Q12. Do you agree with the level of affordable housing being sought in Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

50% is too high. the worst case scenario is that some landowner s will withdraw their land. this will create imbalance because less favourable sites will have to be developed.

the cost of housing is prohibitive and is blighting the lives of many people below the age of 40 who continue to live with their parents or in student style multiple occupation dwellings. This plus the needs of the elderly who whilst fit are seeing their incomes fall and maybe living many years alone.
The % of affordable housing and houses suitable for the elderly needs to be increased to at least 60%. Plus the option for developers to wriggle out of this obligation by paying for affordable housing elsewhere must be scrapped

It is an ambitious target but one I agree with to reduce ur housing list rather than just bring in more new residents.

I do not believe the level of affordable housing being sought is correct as i believe affordable housing should be kept to a minimum, i suggest easier mortgage availability

Yes I agree with 50%. Affordable housing presumably uses less land per house and this should be taken in to account when calculating how much land to release.

affordable housing should be of a quality that gives enough space for car parking and gardens and places for the bins and not squashed in

Not qualified to make an opinion. Affordable housing should use less land per unit which, presumably, has been taken in to account when calculating how much land in needed.

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.

SMBC must ensure this policy is strictly adhered to by developers.

Affordable housing might be the plan but in reality anywhere on the green belt is not affordable housing. the houses on the new developments on the edge of Dickens Heath are hardly affordable and the same goes for the house to be built in Tidbury Green. Housing or apartments for the elderly should really mean affordable.

I am in receipt of your letter of 8 December 2016 giving notice that our property is adjacent to the Proposed Housing Allocation, 8 Hampton Lane, Knowle. I would like to put forward my opinion and objection to the proposals, which after discussion with many people and neighbours are in line with general opinion.

The proposal for 1050 new homes in Knowle is completely disproportionate with the proposed deployment of new homes elsewhere in the Borough. I have enjoyed living in Knowle for 45 years and have seen many changes, not all to the benefit of the community. However, this proposed expansion will destroy the village atmosphere and make it little more than part of the Birmingham urban sprawl. 50% affordable housing is far too high and will only serve to lower the standard of the existing environment. I believe Government guidelines state that 25% affordable housing is a reasonable objective and see little need for this to be so excessively exceeded.

The present infrastructure will not support this number of homes. New or improved schooling will need to be provided, additional car parking provided, improvement to access roads and additional medical care are a just few of the major considerations.

The current preferred option put forward by Solihull MBC includes just 2 development areas. The Arden Triangle and Hampton Road. This is ridiculous as the majority of the future generated traffic will be centred on the Warwick Road and High Street. Hampton Road is already too busy and its junction with Wootton Close, Arden Vale Road and the existing Football Pitch is an accident waiting to happen. Current street parking in Hampton Road creates poor visibility and interrupted traffic flow. The junction of the High Street with Hampton Road and Lodge Road is a notorious bottleneck. All of these problems will only be exacerbated with the additional homes.

Careful planning of the Arden Triangle could provide The New Schooling, a new Car park and medical centre. There would still be adequate space for the proposed development of up to 750 new homes. Access would be from Station Road and The Warwick Road. If this development is accepted it should be the limit to the development within Knowle itself. Fair use of the money derived from the sale of the Council owned land, and any Section 106 agreement would cover the cost of rebuilding the necessary infrastructure. The remaining homes should be built to the West in say Bentley Heath, where access would be via Widney Manor Road into Solihull, rather than the Warwick Road and motorway connection via the A34 (J4). Additional shopping could be provided together with other essential infrastructure facilities that are clearly missing at present. This would relieve the pressure on Knowle village, with its woefully inadequate parking; it would also be convenient to Widney Manor railway station.

With regards to the Hampton Road Proposal, this should have taken the form of 3 completely separate proposals. Each should be considered independently of one another. If planning permission were to be granted on the Football pitch and woodland, it should be up to the football club to seek an alternative site. The development of the football pitch itself could possibly be accepted, as it would not extend beyond the existing developed frontage of Hampton Road and would form a boundary limit to any future development to the East, within the Green Belt. I note that the plans for the football pitch also include the cricket pitch in one of the documents. This is very misleading and clearly shows that this proposed site is just the thin edge of the wedge. The football club have failed to maintain or improve their existing facilities, so I fail to understand how they can hope to maintain a very much larger complex. The owners of the woodland adjacent to the football pitch are currently felling many trees; I trust that this is being carefully monitored by the Council to ensure that no specimen or mature trees are felled and that TPO's have been put in place.

The creation of a commercial sports complex on the land off Hampton Road, by the canal, would be totally inappropriate within the Green Belt. The proposed site includes inadequate car parking, and the proposed increase in commercial activities is not acceptable within the Green Belt. A visit to the Old Silhillians Club at Copt Heath, on a Sunday morning, will quickly demonstrate the effect that the construction of a similar sports facility will have on the immediate area. There will be car parking all over the proposed new development and down Hampton Road. The Old Silhillian's site includes vastly superior car parking, yet cars are frequently parked on the verges and down Lady Byron Lane. One must also question whether yet another sports complex is actually required. The huge costs in running such a complex will necessitate large scale non sports related activities including: Bar& dining, Conferencing, Discos and other fund raising activities, all within the Green Belt. The use of Section 106 money for the building of this complex would be totally inappropriate; it should be for the benefit of the general local population, not just for the members of a local sports club.

The development of Thacker's nursery and the fields fronting onto Hampton Road, opposite Grimshaw Hall, is an unnecessary extension of the village into the Green Belt. This land has been deliberately neglected in recent years to aid an application for residential housing. It is basically good quality agricultural land which forms a sloping site down to Purnell's Brook. The lower area liable to flooding, and the drainage run off from the new site would greatly exacerbate the problem. . The development of this sloping/elevated site would have a devastating effect on the surrounding and adjoining housing. The area is a haven for wildlife including bats, badgers, birds of prey and other protected species. This land should be brought back into agriculture, rather than being left vacant in the hope of future development. If this proposal succeeds it will encourage more land owners to neglect vulnerable sites, in the hope of getting residential/commercial development.

It is my opinion that Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council have failed in their duty to fully consider all possible sites and have taken the easy option of adopting two professionally submitted proposals, to the exclusion of all other options.
There are several sites within the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath area which have been put up for consideration and overlooked. Inevitably future planning applications will be made on some of these which will be difficult to refuse, as they are eminently more suitable for development than the selected sites. This will result in the continuing urbanisation of the area and further increase the pressure on local facilities.

I therefore urge Solihull MBC to change its proposals and limit the Hampton Road proposed site to the Football pitch only.

The level of affordable housing should only be set at 40% for the houses completed over the period up to 2020. Beyond that the level should be set to 20%. Whilst there is an immediate need to increase the amount of affordable housing, there is no evidence that this will persist at the current level right up to 2033.

see attached letter received via email

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

see attached written comments

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.

Strongly agree with Policy P4. SMBC must ensure this policy is adhered to with measures to avoid escalation of property prices on subsequent sale of same(to keep them 'affordable')

There are simply some areas in the borough where 50% affordalbe housing will be too expensive both for local residents and others to consider for purchase. A better way of meeting this situation is needed so the balance may have to be addressed in other ways. I not sure how but I guess developers have to be encouraged to reduce their profit take or build more affordable homes in locations where the land is cheaper and ideally nearer to areas of employment.

There is significant lack of affordable housing and proposed approach is unlikely to materially change the situation.

I would like to register my concern regarding the future development of the Whitlocks End Farm for residential purposes. Whilst being fully aware of the need for houses locally, I would urge the council to bear in mind their commitment to, ' Sustaining the attractiveness of the borough ', etc as quoted on your Reviewing the plan for Solihull's future, page 20.

Challenge E on said document is very specific on maintaining the integrity of the green belt. I would hope that any future residential planning takes account of this commitment. As always with Solihull the need to provide starter homes for young people of this borough is overridden by developers who's only interest is profit and pays scant regard to what is actually needed. Not exclusive, luxury homes, but a range of houses to promote future vibrant communities.

I would be interested to know if Solihull ever gets an undertaking from a builder to provide solely starter homes. Surely this is not beyond the power of the council. Until planning addresses this matter Solihull will continue to be awash with retirement apartments.

Please register my concerns on both these matters with regard to the above development.

see attached letter

The building of affordable housing is required and this is not in doubt, however, putting affordable housing in every single development seems pointless and likely to erode the maximum value achievable in some developments. A more intelligent use of affordable housing should be urged, informed by local demographics, movements of people and employment etc, which would promote a far more holistic use of affordable dwellings across the borough.

see attached letter re: site 16

see letter

The Policy is right but SMBC are poor at implementing it. No planning permissions should be granted for developments under the Plan unless the Developer can show that they have strong partners in place. The community should also not suffer because the developer has over paid for the land and claims they cannot meet the policy economically. Greenfield land sells for about £10 to £20,000 an acre before it is taken out of greenbelt. There is no Policy requirement that can make homes built on such land uneconomic unless the developer has overpaid.

Affordable housing is clearly needed throughout the country. However, most young starter families are likely to want to be in larger towns with greater facilities and transport links than those in Balsall Common. The proposed development in Balsall Common is likely to attract middle class commuter families.

But previous history tells us developers have not always adhered to agreements made during the planning process, and SMBC must do more to enforce this.
A recent example is the present development along the Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common.

The level of affordable housing at 50% is too high. For a location like Knowle the 50% affordable housing is pointless as being within such an affluent area they will never actually be genuinely affordable. Furthermore by insisting on such a high percentage of affordable housing it makes achieving the community benefits much less likely as developers will have to factor this in their appraisals. It would be better to have much less affordable housing to make the benefits stack up. Developers will not be able to provide the suitable housing types with under the starter home scheme.

Where there is an identifiable affordable housing need then Richborough Estates Limited does not object to the principle of delivering affordable housing as part of an inclusive residential development. Accordingly, the principle of Policy P4 is supported. However, Richborough Estates has some constructive comments about the drafting of Policy P4.

By reason of the publication of the White Paper Fixing our broken housing market, the Borough Council will need to reconsider its approach to affordable housing provision, including the 'target' for such homes to be delivered on sites and the provision of starter homes. Based upon Richborough Estate's review of the White Paper it is now likely that the definition of affordable housing may need to change and the overall target reduced to 40%.

On the basis that the affordable housing provision can be the subject of some flexibility, it would be appropriate to express the requirement as 'Contributions will be expected to be made in the form of up-to [40%] of the proposed dwellings being for affordable housing purposes on each development site and this will take into account: ...'

Richborough Estates welcome the realism that some developments, particularly larger scale schemes, either have a higher cost of implementation or are required to deliver other benefits/infrastructure which can affect viability (criteria (iii) and (iv)). These criteria have a direct link to the 'Likely Infrastructure Requirements' column associated with the Potential Housing Allocations listed at Appendix C in the Local Plan Review document (e.g. delivery of new roads or major new community facilities). For reasons of clarity, the flexibility which might be given to the percentage of affordable housing and the precise type and tenure mix provided as part of a development should be included in Policy P4 rather than the supporting text (i.e. incorporate paragraph 194 into policy).

Although not part of the policy, paragraph 200 refers to rental housing for specific sectors of the community, namely aged and disabled people. The inclusion of such specialist types of dwellings as part of the affordable housing provision is supported by Richborough Estates. However, delivery will be dependent upon the registered providers being willing to develop and manage such homes and this needs to be recognised in Policy P4.