Q13. Which option for delivering self and custom housebuilding do you favour and why? If neither, do you have any other suggestions?

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 46

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 22

Received: 05/12/2016

Respondent: Mr Richard Ward-Jones

Representation Summary:

It is unclear precisely what Option 1 will achieve. Clarification ought to be provided - what does this mean for the individual? It does not appear to be an either / or choice - both options should be considered as part of the council's provision of plots for self build homes. Those individuals interested in self build may be seeking first choice on individual plots, or a list of plots available. Will there be any priority given to planning requests for those building self build homes, in order to encourage more building?

Full text:

It is unclear precisely what Option 1 will achieve. Clarification ought to be provided - what does this mean for the individual? It does not appear to be an either / or choice - both options should be considered as part of the councils provision of plots for self build homes. Those indivuals interested in self build may be seeking first choice on individual plots, or a list of plots available. Will there be any priority given to planning requests for those building self build homes, in order to encourage more building?

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 66

Received: 27/12/2016

Respondent: Mr D Deanshaw

Representation Summary:

flexibility is always an advantage

Full text:

flexibility is always an advantage

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 138

Received: 11/01/2017

Respondent: Mr Matthew Stewart

Representation Summary:

I believe self and custom house building will impact the look of the area and will not be in keeping with the established borough of Solihull

Full text:

I believe self and custom house building will impact the look of the area and will not be in keeping with the established borough of Solihull

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 240

Received: 15/01/2017

Respondent: Mrs Felicity Wheeler

Representation Summary:

The number on the Self and Custom Housebuilding Register imply that there is not a great need within the Borough. However any such builds should blend in to the existing communities

Full text:

The number on the Self and Custom Housebuilding Register imply that there is not a great need within the Borough. However any such builds should blend in to the existing communities

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 293

Received: 15/01/2017

Respondent: Mr Charles Ayto

Representation Summary:

Option 1 preferred
As someone who has their name on the Self Build Registrar, option 1 is more likely to appeal to the self-build community and is the option I choose.
see full text in letter

Full text:

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.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 417

Received: 09/12/2016

Respondent: Trevor Meredith

Representation Summary:

do not see why the options in the DLP should with 'either/or', and do not think that landowners/developers will be willing partners for self-build, so do not agree that policy for self build as clear as it could be.

Full text:

Hi, Thank you for sending me the draft plan that includes a section on 'The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding policy' I would like to make the following comments.

I do not understand why the two options you show on page 66 are presented as an either/or option. What precludes you from implementing both options?

There do not appear to be any details of how the self build policy would work, other than that option 2 would require large developments of over 100 dwellings to make 5% of the plots available to self builders, subject to various vague caveats that could potentially be used to undermine the spirit of the Self and Custom Housebuilding Act. I suspect that none of the large national housebuilders would be willing partners in helping self builders, who they would see as reducing their monopoly power which they use to dominate the housing market.

Apart from one page in section 7 I did not see any evidence that the council had made an effort to understand and make serious provision for self build.

Would it be possible to convene a meeting, or establish a public forum, with the other 90 people who have registered for the scheme, so far, to find out if there is a consensus on the type of plot that people are seeking.
My suspicion is that most self builders would like to build a detached home on a reasonable/generous size plot in a location that would be conducive to such a development.

The outcome of such a consultation would be more likely to point to what needed to be done to satisfy the requirements of self builders rather than dealing with people on an individual basis.

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 443

Received: 26/01/2017

Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Price

Representation Summary:

As in previous response.

Full text:

As in previous response.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 716

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Mr David Roberts

Representation Summary:

Given the demographics of the Borough the age mix needs to be considered more.

Full text:

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 845

Received: 01/02/2017

Respondent: D Pick

Agent: Nigel Gough Associates

Representation Summary:

Support provision in the right location under the right planning conditions.

Full text:

see attached letter from agent

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1121

Received: 12/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Emma Harrison

Representation Summary:

There should be more focus on incorporating custom and self build into development sites, also increased use of green belt for one off self builds.

Full text:

There should be more focus on incorporating custom and self build into development sites, also increased use of green belt for one off self builds.

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1430

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Burrow

Representation Summary:

Given that SMBC are proposing mainly large sites allocating dedicated sites for self build might be the only way ahead. Large builders will find reasons not to meet the policy guideline as they do with most other policies such as affordable housing.

Full text:

Given that SMBC are proposing mainly large sites allocating dedicated sites for self build might be the only way ahead. Large builders will find reasons not to meet the policy guideline as tghey do with most other policies such as affordable housing.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1490

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Bob Holtham

Representation Summary:

Self/Custom Build sites should not be aggregated to one site alone.
Self/Custom Build can add to the variety and design quality of the Borough.
A number of independent sites should be allocated for up to 20-30 dwellings each and Policy should encourage Self/Custom build of individual dwellings on infill or small greenbelt sites within or adjacent to Rural Settlements where this accords with the Parish or Neighbourhood Plan.

Full text:

Self/Custom Build sites should not be aggregated to one site alone.
Self/Custom Build can add to the variety and design quality of the Borough.
A number of independent sites should be allocated for up to 20-30 dwellings each and Policy should encourage Self/Custom build of individual dwellings on infill or small greenbelt sites within or adjacent to Rural Settlements where this accords with the Parish or Neighbourhood Plan.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1530

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Star Planning and Development

Representation Summary:

The principle of the Local Plan Review including a policy to promote custom and self-build plots is supported by Richborough Estates Limited and Option 1 is to be preferred, as isolated plots on larger sites difficult to manage and may incur higher costs, may affect viability or provision of affordable housing and the desirability and viability of sites with only 45% market housing.

Full text:

The principle of the Local Plan Review including a policy to promote custom and self-build plots is supported by Richborough Estates Limited and Option 1 is to be preferred.

There are genuine issues associated with providing custom and self-build plots as part of larger schemes as suggested under Option 2. It is not particularly practicable or feasible to have isolated plots or small groups of plots within a large housing scheme which are not directly under the control of the house builder or main contractor because of tight health and safety requirements. Ensuring that these requirements are met by individuals building their own homes (or small local builders) would be an onerous burden on the house builder/main contractor. There would also be a higher cost for the individuals or local builders complying with the more stringent health and safety requirements associated with a large housing site.

Secondly, the inclusion of custom or self-build plots would affect viability because it is difficult to place a value on the land and when any payment might be received. This may be capable of being addressed via cautious viability appraisals but probably at the expense of affordable homes. Including custom or self-build plots as part of the affordable housing provision might be a means of addressing this issue.

The final point is the current requirement for up-to 50% affordable homes and 5% custom or self-build plots directly impacts on the desirability and viability of only 45% of the dwellings on a site being capable of being sold as market homes. There would be a potential impact of some housing sites being delivered because they would not have the critical mass of market housing to be attractive to a house builder. Further, sight should not be lost that it is the market housing which generates the financial returns to the land owner and is the key to the viability of a scheme.

The Council may also wish to explore the experiences of other authorities. The delivery of custom or self-build homes is not being frustrated by the lack of plots but the lack of finance available from lending institutions to fund such projects. Further, the type of plot which are typically provided on larger schemes will be the same as those of the surrounding homes. Such plots are not conducive to those who aspire to a 'grand design' style of project.

For all these reasons, Option 1 must be preferred as the delivery mechanism for custom and self-build homes.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1592

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Portland Planning Consultants

Representation Summary:

Option 2 is favoured but the amount that is sought should reflect the evidence of demand for custom housing - as is required under the legislation. The reasoning for this view stems from the fact that larger sites can accomodate the necessary flexibility for meeting the vicissitudes of the custom house building process.

Full text:

Option 2 is favoured but the amount that is sought should reflect the evidence of demand for custom housing - as is required under the legislation. The reasoning for this view stems from the fact that larger sites can accomodate the necessary flexibility for meeting the vicissitudes of the custom house building process.

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1615

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

Representation Summary:

We understand that the Council is required to keep a register of individuals interested in identifying sites that would allow for self or custom housebuilding. By its nature we would expect that individuals requirements may be quite unique and therefore may not fit within allocated sites especially those identified for a large number of houses. We would therefore favour the Council identifying a number of smaller sites that would allow for this type of build in pockets across the Borough.

Full text:

We understand that the Council is required to keep a register of individuals interested in identifying sites that would allow for self or custom housebuilding. By its nature we would expect that individuals requirements may be quite unique and therefore may not fit within allocated sites especially those identified for a large number of houses. We would therefore favour the Council identifying a number of smaller sites that would allow for this type of build in pockets across the Borough.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1634

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: mr Robert Powell

Representation Summary:

Not in favour of the policy as I understand it.

Full text:

Not in favour of the policy as I understand it.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1655

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: M7 Real Estate Ltd

Representation Summary:

Option 2 is not appropriate as carving out plots from larger development could constrain or limit the effective delivery of these sites and make it difficult to put in place management strategies for public open space and other shared services/facilities. Option 1 is preferred.

Full text:

Where sites of over 100 units are being brought forward for development these need to be comprehensively planned and the delivery of plots across the site requires a coordinated approach. The comprehensive delivery of large sites, together with the urban design and feel of these developments would be affected by a requirement to effectively set aside plots for self or custom build. Therefore, option 2 could interfere with and jeopardise the wider delivery of housing and the overall quality and cohesion of larger developments.
Moreover, larger residential development sites (e.g. sites over 100 units) tend to require the provision of public open space and if a main developer loses overall control of the total number of plots, then establishing the effective and efficient management of the public open space and any other shared facilities could become difficult. Setting aside plots for self-build or custom housing would compromise the delivery and management of public open space and other shared facilities. Option 2, is not, therefore, considered to be a workable or robust approach to the delivery of self-build plots. The 100 unit trigger could also act as an artificial barrier and stand to prevent the efficient and effective use of land.
Consequently, there is a strong preference for Option 1.

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1817

Received: 12/02/2017

Respondent: Councillor Chris Williams

Representation Summary:

prefer option 2, it is safer a option to pursue for the council

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1837

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin

Representation Summary:

prefer option 2

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1852

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Councillor Stephen Holt

Representation Summary:

Prefer Option 2 with respect to self-build.

Full text:

see letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1896

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Councillor A Hodgson

Representation Summary:

I have a preference for Option 2.

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2030

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Define Planning & Design

Representation Summary:

Support Option 1.

Option 2, if progressed, should only be on a 'seek to negotiate' basis rather than prescriptive.
Needs robust evidence of need.

Full text:

see attached letter and graphics

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2230

Received: 12/03/2017

Respondent: Jenny Woodruff

Representation Summary:

Option 2 seems better as this would offer a wider variety of locations.

Full text:

see letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2271

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Meriden Parish Council

Representation Summary:

We support self and custom build if they fit in to the character of the local area.

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2448

Received: 16/03/2017

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

Representation Summary:

We understand that the Council is required to keep a register of individuals interested in identifying sites that would allow for self or custom housebuilding. By its nature we would expect that individuals requirements may be quite unique and therefore may not fit within allocated sites especially those identified for a large number of houses. We would therefore favour the Council identifying a number of smaller sites that would allow for this type of build in pockets across the
Borough. A big decision for pt2 of Q15, I'm sure this will be discussed.

Full text:

original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2486

Received: 07/02/2017

Respondent: Councillor Mark Wilson

Representation Summary:

Prefer Option 2. Safer for Council to ensure delivery.

Full text:

see letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2810

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Catesby Estates Limited

Agent: WYG

Representation Summary:

In relation to the proposed options for the delivery of self and custom build housing (Policy P4D), Option 1 is considered to be the most feasible and deliverable. The size and nature of plots that self-builders are likely to require will be more suited to smaller sites and not those typically built by volume housebuilders.

Full text:

see 3 separate letters
1) Land to the rear of Meriden C of E Primary School, Fillongley Road, Meriden
2) Land Hampton Lane, Solihull
3) Land Windmill Lane / Kenilworth Rd, Balsall Common

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3040

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross Road) Ltd

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

subject to demand and viability, there may be an opportunity to provide a number of self build plots.

Full text:

see letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3286

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: J Maddocks & family

Agent: Nigel Gough Associates

Representation Summary:

Provision of self and custom build housing has created considerable problems in other authorities, e.g. control of design and implementation.
Support provision in the right location and under the right planning conditions.

Full text:

see response by agent on behalf of J Maddock & family
Land fronting Dickens Heath Raod/Birchy Leasowes Lane & Tilehoue Lane

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3455

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Sheryl Chandler

Representation Summary:

The government states that housing contracts should go to smaller companies using innovative methods, and promote self build and housing associations, which would help to deliver smaller more affordable homes. Is this in the plan?

Full text:

Objections and Comments on Shirley allocation plot 13

I 100% agree with what Shirley Heath has put. We won the battle years ago when they wanted to build a football stadium and will most certainly try our best to win this battle too. If there wasn't many people coming into this small country we would not have this housing crisis. I mean how many people per square mile in this country compared to other much larger countries than ours.
We can't just keep taking away our green belts. What's going to happen once they are all gone????


I am writing to register my objection to the development of Shirley South. Particularly Allocation number 13 which is designated green belt land.

Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of the new housing in the borough. This is disproportionate and unfair. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements".
I believe that there are numerous options yet to be explored and have yet to see the exhausted list of alternatives that have been investigated.

The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In this case HS2, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to the proposed developments.
The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter is like a racetrack. As are some of the local rat runs such as Stretton Road which constranly has drivers coming along the road at ridiculous speeds, in an area with two schools and a large elderly community.
The addition of thousands on new homes will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.

I drove down Marshall Lake Road today into the centre of Solihull and it took 35 minutes to travel just over a mile, the new traffic lights have made the situation worst the routes into the town centre are already creaking.

In terms of other public transport, the local rail stations are not fit for purpose, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations.

In addition to the problem of infrastructure, the area is not set up to facilitate a large number of potential new families. It is already veirtually impossible to get your child into the secondary school of your choice. What will happen to the catchment area of schools in the borough. In my particular area, residents have been bounced back from Alderbrook and Tudor Grange over the years by the Monkspath and Hillfield developments and latterly Dickens Heath. If this development were to go ahead, there would need to be provision for either school extensions or new schools. This again would require more space to be taken up.

Solihull hospital has been downgraded over the years and no longer has a paediatric department, the closest hospital being Heartlands. The trip to Heartlands is an absolute nightmare in traffic and can take over an hour.

In terms of Allocation 13. This is an area that has over the years has become a is a very popular recreation and amenity area, popular with families, dog walkers, ramblers etc.

The area has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land and even evergreen forest. There is a network of drainage ditches and well-established farm ponds and also a sink area which is effectively bog land. The area is very wet and for the most part of the winter is very boggy and forms a flood plain due to the very high water table and the constituent soil composition.
This results in heavy flooding across most of this low lying area. Many of the houses that back onto the fields in Langcomb Road experience flooding in their back gardens on a regular basis. A phenomenon that has reduced to an extent following the intensive planting of Christmas trees in the field adjacent to the gardens.
The network of ditches and ponds provides a varied eco system and I have seen frogs, toads and newts, along with Muntjac Deer, Cuckoo, Woodpecker and birds of prey. In addition in the meadowland and the marshy areas there are numerous wild flowers, I am not qualified to identify them but I feel you should carry out an in-depth wildlife and ecosystem survey at the correct time of year before a decision is made

In addition part of the area was granted to the stewardship of the Laker Centre on the completion of the Woodlands Estate. I am led to believe that the Layca Committee purchased the fencing around this area and also contribute to its upkeep. I would argue that the whole of area 13, by custom and practice over the last 40 years is by default a very important amenity area. On only has to look at the well-worn footpaths. This is indeed the lung of Shirley, the place to which people from many surrounding areas come to breath. Also, I am led to believe that any developments that affect a local communities quality of life should be offset. I feel that Allocation 13 should become a recognised conservation and public amenity area serving Shirley South. Shirley Park is woefully small and dog owners now are restricted to a tiny fenced in dog area.

I am also concerned about the nature of housing in this area. It is a well-known fact that houses in the South of the Borough command extremely high prices. I do not believe that the houses build will be affordable by the young people. They will be 3, 4, 5 bed houses with a small contingent of affordable houses that will probably be bought up by wealth buy to let landlords and exacerbate the issues with high rents etc.

The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses.

Slightly further south of allocation 13 the loss of a number of sports fields will deprive the local community of the opportunity of recreational activities and again reduce open space, this gives further argument to Allocation 13 being designated a conservation and amenity area.
In addition, the government states that the housing contracts should go to smaller companies using innovative methods, and promote self build and housing associations. Is this in the plan.

Alternatives to developing green belt sites are numerous and I am not convinced that all possibilities have been exhausted, both in smarter use of land and also locations

Thinking outside the box, flat areas of car park such as NEC and airport could be converted to multistory and the land save could be developed right on the door step of HS2 and also to compliment the recent resort World Complex.

This would alleviate pressure on south to north traffic flow. In addition, this would be the use of brownfield sites.
In addition to this, the proposed JLR site on Damson Lane, is purely a financial gain for the company to reduce freight costs. Why not build houses in that area instead. That would mean that the houses were in the right area. That is north of the town centre on the main arterial route of the A45, which has been developed to handle a large amount of traffic. The cost of JLR distribution is not the taxpayers concern. Or alternatively, why not build on the Land Rover Sports field as a trade off with the company, very few employees actually use the sports field.

There is also the possibility of buying larger houses in Solihull which have huge gardens and developing small estates with mews or flats as opposed to the exclusive developments that are cropping up along Blossomfield Road

Along with these ideas I have come up with a number of alternative areas which are more suitably located and are smaller pocket developments as per the governments' requirements. They are for the most part also in more affordable areas of the borough, see below

Land Pockets between
A452 / A45 / M42
A452 / Coleshill Heath Road / M42
Bickenhill Lane / B4438 / Westerly direction
B4438 / M42 / A45
Hampton Lane / A41 / M42

Finally, I am led to believe that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses from the Birmingham Allocation. This is regardless of the fact that there are many brownfield sites and public open spaces that should be used before greenbelt as per the previously mentioned government document. I would urge you to push back to Birmingham City Council on this matter.

As an example I walked along Fazeley Street last week, I saw a number of brownfield sites being used as cheap car parking and also overgrown areas with rubble etc and a large grassy area devoid of natural life Public space). Can you please ensure that Birmingham City Council fully research and address all of their brownfield sites before Solihull rolls over and gives away our green belt.

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.