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?

Please find attached my comments in response to the invitation to comment upon the Draft Local plan.

COMMENTS ON SOLIHULL DRAFT LOCAL PLAN
February 2017

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the current consultation on the Solihull Draft Plan. My comments are specifically regarding the proposals for Balsall Common and focus upon:

1) The issue of the disproportionate allocation of new housing to Balsall Common, compared with both Knowle and Dorridge, both of which have well established town centres, unlike Balsall Common.

2) The need to develop a comprehensive Plan for Balsall Common which considers improvements to the infrastructure necessary to support any proposed increase in population.

3) The clear logic and evidence for accommodating all proposed housing on the Barrett's Lane site and not developing any of the other suggested sites.

It appears that the number of houses allocated to Balsall Common is disproportionately large given the size of allocations to other locations within the Borough, which have a greater capacity to accommodate sizable developments and which also have better infrastructure to support growth than Balsall Common. Both Knowle and Dorridge have sizeable and well established "town centres" which are cap.able of supporting additional demands, unlike Balsall Common which has a small, restricted and inadequate centre. Parking at Balsall Common centre is also significantly limited and the opportunity to utilize the former Partco site at the rear of the existing shops has been lost with the development of housing, which is currently under construction.

Similarly the transportation and public transport links to are vastly superior to Balsall Common, with the former being much better served and more frequently served by trains and both have more frequent bus services. Also proximity to the M42 is better at both Dorridge and Knowle.

The exercise currently in hand is clearly focused on housing allocations and there appears to be very little evidence of any rigorous or conclusive thought having been given to the broader planning issues and consequences of potentially increasing the housing stock by, up to 1150 new homes, in terms of the impact on existing services and infrastructure within Balsall Common. There needs to be a more comprehensive approach to the future planning and development of Balsall Common alongside the current single focus upon housing allocations. It is essential that the current process include, simultaneous to the consideration of optional housing sites, appropriate discussion and a comprehensive examination of the improvements to infrastructure necessary to support any growth in the housing stock and population, as well as securing improvements for current residents.

I am aware that there has been consideration within some of the developers early schematic plans of location of "open space' and "additional schools" and the like, but again, a much more strategic and comprehensive contextual approach needs to be adopted. There is a danger in the presumption that the impact of additional housing can be met within the finally designated housing areas as many of the impacts will be felt well beyond the boundaries of the new housing sites. Developers will obviously offer planning gains within their proposals, possibly to minimize expectations placed upon them by Section 106 agreements and planning approval conditions, but again such altruistic offerings are likely only to benefit their own proposal and we need to return to the consequences of additional housing upon the whole and entire settlement both existing and proposed.

Unless the issue of the impact of the proposed developments upon the existing and projected infrastructure is properly analysed and solutions identified and detailed, enlargement of the settlement, at the scale envisaged, will be rather like building an inverted pyramid, the base of which is ever increased whilst the grounded apex becomes ever more unstable, with inevitable and predictable consequences.

Thirdly, regarding the sites preferred by the LPA, I'd offer the following comments:

The Barrett's Lane site (Reference 33 /244 Barrett's Lane Farm, BC Meriden 50.65 Forms part of amalgamated site 1002) is easily the most appropriate and feasible site to accommodate the entire allocation. It scores well in terms of its development potential in the Green Belt Assessment: Appendix F : Overall Score Map. Similarly, it is supported by development potential in terms of proximity to transport links, (particularly if the Balsall Common by-pass is completed) as well as access to other existing facilities. The location close to the railway station is consistent with the views expressed in the current 2017 White Paper on Housing and rational regarding the current thinking and policy on sustainable housing, which Balsall Common desperately needs.

Reinforcing the appropriateness of development at the Barrett's Lane site, the Landscape Assessment of Sub-Area 5 (The Balsall Common Eastern Fringe) (on page 42) and the locus of the Barrett's Lane proposals, identifies the area as being lower in landscape quality, with an overall assessment of only "medium".


The Frog Lane proposal (Reference 75 /12 Land at Frog Lane) scores similarly in Appendix F : Overall Score Map. However some aspects of the Green Belt Assessment: Appendix G : Highest Score Plan identifying site RP59 with a score of 3 (the highest category) for certain categories of assessment.

However, the location of the site, which is some significant way from the current village centre and even further from the railway station and other key facilities, raises additional questions about its suitability. Presumably the existing road (Frog Lane) would need to be upgraded and given the relatively small number of houses (the site is only 5.44 hectares) this may not justify the investment? It is also presumably, because of its isolated location, not an ideal location for affordable housing and would generate extra and vehicular movements on inappropriate roads.

Also any development in this direction opens the probability of further incursions into the Green Belt in a direction which is counter-intuitive to development around rail stations.

The proposal to develop 800+ houses at Grange Farm is fundamentally flawed in a number of respects. In the Green Belt Assessment Appendix F: Overall Score Map the Grange Farm site scores 7, which is higher than the Barrett's Lane, Meeting House Lane and Windmill Lane Sites. Together with fact that the Grange Farm site is further from current facilities makes it difficult to understand why it would be considered. At the exhibition by potential developers (held at St Peters Church Hall) much was made of the intentions to offer "infrastructure" alongside the development. The attraction of "infrastructure" at Grange Farm needs to be very closely examined and rigorously tested within the context of the entire village (as discussed above), in so much as a sub-centre at a location which is isolated from current infrastructure, could create additional problems for both the existing facilities and the transport network. It would simply be providing facilities in the wrong place.

In addition, the commentary contained in the Landscape Assessment (page 38) on Sub-Area 4c (which is the area to the west of Balsall Common) describes the Landscape Character Sensitivity of this sub-area as High. It goes on to state: "The sub-area has clear legibility and is an attractive rural landscape with distinctive landscape features including the several historic areas that are intimate along with the well treed River Blythe corridor. The landscape is generally in good condition".

The Report goes on to note: "This sub-area would typically have an overall very low landscape capacity to accommodate change. Overall, this character area would be able to accommodate only very restricted areas of new development, which would need to be of an appropriate type, scale and form, and in keeping with the existing character and local distinctiveness of the area. Any new development should not result in the loss of the inherently rural character and should maintain the dispersed settlement pattern of the area".

As an aside, it's interesting and understandable that "busy roads" are identified as a landscape detractor, but it serves to reinforce that fact that additional development in this area would aggravate the traffic issues to the west of the village, which would not benefit from the by-pass.

Clearly the Landscape Assessment rates the quality of the western fringe (including the Grange Farm site) as higher than the eastern fringe (and the Barrett's Lane site). Also, the Assessment rates the western fringe as being more sensitive to change than the eastern fringe. Consequently the conclusion must be that of the two sites, the eastern fringe (including the Barrett's Lane) site would be preferred for development.

Beyond the Landscape Assessment and back to the issues discussed above regarding infrastructure and the need for a comprehensive planning approach to the development of Balsall Common, I would strongly reiterate the need to debate the capacity of the existing village in terms of infrastructure, alongside the consideration of the housing locations, which needs to be expressed in a village masterplan as (part of) the context for the new housing proposals! I've not found any debate about the fundamental questions, for example, about what sort of village / settlement Balsall Common wants to be in the future? The danger exists that we are deciding significant detail before we have determined the overall context or product! It's interesting to note that included in the Evidence Base is the masterplan for the central area of Solihull, which is clearly being used as both the context for future developments as well as providing instructions to the detail decisions that will be made.

Please find attached my comments in response to the invitation to comment upon the Draft Local plan.

COMMENTS ON SOLIHULL DRAFT LOCAL PLAN
February 2017

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the current consultation on the Solihull Draft Plan. My comments are specifically regarding the proposals for Balsall Common and focus upon:

1) The issue of the disproportionate allocation of new housing to Balsall Common, compared with both Knowle and Dorridge, both of which have well established town centres, unlike Balsall Common.

2) The need to develop a comprehensive Plan for Balsall Common which considers improvements to the infrastructure necessary to support any proposed increase in population.

3) The clear logic and evidence for accommodating all proposed housing on the Barrett's Lane site and not developing any of the other suggested sites.

It appears that the number of houses allocated to Balsall Common is disproportionately large given the size of allocations to other locations within the Borough, which have a greater capacity to accommodate sizable developments and which also have better infrastructure to support growth than Balsall Common. Both Knowle and Dorridge have sizeable and well established "town centres" which are cap.able of supporting additional demands, unlike Balsall Common which has a small, restricted and inadequate centre. Parking at Balsall Common centre is also significantly limited and the opportunity to utilize the former Partco site at the rear of the existing shops has been lost with the development of housing, which is currently under construction.

Similarly the transportation and public transport links to are vastly superior to Balsall Common, with the former being much better served and more frequently served by trains and both have more frequent bus services. Also proximity to the M42 is better at both Dorridge and Knowle.

The exercise currently in hand is clearly focused on housing allocations and there appears to be very little evidence of any rigorous or conclusive thought having been given to the broader planning issues and consequences of potentially increasing the housing stock by, up to 1150 new homes, in terms of the impact on existing services and infrastructure within Balsall Common. There needs to be a more comprehensive approach to the future planning and development of Balsall Common alongside the current single focus upon housing allocations. It is essential that the current process include, simultaneous to the consideration of optional housing sites, appropriate discussion and a comprehensive examination of the improvements to infrastructure necessary to support any growth in the housing stock and population, as well as securing improvements for current residents.

I am aware that there has been consideration within some of the developers early schematic plans of location of "open space' and "additional schools" and the like, but again, a much more strategic and comprehensive contextual approach needs to be adopted. There is a danger in the presumption that the impact of additional housing can be met within the finally designated housing areas as many of the impacts will be felt well beyond the boundaries of the new housing sites. Developers will obviously offer planning gains within their proposals, possibly to minimize expectations placed upon them by Section 106 agreements and planning approval conditions, but again such altruistic offerings are likely only to benefit their own proposal and we need to return to the consequences of additional housing upon the whole and entire settlement both existing and proposed.

Unless the issue of the impact of the proposed developments upon the existing and projected infrastructure is properly analysed and solutions identified and detailed, enlargement of the settlement, at the scale envisaged, will be rather like building an inverted pyramid, the base of which is ever increased whilst the grounded apex becomes ever more unstable, with inevitable and predictable consequences.

Thirdly, regarding the sites preferred by the LPA, I'd offer the following comments:

The Barrett's Lane site (Reference 33 /244 Barrett's Lane Farm, BC Meriden 50.65 Forms part of amalgamated site 1002) is easily the most appropriate and feasible site to accommodate the entire allocation. It scores well in terms of its development potential in the Green Belt Assessment: Appendix F : Overall Score Map. Similarly, it is supported by development potential in terms of proximity to transport links, (particularly if the Balsall Common by-pass is completed) as well as access to other existing facilities. The location close to the railway station is consistent with the views expressed in the current 2017 White Paper on Housing and rational regarding the current thinking and policy on sustainable housing, which Balsall Common desperately needs.

Reinforcing the appropriateness of development at the Barrett's Lane site, the Landscape Assessment of Sub-Area 5 (The Balsall Common Eastern Fringe) (on page 42) and the locus of the Barrett's Lane proposals, identifies the area as being lower in landscape quality, with an overall assessment of only "medium".


The Frog Lane proposal (Reference 75 /12 Land at Frog Lane) scores similarly in Appendix F : Overall Score Map. However some aspects of the Green Belt Assessment: Appendix G : Highest Score Plan identifying site RP59 with a score of 3 (the highest category) for certain categories of assessment.

However, the location of the site, which is some significant way from the current village centre and even further from the railway station and other key facilities, raises additional questions about its suitability. Presumably the existing road (Frog Lane) would need to be upgraded and given the relatively small number of houses (the site is only 5.44 hectares) this may not justify the investment? It is also presumably, because of its isolated location, not an ideal location for affordable housing and would generate extra and vehicular movements on inappropriate roads.

Also any development in this direction opens the probability of further incursions into the Green Belt in a direction which is counter-intuitive to development around rail stations.

The proposal to develop 800+ houses at Grange Farm is fundamentally flawed in a number of respects. In the Green Belt Assessment Appendix F: Overall Score Map the Grange Farm site scores 7, which is higher than the Barrett's Lane, Meeting House Lane and Windmill Lane Sites. Together with fact that the Grange Farm site is further from current facilities makes it difficult to understand why it would be considered. At the exhibition by potential developers (held at St Peters Church Hall) much was made of the intentions to offer "infrastructure" alongside the development. The attraction of "infrastructure" at Grange Farm needs to be very closely examined and rigorously tested within the context of the entire village (as discussed above), in so much as a sub-centre at a location which is isolated from current infrastructure, could create additional problems for both the existing facilities and the transport network. It would simply be providing facilities in the wrong place.

In addition, the commentary contained in the Landscape Assessment (page 38) on Sub-Area 4c (which is the area to the west of Balsall Common) describes the Landscape Character Sensitivity of this sub-area as High. It goes on to state: "The sub-area has clear legibility and is an attractive rural landscape with distinctive landscape features including the several historic areas that are intimate along with the well treed River Blythe corridor. The landscape is generally in good condition".

The Report goes on to note: "This sub-area would typically have an overall very low landscape capacity to accommodate change. Overall, this character area would be able to accommodate only very restricted areas of new development, which would need to be of an appropriate type, scale and form, and in keeping with the existing character and local distinctiveness of the area. Any new development should not result in the loss of the inherently rural character and should maintain the dispersed settlement pattern of the area".

As an aside, it's interesting and understandable that "busy roads" are identified as a landscape detractor, but it serves to reinforce that fact that additional development in this area would aggravate the traffic issues to the west of the village, which would not benefit from the by-pass.

Clearly the Landscape Assessment rates the quality of the western fringe (including the Grange Farm site) as higher than the eastern fringe (and the Barrett's Lane site). Also, the Assessment rates the western fringe as being more sensitive to change than the eastern fringe. Consequently the conclusion must be that of the two sites, the eastern fringe (including the Barrett's Lane) site would be preferred for development.

Beyond the Landscape Assessment and back to the issues discussed above regarding infrastructure and the need for a comprehensive planning approach to the development of Balsall Common, I would strongly reiterate the need to debate the capacity of the existing village in terms of infrastructure, alongside the consideration of the housing locations, which needs to be expressed in a village masterplan as (part of) the context for the new housing proposals! I've not found any debate about the fundamental questions, for example, about what sort of village / settlement Balsall Common wants to be in the future? The danger exists that we are deciding significant detail before we have determined the overall context or product! It's interesting to note that included in the Evidence Base is the masterplan for the central area of Solihull, which is clearly being used as both the context for future developments as well as providing instructions to the detail decisions that will be made.