Q11. Do you agree with Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

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?

overall yes, some flexibility is always helpful

I agree with the Policy P4

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.

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 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.

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)

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 that homes for all should be built but again, they should be spread out across the borough.

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.

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?

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

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.

see attached letter from agent

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.

Balsall Common needs homes for older and younger esidents

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.

We need more smaller homes for the young and elderly.

Homes suitable for elderly including bungalows should be priortised

I do not agree with policy P4 because i consider it incomplete - it makes no mention of provision for elderly people.

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.

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.

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

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.

There is significant lack of affordable housing and housing suitable for older population. Proposed policy doesn't offer credible solution to address this.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.