: 12/03/2017
Respondent: Jenny Woodruff
Yes, this seems a sensible approach.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2266
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Meriden Parish Council
Policy P3 - impact on local road infrastructure is under-estimated. Particularly HS2 interchange. Added pressure on development of M42 access i.e. former Clock Pub roundabout development. There is no mention of monitoring the number of lorry movements daily on infrastructure. Routing agreements and size of vehicles ought to be restricted on rural roads and residential areas.
More businesses create more road users, improvements in public transport are essential.
In rural areas, digital connectivity and high capacity communication networks are key. However, getting a mobile signal in rural areas is a challenge.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2287
Received: 06/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs A Wildsmith
Agent: John Cornwell
Strongly support.
see letter from agent on behalf of landowner
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2443
Received: 16/03/2017
Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council
Yes.
original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2482
Received: 07/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Mark Wilson
No inclusion of parts of North Solihull other than Birmingham Business Park and NEC.
Needs more focus on local economies at Chelmsley Wood TC and regeneration of village centres at Smith's Wood and Kingshurst. Plus industrial estates in Castle Bromwich and Marston Green.
Not sustainable to rely on people travelling to high performing economic areas.
Would strengthen local communities.
Plan needs to account for local people able to safely walk/cycle to work.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2607
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Extra MSA
Agent: Pegasus Group
Releasing Green Belt for Sites 19 and 20 needs a joined-up approach to include provision of proposed southern Junction 6 access.
see attached response by agent on behalf of Extra MSA group
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2627
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: NFU West Midlands
Recommend specific reference to farms and rural businesses in Policy P3 to support their growth and development, particularly in green belt areas.
Concerned that many thriving agricultural businesses in the area will be disadvantaged by the lack of specific support for the continued development of the rural economy in the current draft.
The industry needs are evolving and therefore some future proofing should be built into the policy in order to ensure that it keeps pace with developments in the industry.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3008
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross Road) Ltd
Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd
Agree with Policy P3 as it would help meet the challenges and objectives set outin the DLP and in particular challenge D
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3167
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Urban Growth Company
Agent: ARUP
The policy does not establish specific employment requirements for the UKC Hub area. Whilst we are supportive of the principle of significant economic growth for The Hub within the plan period, it would be helpful to establish the required quantum of employment development required. Furthermore, it is unclear as to the level of required employment land for the Draft Plan as a whole, across the plan period. As such, we would suggest that this policy requires greater certainty on the amount and type of employment provision required along with related infrastructure.
see attached letter and supporting document (The UK Central Hub Growth and Infrastructure Plan)
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3195
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Karl Peter Childs
Agree.
see written response attached