Q11. Do you agree with Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 43
Received: 19/12/2016
Respondent: Mr Steven Webb
The use of GreenBelt ? What is the point of greenbelt if it can just be used whenever more houses are required, nothing. Surely greenbelt should not be used for housing, no if's no but's. Starting to use greenbelt is just the thin edge of the wedge. JLR has already been granted greenbelt land, now it looks like housing can also claim greenbelt. A bit here, a bit there, 25yrs time nothing left. The alternative is simple we don't build all these new houses, we push back on the numbers. Why is the council/s agreeing to the numbers?
The use of GreenBelt ? What is the point of greenbelt if it can just be used whenever more houses are required, nothing. Surely greenbelt should not be used for housing, no if's no but's. Starting to use greenbelt is just the thin edge of the wedge. JLR has already been granted greenbelt land, now it looks like housing can also claim greenbelt. A bit here, a bit there, 25yrs time nothing left. The alternative is simple we don't build all these new houses, we push back on the numbers. Why is the council/s agreeing to the numbers?
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 64
Received: 27/12/2016
Respondent: Mr D Deanshaw
overall yes, some flexibility is always helpful
overall yes, some flexibility is always helpful
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 92
Received: 02/01/2017
Respondent: Graham Brown
I agree with the Policy P4
I agree with the Policy P4
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 122
Received: 11/01/2017
Respondent: Councillor D Bell
Starter homes and affordable homes are likely to reduce our hosing list dramatically. Affordable housing should provide housing for downsizers thus enabling them to stay locally and releasing larger houses for larger families.
Starter homes and affordable homes are likely to reduce our hosing list dramatically. Affordable housing should provide housing for downsizers thus enabling them to stay locally and releasing larger houses for larger families.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 136
Received: 11/01/2017
Respondent: Mr Matthew Stewart
I do not agree that more affordable housing is required in Solihull. There are plenty of affordable homes currently on the market in the borough. I do believe that mortgage availability should be easier
I do not agree that more affordable housing is required in Solihull. There are plenty of affordable homes currently on the market in the borough. I do believe that mortgage availability should be easier
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 201
Received: 13/01/2017
Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Wheeler
I agree that affordable homes must be provided but they must be low rise - ie if they are apartment blocks no more than 3 stories high, and not near existing properties.
I agree that affordable homes must be provided but they must be low rise - ie if they are apartment blocks no more than 3 stories high, and not near existing properties.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 238
Received: 15/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Felicity Wheeler
Affordable homes must be provided but need to be in keeping with the surrounding properties (Foe example should not be more than 3 stories high)
Developers should also commit to providing green space and adequate parking in any development. When new housing might abut existing properties it would be sensible to insist on a green space corridor to protect residents from the new development.
Affordable homes must be provided but need to be in keeping with the surrounding properties (Foe example should not be more than 3 stories high)
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 291
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: 441
Received: 26/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Price
I agree that homes for all should be built but again, they should be spread out across the borough.
I agree that homes for all should be built but again, they should be spread out across the borough.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 465
Received: 28/01/2017
Respondent: Mrs Jane Carbray
B Rural Exceptions.
The proposed housing sites west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley are not consistent with the village, parish or neighbourhood plan, and furthermore there is not evidence that the proposed housing development at these two sites is supported by the Parish Council of Dickens Heath.
As stated in para. 205, the two housing sites at west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley need to be assessed for their impact of development on the Green Belt and environmental considerations, and these two sites are not the most suitable sites in the village for housing development.
B Rural Exceptions.
The proposed housing sites west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley are not consistent with the village, parish or neighbourhood plan, and furthermore there is not evidence that the proposed housing development at these two sites is supported by the Parish Council of Dickens Heath.
As stated in para. 205, the two housing sites at west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley need to be assessed for their impact of development on the Green Belt and environmental considerations, and these two sites are not the most suitable sites in the village for housing development.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 612
Received: 01/02/2017
Respondent: Graham Jones
I do not object with the policy itself, but it has not been applied in the plan itself. For example, allocating 40% of new housing in Knowle to Affordable housing is far too high and does not meet the policy for a rural area. What is the point of asking if we agree with a policy if the policy is not applied?
I do not object with the policy itself, but it has not been applied in the plan itself. For example, allocating 40% of new housing in Knowle to Affordable housing is far too high and does not meet the policy for a rural area. What is the point of asking if we agree with a policy if the policy is not applied?
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 714
Received: 03/02/2017
Respondent: Mr David Roberts
It's all about Housing the Market for which you are trying to tamper.
see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 747
Received: 06/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Kennedy
With an ageing population and a need to free up family homes lived in by one or two residents, provision should be made for the building of bungalows, of which thee is currently a significant shortage. This would provide greater benefit by freeing up more accommodation.
With an ageing population and a need to free up family homes lived in by one or two residents, provision should be made for the building of bungalows, of which thee is currently a significant shortage. This would provide greater benefit by freeing up more accommodation.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 843
Received: 01/02/2017
Respondent: D Pick
Agent: Nigel Gough Associates
Need to provide affordable housing and housing for the elderly.
Development close to key economic asset is vital to attract range of employees.
see attached letter from agent
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 888
Received: 07/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Evans
11-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: 962
Received: 10/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Richard Drake
Balsall Common needs homes for older and younger esidents
Balsall Common needs homes for older and younger esidents
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 976
Received: 11/02/2017
Respondent: Mr James Lupton
I broadly support your policy, but would add the following. You say: The Borough definition of 'affordable' is set out in a Meeting Housing Needs Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Without searching around for this document, I would just like to comment that a definition of affordable that I as a pensioner would find useful would include the limit of 100sq m, either all on one level, or at most two (a 10m x 5m two storey block) + garaging and small garden. There must be widely available designs for this kind of space provision. Provision could be strictly monitored.
I broadly support your policy, but would add the following. You say: The Borough definition of 'affordable' is set out in a Meeting Housing Needs Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Without searching around for this document, I would just like to comment that a definition of affordable that I as a pensioner would find useful would include the limit of 100sq m, either all on one level, or at most two (a 10m x 5m two storey block) + garaging and small garden. There must be widely available designs for this kind of space provision. Provision could be strictly monitored.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1002
Received: 11/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Caroline Drake
We need more smaller homes for the young and elderly.
We need more smaller homes for the young and elderly.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1019
Received: 11/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Stephan Jones
Homes suitable for elderly including bungalows should be priortised
Homes suitable for elderly including bungalows should be priortised
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1023
Received: 11/02/2017
Respondent: Dr Richard Anderson
I do not agree with policy P4 because i consider it incomplete - it makes no mention of provision for elderly people.
I do not agree with policy P4 because i consider it incomplete - it makes no mention of provision for elderly people.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1060
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Callum Hall
There is a lot of focus about providing "affordable" homes but nothing on the type of housing. The population is getting older and so we need to consider the need for more bungalows or "elderly friendly" housing. This has additional benefits of incentivising the elderly to move to more suitable housing, freeing up bigger existing houses for younger families, in effect providing additional capacity.
There is a lot of focus about providing "affordable" homes but nothing on the type of housing. The population is getting older and so we need to consider the need for more bungalows or "elderly friendly" housing. This has additional benefits of incentivising the elderly to move to more suitable housing, freeing up bigger existing houses for younger families, in effect providing additional capacity.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1070
Received: 13/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Kevin Thomas
I recognize the need for affordable home provision in the Borough. The policy should clarify how it will be enforced as based on recent experience in my locality, it appears all to easy for developers to remove affordable home provision at a later stage. Affordable home provision in an affluent area such as Solihull will never be a commercially attractive proposition for commercial builders.
In addition such properties should be built in close proximity to areas of employment opportunity to maximize affordability.
The aim to build affordable houses in Balsall Common is inconsistent with current poor public transport provision.
I recognize the need for affordable home provision in the Borough. The policy should clarify how it will be enforced as based on recent experience in my locality, it appears all to easy for developers to remove affordable home provision at a later stage. Affordable home provision in an affluent area such as Solihull will never be a commercially attractive proposition for commercial builders.
In addition such properties should be built in close proximity to areas of employment opportunity to maximize affordability.
The aim to build affordable houses in Balsall Common is inconsistent with current poor public transport provision.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1079
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Paul Joyner
However many of the houses will be affordable only once, at the time of first sale, then sold on at significant profit. Other examples of affordable housing at the Crest Nicholson Site in Balsall Common have been diluted or avoided altogether
However many of the houses will be affordable only once, at the time of first sale, then sold on at significant profit. Other examples of affordable housing at the Crest Nicholson Site in Balsall Common have been diluted or avoided altogether
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1097
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Mr William Cairns
You have excluded any meaningful reference to properties for older residents downsizing to buy, bungalows, yet you acknowledge that the population is ageing. 50% Affordable homes in in Balsall Common is a nonsence, basic market prices are so high that few are able to afford them, which is a shame as my chidlren would like to live in Balsall Common but it is out of reach. I understand on a present development in Balsall Common the council has relaxed the demands on the developer because there are too few takers of the affordable homes.
You have excluded any meaningful reference to properties for older residents downsizing to buy, bungalows, yet you acknowledge that the population is ageing. 50% Affordable homes in in Balsall Common is a nonsence, basic market prices are so high that few are able to afford them, which is a shame as my chidlren would like to live in Balsall Common but it is out of reach. I understand on a present development in Balsall Common the council has relaxed the demands on the developer because there are too few takers of the affordable homes.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1119
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Emma Harrison
There is significant lack of affordable housing and housing suitable for older population. Proposed policy doesn't offer credible solution to address this.
There is significant lack of affordable housing and housing suitable for older population. Proposed policy doesn't offer credible solution to address this.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1223
Received: 13/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Judith Thomas
Recognises need for affordable housing in Borough, but policy should clarify how it will be enforced as experience in Balsall Common suggests too easy for developers to remove provision as not commercially attractive, affordable housing should be located close to employment opportunities to maximize affordability, and provision in Balsall Common inconsistent with current poor public transport. No reference to new bungalows for older persons as important incentive for downsizing to encourage more efficient use of existing housing stock.
I recognize the need for affordable home provision in the Borough. The policy should clarify how it will be enforced as based on recent experience in my locality, it appears all to easy for developers to remove affordable home provision at a later stage. Affordable home provision in an affluent area such as Solihull will never be a commercially attractive proposition for commercial builders. In addition such properties should be built in close proximity to areas of employment opportunity to maximize affordability. The aim to build affordable houses in Balsall Common is inconsistent with current poor public transport provision.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1260
Received: 13/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Dan Salt
There is little point in attempting to address inequalities within the borough, these are normal market and economic forces that shape communities and will eventually override, including wiping out the value of building affordable housing in areas that do not require affordable housing, e.g. rural settlements and desirable community environments. These are aspirational environments and should be left as such.
There is little point in attempting to address inequalities within the borough, these are normal market and economic forces that shape communities and will eventually override, including wiping out the value of building affordable housing in areas that do not require affordable housing, e.g. rural settlements and desirable community environments. These are aspirational environments and should be left as such.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1353
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: mrs jacqui gardner
The focus seems to be on affordable housing, however, what about building smaller houses/bungalows etc for those wanting to downsize but stay in the villages such as Balsall Common?
The focus seems to be on affordable housing, however, what about building smaller houses / bungalows etc for those wanting to downsize but stay in the village?
Whilst I have no objection to new homes being built, I don't think the infrastructure we have can support or facilitate this growth.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1428
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Andrew Burrow
In general terms the approach is appropriate. However, the UK in particular and our area in general has an ageing population and no mention is made of
1. Collective homes for the elderly both "old age homes" and "nursing homes"
2. Single storey homes to encourage/assist the elderly remain independent for as long as possible
As assessment of these needs should be made and planned for.
The policy makes no provision for other (younger) disabled people who need one storey accommodation.
This is a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act and must be rectified
In general terms the approach is appropriate. However, the UK in particular and our area in general has an ageing population and no mention is made of
1. Collective homes for the elderly both "old age homes" and "nursing homes"
2. Single story homes to encourage/assist the elderly remain independent for as long as possible
As assessment of these needs should be made and planned for.
The policy makes no provision for other (younger) disabled people who need one story accommodation.
This is a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act and must be rectified
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1435
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Dr Christine West
Homes for All would need to contain housing consideration for elderly residents, given the current and projected demographic. This point is ignored in the list of priorities.
The housing number for Balsall Common is excessive and all Borough wards should have been expected to take some housing. The overwhelming majority of residents in Balsall Common wish the village to remain as such. Homes for All would need to contain housing consideration for elderly residents, given the current and projected demographic. This point is ignored in the list of priorities.