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

Housing is needed throughout the Borough but the sites in Balsall Common are not likely to provide housing for local families within the Parish. The majority of housing will be for wealthy and middle class families who are looking for homes in the commuter belt to the motorways, Birmingham and London. Indeed, Christchurch Properties who are selling the land at Barretts Farm have identified that there are unlikely to be bungalows for the elderly and only token low cost housing for young starter families. Greenbelt land should therefore not be used by The Parish for development purposes.

The provision of bungalows or sheltered accommodation for the large elderly population in Balsall Common may help with downsizing allowing the freeing up of large underused houses to be used for family homes.

Support from the Landowners adjacent to Bl Robert Grissold Catholic Church, Meeting House Lane for allocation of Barratt's Farm and a commitment to work with all parties to make it happen.

Richborough Estates Limited acknowledge that the Solihull SHMA could inform the mix of market housing which might be delivered within the Borough. Richborough Estates welcomes the drafting of Policy P4 which allows for flexibility to take into account the circumstances of the site and a particular housing development. It is vital that the location and other characteristics of a site are fully considered if there is to be a proper sense of placemaking and a scheme's design and layout reflecting the site's context.

Further, the recognition that viability can be a factor when assessing the housing mix is welcomed.

No. For its implementation it is seeking to turn on a Supplementary Planning Document. The matters addressed in P4 are complex matters which can be resolved only if properly tested by the full formal Statutory Planning Process. The policy needs to be wholly revamped in order that its full ramifications can be properly tested by the Statutory Planning process. Paragraph 153 of the National Planning Policy framework states:-

"Supplementary planning documents should be used where they can help applicants make successful applications or aid infrastructure delivery, and should not be used to add unnecessarily to the financial burdens on development."

It is submitted that Policy P4, by relying on SPDs for the detailed articulation of the policy, breaches this national policy.

Please see attached uploaded attachment.

We do not agree with a number of statements within Policy P4 as follows:
Policy 4A Affordable housing - we agree with a requirement of affordable housing in the Borough but disagree with the percentage proposed of 50% and comment further in Q12. We also consider that the statement "...where on-site provision is not feasible or viable there will be a financial contribution..." allows too much leeway to developers to opt for making a contribution meaning that affordable housing is being provided in concentrated sites rather than being spread equitably throughout new developments. We strongly believe that affordable housing should be integrated into communities by being part of a mix of housing provision not built 100% on one development which this policy may indirectly encourage.
We also highlight that in the vision paragraph for Hockley Heath (paragraph 84) that the statement reads "...and in Hockley Heath, affordable housing will have been provided to contribute towards the Borough's local housing needs." At our recent consultation event, residents identified a need for some new housing in HH but support a mix that would suit 'all pockets', especially the provision of bungalows or similar properties that would be accessible for elderly residents or those looking to downsize, not just affordable housing. Residents strongly feel that Hockley Heath should not be earmarked as available for development for affordable housing for the Borough, as this statement suggests. We are a small community with limited facilities and infrastructure which is already under strain from current occupancy levels and the development already approved. We would like this statement reworded to include Hockley Heath in the earlier part of the sentence with Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath.
Policy 4B Rural exceptions - we do not consider these two criteria are sufficient to override building on green belt land particularly given the reductions to green belt land already proposed across the Borough. This policy encourages housebuilding decisions to be made on a stand alone basis rather than considering developments in a wider area. This policy statement is also inconsistent with our view stated above that affordable housing, where required, should be integrated into communities and provided alongside a mix of housing types.
Policy 4C Market housing - we agree with the proposed approach.
Policy 4D Self and Custom Housebuilding - addressed by Q13.

Do not agree with that policy

No. Policy P4 should offer a greater incentive to the redevelopment of brownfield sites. This should include a requirement for a reduced affordable housing contribution on brownfield sites that are situated in sustainable locations in the first five years of the Local Plan period. This will encourage the early delivery of sites that can make a more immediate contribution towards housing land supply. This will help to offset the lead in time needed to prepare the large greenfield allocation sites that will require the provision of major infrastructure and therefore take longer to deliver. The promotion of the redevelopment of brownfield sites in the early years of the Local Plan period will result in a more balanced supply of new homes throughout the plan period.
This would be achieved by reducing the affordable housing contribution required from brownfield sites in sustainable locations to 40% in line with the previous Local Plan policy under which many of these sites will have been acquired. By reducing the affordable housing contribution to this level and allowing the use of Vacant Building Credit, there is a real incentive for the early delivery of sustainable brownfield sites that will make a more immediate contribution towards meeting housing needs. This approach complements the overall spatial strategy outlined in the emerging Local Plan, provides a greater period of time to prepare and to begin housing delivery on the larger greenfield allocations and makes the most efficient use of existing services, infrastructure and land.

no mention of types of housing. Too many houses planned for Balsall Common. It will not cope. Schools and Drs will be unable to cope with the demand put on them.

I do not agree with a number of statements within Policy P4 as follows:
Policy 4A Affordable housing - i agree with a requirement of affordable housing in the Borough but disagree with the percentage proposed of 50% and comment further in Q12. I also consider that the statement "...where on-site provision is not feasible or viable there will be a financial contribution..." allows too much leeway to developers to opt for making a contribution meaning that affordable housing is being provided in concentrated sites rather than being spread equitably throughout new developments. I strongly believe that affordable housing should be integrated into communities by being part of a mix of housing provision not built 100% on one development which this policy may indirectly encourage.
I also highlight again that in the vision paragraph for Hockley Heath (paragraph 84) that the statement reads "...and in Hockley Heath, affordable housing will have been provided to contribute towards the Borough's local housing needs." At our recent consultation event, residents identified a need for some new housing in HH but support a mix that would suit 'all pockets', especially the provision of bungalows or similar properties that would be accessible for elderly residents or those looking to downsize, not just affordable housing. Residents strongly feel that Hockley Heath should not be earmarked as available for development for affordable housing for the Borough, as this statement suggests. We are a small community with limited facilities and infrastructure which is already under strain from current occupancy levels and the development already approved. We would like this statement reworded to include Hockley Heath in the earlier part of the sentence with Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath.
Policy 4B Rural exceptions - we do not consider these two criteria are sufficient to override building on green belt land particularly given the reductions to green belt land already proposed across the Borough. This policy encourages housebuilding decisions to be made on a stand alone basis rather than considering developments in a wider area. This policy statement is also inconsistent with my view stated above that affordable housing, where required, should be integrated into communities and provided alongside a mix of housing types.
Policy 4C Market housing - i agree with the proposed approach.
Policy 4D Self and Custom Housebuilding - addressed by Q13.

see attached letter

see attached letter

see letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

see response from agent

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

see attached letter and graphics

see attached letter and supporting statement

see letter and supporting statement

see attached response

see attached response

see letter

see attached letter

see letter from agent on behalf of landowner

see attached letter

Response to Solihull MBC 23 questions extended consultation on the draft local plan
Question 1 are the right borough challenges identified?
Question 2 agreement with the Borough Vision

Only In a very small part yes, as they are clearly written from an urban Solihull centric perspective, once more bringing into disrepute the belief that Solihull successfully combines a well-balanced combined Urban and Rural vision. Looked at from a holistic position, Solihull MBC in this draft proposal will not be satisfied with following their own policies until an urban jungle is built through the most vulnerable portion of the Green Belt between Berkswell / Balsall Common Parish and Coventry City. Berkswell / Balsall Common is already a congested community with poor infrastructure and very poor public sector connectivity with the local economic centres which are primarily to the East and South ie NOT Solihull.
Adding the proposed disproportionate housing and its resulting population to Berkswell / Balsall Common will simply make the problems worse and continue the belief that SMBC will ignore its own Policy's when they do suit political goals.

Question 3 agreement with Spatial Strategy?
The approach defined for sites being appropriate for development as written looks good with the right priorities, But Unfortunately they have not been adhered to in this draft plan.
Barratt's farm land is Green field land not Brownfield land and has significant drain off issues. And as stressed above the village is virtually bereft of effective public transport The demolition of the Meriden Gap Green belt and its impact on the local ecology of the Green fields, ancient hedge rows and trees will directly effect the existing local residents and families who extensively use the area and its many crisscrossing footpaths for open air exercise and leisure activities. The additional traffic emanating from such a large increase in housing will add to the air pollution provided by poor control of the take off and landing heights from Birmingham Airport, especially the north turn over the settlement
If this land is built on the drain off problem identified above will represent a risk to local adjoining properties to the north and south.

Question 7 regarding sustainable Economic Development?
Good principles. But again not seriously considered in the draft plan with no consideration of the disproportionate building of houses on an already congested and ill planned village centre.

Question11 policy P2 providing homes for all
The total proposed housing numbers are grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing community and will have a very significant detrimental impact on the size, shape, character and environment of Berkswell / Balsall Common as a Rural Village. It is also noticed that while mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.

Question 15 appropriateness of draft proposed sites. As mentioned throughout this response mention is made of how Solihull MBC have failed to follow their own Policies in establishing the appropriateness of the chosen sites and yet proposals for a new village on a brown field site development to the north of the region have been ignored.

Question 16 completeness of required supporting infrastructure to complement the proposed draft development?
While Doctor and Schooling infrastructure is mentioned, no mention is made of shopping, banking etc Banks are withdrawing from Berkswell / Balsall Common and a lack of action on the site to the rear of the Co-op shop allowing it to be isolated from other retail outlets, preventing a cohesive village centre

Question18 sustainable Travel
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport apart from Birmingham focused rail is very, very poor in the area

Question 22 Delivery
CIL payments for local development should be focussed in the local area for locally requested and agreed infrastructure improvements.

Question 23 Any other comment
No explanation has been given to the fact that a grossly disproportionate number of houses are proposed to be built in Berkswell / Balsall Common in an important and sensitive Green Belt area compared with elsewhere in Solihull borough. Such as Dorridge, Knowle or other villages to the South.
There is a very strong perception in the Berkswell / Balsall Common region that Solihull MBC have abandoned the Greenbelt and consciously discarded their own policies and values and have lost what trust they had as a result.

original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter

see letter