Q14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?

You are planning to build FAR too many houses east of Balsall Common and I believe the plans are highly unfair to our already busy and stretched village. The schools can't cope, we don't have the roads capable of such an increase in houses and we don't have adequate facilities as it is. Please reconsider and spread the building of so many houses to other parts of the borough and share the burden. I understand houses need to be built, but I highly contest the number of them on our beautiful green belt farm land.

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.

The draft Local Plan Review indicates that the proposed housing target for the Plan period is 15,029 dwellings. This includes 2,000 dwellings to fulfil a proportion of Birmingham's unmet need. However, no explanation is given on the basis for the figure of 2,000 dwellings and there does not appear to have been any agreement with Birmingham City Council that this is an acceptable figure. The GBSLEP is currently working on a Housing Market Area agreement for the distribution of Birmingham's unmet need but this is not yet available. Such an agreement has to form part of the Council's work on the draft Local Plan Review. Seeking to proactively address the Birmingham unmet housing need as well as the Solihull OAN needs to be a priority - account should be taken of the Government White Paper of 7th February 2017 which will introduce additional requirements for collaborative working between LPAs when identifying sufficient land for housing. The portion of Birmingham's unmet need which is to be met within Solihull needs to be addressed and included within this Local Plan review. This is likely to result in the Council having to identify additional land for housing to meet that need.

Furthermore, Solihull have failed to meet the housing target in the current Local Plan and the draft Local Plan Review must both address this shortfall, provide an appropriate housing target for Solihull MBC and also provide for an agreed proportion of Birmingham's unmet need. Policy P5 as currently drafted will not allow sufficient housing land to come forward in Solihull to meet actual targets.

The draft Local Plan Review indicates that the proposed housing target for the Plan period is 15,029 dwellings. This includes 2,000 dwellings to fulfil a proportion of Birmingham's unmet need. However, no explanation is given on the basis for the figure of 2,000 dwellings and there does not appear to have been any agreement with Birmingham City Council that this is an acceptable figure. The GBSLEP is currently working on a Housing Market Area agreement for the distribution of Birmingham's unmet need but this is not yet available. Such an agreement has to form part of the Council's work on the draft Local Plan Review. Seeking to proactively address the Birmingham unmet housing need as well as the Solihull OAN needs to be a priority - account should be taken of the Government White Paper of 7th February 2017 which will introduce additional requirements for collaborative working between LPAs when identifying sufficient land for housing. The portion of Birmingham's unmet need which is to be met within Solihull needs to be addressed and included within this Local Plan review. This is likely to result in the Council having to identify additional land for housing to meet that need.

Furthermore, Solihull have failed to meet the housing target in the current Local Plan and the draft Local Plan Review must both address this shortfall, provide an appropriate housing target for Solihull MBC and also provide for an agreed proportion of Birmingham's unmet need. Policy P5 as currently drafted will not allow sufficient housing land to come forward in Solihull to meet actual targets.

i object to taking extra from birmingham

The projected housing totals for Balsall Common are disproportionate compared to other areas in the Borough (such as Dorridge) which already possess more well developed infrastructure.

There is no reference to new build for older members of the of the community (e.g.bungalows). This should be included as it could form part of an important incentive for downsizing leading to more efficient use of existing housing stock.

More encouragement of smaller scale developments would allow them to be blended into existing communities as opposed to large estates which tend to dominate or become isolated from existing provision.

Shortage estoimated as over 30000, table of proposed sites shows approx 15000.

see attached letter

The projected housing totals for Balsall Common are disproportionate compared to other areas in the Borough (such as Dorridge) which already possess more well developed infrastructure. There is no reference to new build for older members of the of the community (e.g.bungalows). This should be included as it could form part of an important incentive for downsizing leading to more efficient use of existing housing stock. More encouragement of smaller scale developments would allow them to be blended into existing communities as opposed to large estates which tend to dominate or become isolated from existing provision

Solihull's overall plan for housebuilding in the review period appears excessive. Let us not forget the borough is aspirational versus its neighbours and at this rate of growth it would appear supply far outstrips demand and thus feeds inward migration rather than supporting resident population growth in a sustainable manner.

Object to the total number of housing that Solihull will be taking from the HMA.

(See attached representation)

Proposed new homes site 13 South of Shirley estates
I am contacting you to object to the new housing estate planned for site 13 South of Shirley estates.
These fields are in constant us by residents in the area and it would be a great loss.
I do appreciate that more housing is needed in Solihull but It feels that these large housing schemes seem to be concentrated on this side of Solihull. A large estate in Solihull Lodge, Parkgate , further development in Dickens Heath, new houses in Cheswick Green, new houses to be built in Tidbury Green, all within a few miles of each other.
Would it not be wise to wait until these developments have finished to see the impact on schools, health services, traffic etc. before even more houses and associated families come into the area?
The appeal of this side of Solihull is that it is semi rural and this is slowly being lost.

I recognise that there is a pressing need for further affordable housing. I am strongly supportive of the building of a new Arden Academy in Knowle and support the building of 750 new houses on the old school site. Unfortunately, I missed participating in the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum review. I do not agree with their conclusion that, "The scale of 750 houses is not justified by the Council's evidence base: nor is it justified by the need to fund the new Academy. On this basis, the NF objects to the proposed allocation."

1. Too many homes are being targeted at Balsall Common. !,150 represents a 25 per cent increase on the present number.
2. In that number there is no mention of building bungalows - a particular interest in the Balsall Common area because of the ageing population.

see attached letter

not unless you improve the infrastructure of Balsall Common, by means of larger town centre, better parking, extending current primary school, improving local recreational facilities and amenities

Woodloes Road - Proposed new housing development
I am writing with regard to the proposed new housing development at Woodloes Road.

I cannot believe that this has been put forward. People, like myself, have bought property in this road because of the outlook that we have. It's a beautiful area and all that will happen is mass overcrowding. Are more schools going to be built to take account of the extra families in the area? Children love to play on the green open area along Woodloes Road which is a lovely open space. People of all ages walk their dogs through the fields. I, myself, go for plenty of walks through the fields and along the pathway out on to Bills Lane. This will all disappear. I don't want to walk through a housing estate!

I know that development has to go ahead but surely there are plenty of areas that can accommodate this without overcrowding our estate. We already struggle for parking! I have heard mention that there is room for development in Dorridge? So why can't it go ahead there?

I hope for all the residents of Woodloes Road and surrounding roads, this development does not go ahead.

Balsall Common is already struggling to cope with the current population. Increasing this by 800+ homes will lead to increased congestion, reduction of services, and a fall in the quality of life of residents.

If the greenbelt policy is to mean anything then SMBC should only really be planning to meet its local need. The purpose of greenbelt is well known and specified in the NPPF. Allowing too many additional houses to come from the HMA simply overrides greenbelt policy. The balance seems right

Selection criteria (Q3) have not been correctly applied in Balsall Common because all sites are in the Green Belt and the scoring for the different sites lacks clear criteria. The Borough needs to give details of brown field sites which have been rejected, and reasons for this. The selection of Barratts Farm is unmanageable.
800 houses will probably produce 1600 cars. Some access points are minor lanes and will not cope with this volume of traffic.

Housing is needed throughout the borough. However, this needs to be evenly placed and Greenbelt land should be avoided when there is considerable brownfield land throughout the borough. The number of proposed sites on Greenbelt land is outrageous and clearly does not take into account local residents opinions, rural or wildlife issues. I strongly object to the 800 proposed houses on Barrett's Farm and further 350 houses throughout the village. As these will not provide for the local community but for commuters. Nor does the village have the infrastructure or transport links to accommodate such a huge number of houses.

The number of houses across the borough will turn each individual community into one large massed conglomeration from north to south and east to west. What happened to 'Urbes in Rure' ?

I believe that there are an excessive number of new homes being proposed which will have a significantly detrimental impact on the Green Belt in Solihull and Knowle ruining its rural character. The number of new homes proposed for Knowle, particularly in the Arden Triangle is vastly excessive for the size of the village.

see letter from agent of Land owners at Hob Lane and Waste Lane Balsall Common

Richborough Estates consider that density of a development is a matter for master planning to address and support the general approach included in Policy P5. Prescriptive minimum density targets have not led to high quality developments and this is manifested by excessive on-street car parking. Richborough Estates recognises that the White Paper Fixing our broken housing market does refer to optimising the proposed density of development but this can be done within the context of a master planning approach. Indeed, the White Paper also says that the density and form of development should reflect the character, accessibility and infrastructure capacity of an area and the nature of local housing need which are all matters considered as part of a master planning approach.

However, Richborough Estates caution against prescriptive phasing of development without good or sound reasons for doing so. The starting point for this caution is the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to significantly boosting housing supply and this objective has the potential to be materially compromised by the artificial phasing of development. The fundamental objective of Government planning policy remains the delivery of housing which is needed now.

There may well be circumstances where phasing of a site could be justified but these would be linked to triggers for the delivery of the associated infrastructure rather than the artificial constraint on when planning permission might be issued.

It is considered the contribution that Solihull is making to the Housing Market Area needs is very modest. At 2000 dwellings this contribution to needs (which is almost exclusively generated by a shortfall in Birmingham, represents some 5.4% of the total shortfall. For Birmingham based households unable to secure housing within the City the natural choice of search will embrace Solihull, and unless provision is increased to accommodate a more realistic proportion, will result in a distortion to the housing market and a degrading of the preferred sustainable pattern of development as Birmingham migrants will occupy dwellings as close as to their work and social connections and exacerbating a ripple effect. The latter will be detrimental to a sustainable pattern of development. Within this context a share of the unmet need should be proportionate to the actual working of the housing market. A figure of 20% of the unmet need (say 7500) should be accommodated in Solihull, with the remainder being accommodated in the other 4 non Black Country authorities adjoining. This points to an increase in housing provision of some 5500 above that set out in Policy P5.

Please see uploaded attachments

The proposed housing developments for Knowle ,Dorridge and Bentley Heath are completely in excess for the current roads, schools doctors surgerys.public car parking rail station parking and further erosion of the green belt in the area. The whole of the present inter-structure would need to be up graded.

The number of homes being planned is based on current projection need and therefore difficult to challenge. It is encouraging that development is to be phased to ensure no excessive supply. However, Policy needs to include reviews and to be written to ensure that if projected demand does not materialise the number can be reduced. The impact of Brexit, HS2 etc really cannot be accurately predicted between now and 2033. HHPC would urge SMBC to commit to a review of the SHMA in five years.

The needs arising from the HMA require a co-ordinated and comprehensive approach to ensure that all available options are considered and tested. The full and active involvement of all authorities is essential to arrive at an agreed position that is both valid and justified. The rationale and reasoning for the proposed number of additional dwellings to contribute to the wider HMA shortfall is not provided. It is important to reinforce the approach that sustainable locations, where appropriate infrastructure exists or can be provided, should be prioritised to avoid undue additional pressure being placed on releasing less sustainable sites for development.