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 response and supporting documents

see attached response and supporting documents

see attached

Please find attached Persimmon Homes Central's representations in response to the draft plan published November 2016. Also attached are our site specific representations regarding our site at Tythe Barn Lane, Dickens Heath, which forms part of the strategic allocation.

submission by agent on behalf Federated Scrap and proposal land at Jacobean Lane Copt Heath

Please find attached the HBF response to the above mentioned consultation for your consideration

Representations on behalf of Schools of King Edward VI in Birmingham

GVA is instructed to submit representations to the Local Plan Review 'Draft Local Plan' consultation process.
Please therefore find attached a Representations document (which includes appendices), that provides our client's comments on the Draft Local Plan.

see letter and site map

I am chair of the Burton Green Parish Council and I am sending our response to the Solihull Local Plan. I would appreciate if you confirmed that our response has been delivered. Also when the Inspector's proceedings begin, we would like to be represented there when it looks at the developments in Berkswell and Balsall Common, especially when the transport infrastructure is discussed.

see letter - land at Longden Road Tilehouse Green Knowle

Please see attached the following submission to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation.

We have produced the following documents to form part of our submission:

* Solihull Draft Local Plan Representations (Framptons, February 2017)
* Appendix A - Green Belt, Landscape and Masterplanning Report (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix B - A Vision for Tidbury Green (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix C - Review of SDLPR Sustainability Appraisal - (JAM Consult Ltd, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 1 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 2 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Figures (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix E - Infrastructure and Utilities Note (WSP, February 2017)

see below comments on behalf of Stratford-on-Avon District Council to the Solihull Local Plan Review consultation.
Stratford-on-Avon District (SDC) welcomes the ongoing dialogue with Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council in respect of plan-making and in meeting both Councils obligations under to Duty to Co-operate.

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?

The contribution of 2,000 homes towards the Greater Birmingham HMA shortfall is welcomed. However, following adoption of the Birmingham Plan in January 2017, further technical work looking at how the shortfall should be accommodated across the HMA is being commissioned by the 14 constituent authorities within the Birmingham HMA, including SDC and Solihull Borough. Whilst the results of this work are not yet known, given the strong relationship of Solihull to Birmingham and the fact that Solihull Borough is fully within the Greater Birmingham HMA, it is highly likely that Solihull Borough will be required to make further and significant provision towards contributing to the HMA shortfall. The Draft Local Plan should therefore make further provision to meeting these needs.

Q.15 Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?

SDC notes the following allocations:

* Approximately 700 homes West of Dickens Heath (Site 4)
* Approximately 850 homes South of Dog Kennel Lane, Shirley (Site 12)
* Approximately 600 homes South Shirley (Site 13)
* Approximately 950 homes at Blythe Valley Park as part of a mixed-use development and prime employment location.

SDC makes no comment as to the appropriateness of these allocations but stresses the importance of ensuring that the wider transport and infrastructure implications of these proposals, both individually and cumulatively, has been properly understood and assessed, particularly the impact of this scale of development on local rural roads. In particular, it is critical that any comments raised by Warwickshire County Council as the highway authority for Stratford-on-Avon are fully taken on board. Solihull Metropolitan Borough council should also ensure that, as a neighbouring council, they fully engage with Tanworth-in-Arden Parish Council in the preparation of their Local Plan.

Q18. Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

SDC is supportive of the proposals for the delivery of METRO and SPRINT as part of an inter-connected network of rapid-transit lines providing improved access to UK Central Hub and Birmingham Airport, in particular. However, no reference is made for the need to seek subsequent improvements on existing transport routes that would act as 'feeder lines' to the new rapid-transit modes. The plan should include such references (or at the very least, signposts to relevant transport strategies) in order to express support for proposals that would assist in the delivery of these improvements e.g. between the airport and the international tourist destination of Stratford-upon-Avon.

Q.20 Do you agree with the policies for quality of place? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

SDC supports the approach in respect of Hockley Heath that account will be taken of its rural setting and special character in considering development proposals. This should include the impact of any development on adjacent land and communities in Stratford District.

Appendix E: Draft Green Infrastructure Opportunities Map
SDC notes the identification of Earlswood Living Landscape and supports the principle of enhancing the biodiversity of this area. However, SDC would reiterate the previous concerns of local residents about how any such improvements were implemented.

Challenges
1. Do you agree that we've identified the right challenges facing the Borough? If not why not? Are there any additional challenges that should be addressed?
Vision

No.
Challenge C - Balsall Common village centre suffers from many of the challenges listed for Solihull, Shirley, and Chelmsley Wood Centres.

2. Do you agree with the Borough Vision we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
The vision seems to rely on increasing transport dependency. It implies that employment growth will necessitate people travelling from outside the area to work within Solihull, and Solihull residents travelling long distances outside the Borough to go to work. A better strategy would be to focus on creating local employment, with the transport growth aimed at transporting materials and goods. Transport of people for employment purposes could be reduced by improved broadband network infrastructure and tele-working.
the spatial strategy seems to run counter to the wish in para 74 for preserving the environment.
There doesn't seem to be any proposals to meet the aspiration in para 75 to reduce carbon emissions.
In para 86 it's said growth will occur on the edge of settlements which will inevitably increase traffic and transport need, and runs counter to the aspirations in paras 72 and 75. A bypass for Balsall Common is proposed without consideration of the impact on the viability of the village centre, the environment, or existing residents.

Spatial Strategy
3. Do you agree with the spatial strategy we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Sustainable Economic Growth

No.
The proposed significant expansion of rural settlements is in conflict with the stated preference and national policy of giving preference to brown field sites, and does not recognise the absence of high frequency public transport in most of the Borough.
Given the shortage of housing land to meet the Government's housing targets, it is essential that all new development is to a high density to reduce the land-take.

4. Do you agree with Policy P1? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
There doesn't seem any plan to mitigate the increased traffic, congestion, carbon emissions, air quality degradation, and noise disturbance. The land should not be developed until after the aggregate resources have been extracted. Renaming the area as Arden Cross is simply tacky and tasteless. It already has a name, Middle Bickenhill.

7. Do you agree with Policy P2? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
Balsall Common centre has suffered from the loss of business premises, the loss of the Health Centre to a greenfield site on the edge of the village, inadequate parking, the lack of a bus station, and now a proposal to divert through-traffic. A comprehensive development plan is required to address all these issues.

Providing Homes for All
11. Do you agree with Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
The shortage of land and the need for housing means that there should be a significant increase in density and the provision of smaller homes.

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

No.
The affordable housing provision should be greater than 50% for all sites - which would require development of an individual house to be "affordable".

14. 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?

No.
The housing target should just meet local needs. Excess requirements should be met in the rural expanses in neighbouring counties, who are expected to have a "duty to cooperate". Solihull should not cater for Birmingham overspill. Solihull Borough has essentially reached capacity in terms of housing provision, and a Predict and Provide policy will lead to a continuous decline in the quality of the environment and to the detriment of residents.

15. Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?

No.
The planning objectives of re-using previously-developed land and creating new settlements have been ignored. Areas such as Balsall Common are being encouraged to sprawl in contravention of accessibility, sustainability, and Green Gelt policies. The Green Belt analysis has not been conducted in line with the NPPF as non-defensible boundaries have been used. The scores attached to preserving the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap are too low and irrational. Balsall Common seems to have been singled out for concentrated and disproportionate expansion, in contrast to areas such as Dorridge, which has far better public transport. In particular, sites 1 and 3 appear to have been chosen for administrative convenience rather than compliance with local and national policies.
Preference should be given to developing brown-field sites and to raising the housing density generally.

16. Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are they?

No.
With regard to Site 1, the proposed highway access is completely unsuitable and will put traffic onto residential roads. No "bypass" is proposed, but with the lack of funding the proposals are likely to create a rat-run that will cause further environmental harm for residents. There is no strategy to deliver bus service and school provision. With regard to Site 3, it is far too distant from the village centre to benefit from the quoted infrastructure improvements.

18. Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
Para 267 is incorrect, the HS2 Environmental Impact has been assessed on the basis that no road improvements would be needed south of the A45. It is highly unlikely that people will travel from south of Balsall Common to HS2 at Middle Bickenhill when there are nearer and more convenient alternatives at Warwick. In addition, the current railway is available to feed the new station via the People Mover. The additional housing proposed for Balsall Common is wrongly sited if it creates additional commuting traffic. There are alternative sites to the north of Balsall Common that would have good access to new employment sites and would not require road improvements.
One reason for abandoning the bypass for Balsall Common was the need to maintain the vitality of the village centre retail options. The proposed new housing would be too far from the centre to offset any loss of through-custom. The A452 only becomes congested when there are problems on the motorway network, and there is no identified need for improved capacity. Much of the traffic is generated within the village. Capacity is limited by the traffic lights at the south of the village, and improvements to that junction should be the first to be considered if demand increases.
There doesn't seem to be any justification for expensive projects like Metro and Sprint (Policy 8A). The passenger demand should first be proven by running bus services. The main factors limiting greater use of public transport are: service interval; unreliability; lack of real-time information; primitive or non-existent waiting shelters; absence of evening services; difficult access for the less agile. Berkswell Station has an irregular service with 40 minute waiting times, and has had a marked reduction in the quality of the waiting facilities. It is difficult for the disabled to board the trains due to the platform gap.
The service interval target (Policy P7) has been increased from 15 minutes between busses and 20 minutes between trains. Rail services have been dropped from the policy, and should be specificed with the same targets as for busses. The previous target intervals were too long for many users, but the proposed 30 minute wait is far too long. The rural area generally has only an hourly service, and few dwellings are within 400 metres of a stop, so Policy P7 is hugely optimistic and unrealistic.

Protecting and Enhancing our Environment
19. Do you agree with the policies for protecting the environment? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
There should be a clear policy for requiring solar PV on all new buildings, and prohibiting green-field solar farms. In addition, policies should encourage use of solar PV in paved areas etc. There should be clear architectural/design standards for all solar PV installations.

Promoting Quality of Place
20. Do you agree with the policies for quality of place? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Health and Supporting Local Communities

No.
Policy P16 should be expanded to include requirements to identify unrecognised archaeological remains during any development. A more integrated approach should be adopted to finding traces of early settlement in the area. All works in new areas should be preceded by geophysical surveys.
Policy P17 should specify Balsall Common as inset in the Green Belt and protected like the other named settlements.

21. Do you agree with the policies health and supporting communities? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
Policy P20 does not provide sufficient long-term protection for public open space. All such areas should be designated as Village Greens, and green spaces in new developments should be dedicated as Village Greens by the developers.

Delivery and Monitoring
22. Do you agree with the Policy P21? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
Policy P21 should be clearer about spending all "planning gain" within the affected communities. In addition, all new developments should only be approved following agreement of a detailed strategic site plan agreed within the community.
**********************************************

Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Plan Consultation
Please find attached a representation from Gladman into the above referenced consultation

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

see attached letter

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

REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF NURTON DEVELOPMENTS
Nurton Developments does not agree with the spatial strategy and considers that Hockley Heath should be included as a location for growth for reasons set out below.
Paragraph 83 of the draft Local Plan sets out a vision for rural areas that, by 2028, the network of strong and vibrant communities will have been sustained with a range of local facilities and services that are readily accessible on foot and by bicycle and that are appropriate to the scale and hierarchy of the settlement. It envisages that sustainable extensions to those settlements that are highly accessible or have a wide range of services will provide for the Borough's housing needs. Therefore it is within the vision of the Draft Local Plan to locate additional housing adjacent to sustainable rural settlements in order to sustain strong and vibrant communities.
The Draft Local Plan spatial strategy includes in the hierarchy at paragraph 101 'development that would be a proportionate addition adjacent to an existing settlement that although is less accessible still has a limited range of services available within it (including a primary school)'. Therefore the spatial strategy clearly envisages locating additional housing adjacent to settlements with a range of services, including a primary school.
The Draft Local Plan Housing Topic Paper (December 2016) sets out reasoning behind the chosen spatial strategy. In relation to Hockley Heath it concludes that 'the poor accessibility of this settlement and the restricted opportunities [for development] mean that it is not suitable for growth'. This is considered to be an inadequate assessment which all-too-readily dismisses Hockley Heath. The village is a sustainable location for growth and the local village services and continued vitality of the community are reliant upon the growth of the village.
Hockley Heath is a compact village where local facilities are easily accessed by foot. The village has a primary school and other local facilities include pubs, restaurants, a café, take-away establishments, a convenience shop, butchers, post office, dentist, a physiotherapy clinic, hairdressers, various other retail shops and a community hall. This good range of local facilities supports the vibrancy of the community and village life.
Hockley Heath is served by two bus routes. The S3 links Acocks Green to Hockley Heath via Solihull, Knowle and Dorridge. This service runs every half an hour in each direction Monday to Saturday and hourly on a Sunday and in the evenings. This connects to the medical centre and railway station in Dorridge and the secondary school in Knowle. There are also school bus services from Hockley Heath to Tudor Grange Academy (the catchment secondary school) and Alcester secondary schools. The X20 runs from Birmingham to Stratford-upon-Avon via Hockley Heath. The service runs hourly in each direction Monday to Saturday and every 90 minutes on Sundays.
In view of the local facilities available at Hockley Heath and the range of bus services to higher order settlements, it is unjustified to conclude that the settlement has poor accessibility.
The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 55) states that, to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. This appears to be recognised by the Draft Local Plan vision and spatial strategy, but the actual location of housing allocations falls short of achieving this objective at Hockley Heath. It is important that the village population is sustained by a mix of housing so as to sustain a strong and vibrant community and retain local facilities and services.
Between the 2001 and 2011 Censuses Hockley Heath grew by 80 households. This equates to 11% growth over a 10 year period. The Draft Local plan now considers a subsequent 17 year period. It is considered that allowance should be made for modest and proportionate growth to Hockley Heath in order to support the village as a strong and vibrant community and to provide for a mix of housing to meet local needs.
The objectively assessed housing need to be addressed in the Draft Local Plan provides the exceptional circumstances to review the Green Belt boundary to Hockley Heath. Without such a review the village is constrained and has very limited potential to meet needs for housing. The emerging Hockley Heath Neighbourhood Plan is also restricted in addressing the growth needs of the village without alteration to the Green Belt boundary.
 

joint submission by Arden Academy & Mr Ved Goswami re: Arden Triangle site 9 Knowle
see attached documents

My wife and I strongly object to your proposals for housing development in Knowle and support the contents and sentiments of the attached document prepared by KDBH Neigbourhood Forum

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to make my opinion known it that I agree with the response of the Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Health Neighbourhood Forum.

see email and KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

email and copy of KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

see attached documents

I am instructed by my client Gallagher Estates to submit representations to the Draft Local Plan Review consultation (December 2016).

The representations comprise of the following submissions:

* Representations to the Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan comprising of Pegasus Group Report with accompanying appendices:
o Site Location Plan (Appendix A); o Review of SHELAA (Appendix B); o Review of SMHA (Appendix C);
o Un-met Housing Need and the Duty to Cooperate (Appendix D)
o Chelmer Model Papers (Appendix E)

* Separate Background Documents relating to :
o Land at Damson Parkway , Solihull;
o Land at Four Ashes Road, Dorridge;
o Land off Bickenhill Road, Marston Green and;
o Land off Berkswell Road, Meriden

I am instructed by my client Gallagher Estates to submit representations to the Draft Local Plan Review consultation (December 2016).

The representations comprise of the following submissions:

* Representations to the Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan comprising of Pegasus Group Report with accompanying appendices:
o Site Location Plan (Appendix A); o Review of SHELAA (Appendix B); o Review of SMHA (Appendix C);
o Un-met Housing Need and the Duty to Cooperate (Appendix D)
o Chelmer Model Papers (Appendix E)

* Separate Background Documents relating to :
o Land at Damson Parkway , Solihull;
o Land at Four Ashes Road, Dorridge;
o Land off Bickenhill Road, Marston Green and;
o Land off Berkswell Road, Meriden

see attached documents

see submission and supporting documents from agent - Pegasus

see attached documents

see attached