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?

see letter and various appendices supporting site land - between no. 39 and 79 Earlswood Road (The Paddock) and The Orchard, 79 Earlswood Road, Dorridge

see letter and supporting documents
Land rear of 114 Kenilworth Road Knowle

see attached response on behalf of Shirley Golf Club Limited and IM Properties Limited in respect of land adjacent to Stratford Road.

see attached documents
LPR Draft - Representations IM Land Meriden - this is the overarching document
LVA & Green Belt Review Feb 2017
Access and transport Appraisal 161208
Land North of Main Road, Meriden - The Vision

see letter and supporting documents for Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Nos. 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green

see attached letter re: Hatton Station (Warwick District)

see letter

see letter
"Overall we are very supportive of the plan and its in alignment with our Movement for Growth and SEP. But we have raised some points concerning parking policy, and more promotion of walking and cycling. "

On behalf of the forum, I am submitting the attached document as the considered view of the Neighbourhood Forum members in response to the consultation to Solihull Council's Draft Local Plan. The response relates in particular to the implications for the KDBH area.

In order to capture and then reflect the views of forum members and residents, the forum has held three public meetings; in December 2016 and January and February of this year. Feedback has been gathered on each occasion and we have also invited and received comments via e-mail.

We also have a body of evidence that reflects residents' general views, concerns and aspirations for the area from the residents survey conducted in 2016.

In addition, we have reviewed the proposed housing allocations, for the KDBH area as outlined in the draft plan against the Council's published methodologies and evidence base to try to understand how they were determined.

We believe that the document is a balance and objective representation of the Forum member's views.

We have also encourage members to submit their own individual responses, following the instructions on your website. This should ensure that you have the full spectrum of views.

see attached letter

see attached letter and supporting document (The UK Central Hub Growth and Infrastructure Plan)

see written response attached

see attached response by agent

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

see letter

see letter from Agent

see letter from agent

see letter re: land at Bickenhill Lane Catherine De Barnes

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.

see attached written rep

REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF RED ELK HOLDINGS
The draft Local Plan sets out an objective (Challenge B) to widen the range of housing options for older people through the provision of accommodation which is designed to meet their needs. It highlights that there is a Borough-wide shortage of homes which are suitable for older people (paragraph 182). The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2016) published with the draft Local Plan says that, in addition to the objectively assessed need for housing there will be a requirement for residential care home accommodation for the elderly of additional 737 spaces over the next 19 years (paragraph 6.14). The document recommends that the Council plan separately for this accommodation and set out a separate target for new bedspaces within this accommodation. However neither a target nor any provision has been set out in the draft Local Plan and therefore this requirement seems to have been ignored.
It is important that housing provision is made for elderly people, not least to meet the needs of elderly people in society, but also because elderly people currently occupying large homes may wish to move but may not have the option of alternative accommodation within their community. By making provision for elderly people to downsize or move to accommodation which better meets their care needs, this releases large homes back to the market for younger families. This in turn reduces the pressure to build more new homes.
The Draft Local Plan recognises this at paragraph 181 where it states that 'the number of households represented by the over 75s is projected to increase by 7,000 between 2014 and 2033 to comprise 22% of all the Borough's households. This leads to market demand for specialist and supported housing together with homes which can provide opportunities for households to 'downsize', thereby releasing family housing for resale and re-letting'. However the Local Plan does not do anything in terms of making provision to address this requirement.
The National Planning Policy Framework says at paragraph 159 that local planning authorities should, through their Strategic Housing Market Assessment, identify the need for all types of housing, including the needs of older people, and then cater for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand. This is a clear national policy expectation that the needs of older people will be both understood and met.
The Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 021 says that the need to provide housing for older people is critical given the projected increase in the number of households aged 65 and over accounts for over half of the new households. Plan makers will need to consider the size, location and quality of dwellings needed in the future for older people in order to allow them to live independently and safely in their own home for as long as possible, or to move to more suitable accommodation if they so wish. The future need for specialist accommodation for older people broken down by tenure and type (e.g. sheltered, enhanced sheltered, extra care, registered care) should be assessed. The assessment should set out the level of need for residential institutions (Use Class C2). Local authorities should also identify particular types of general housing as part of their assessment.
Whilst the Strategic Housing Market Assessment identifies a requirement for residential care home accommodation for the elderly of additional 737 spaces over the next 19 years, the Draft Local Plan does not meet this need. The Draft Local Plan is therefore considered unsound, due to it not being positively prepared. The Draft Local Plan could be made sound by making provision to meet the identified housing needs of older people through specific site allocations for C2 residential care and other types of housing designed to meet the needs of older people.

see detailed response to policies and 4 supporting documents supporting proposed sites

I have made a very late decision to respond within the consultation period. I had decided that as a resident of Knowle, any comments would be dismissed as "Nimbyism". However this decision is perhaps defeatism at its worst, so I request that you please give consideration to my views in the attached document.

letter re: Call for Sites site 82

see attached letter and supporting annotated map

Please find attached a response to the Solihull Local Plan Review consultation on behalf of Colchurch Properties Limited who are promoting land to the south of Station Road, Balsall Common.

This response comprises a 'Vision Document' which includes the following sections,

Foreword (inset)
1. Introduction
2. The Vision
3. Planning Background
4. Draft Local Plan 2016 Consultation Response
5. The Concept Masterplan (not including figures which are within the hard copy and CD issued separately)
6. Transport and Access

see attached

see attached

Please find attached our response on behalf of Mark Horgan to the Draft Local Plan Review consultation. We have also attached our Scope, Issues and Options (January 2016) submission for your reference.

Please find attached our response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review consultation on behalf of a Client Group comprising Bloor Homes, Gladman Developments Ltd, IM Land, IM Properties Ltd and Rosconn Strategic Land.

We specifically respond to question 14 of the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review in respect of the objectively assessed housing needs proposed for the Borough and the wider Housing Market Area over the period 2014 - 2033; as set out in Policy 5.