Q15. 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

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land at Barston Lane/ Oak Lane, Barston B92 0JR

The submission comprises the letter of representations (10445 LA3 GC LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 10445-01A) with the site edged red.

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land at Barston Lane/ Oak Lane, Barston B92 0JR

The submission comprises the letter of representations (10445 LA3 GC LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 10445-01A) with the site edged red.

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land at Barston Lane/ Oak Lane, Barston B92 0JR

The submission comprises the letter of representations (10445 LA3 GC LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 10445-01A) with the site edged red.

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land at Barston Lane/ Oak Lane, Barston B92 0JR

The submission comprises the letter of representations (10445 LA3 GC LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 10445-01A) with the site edged red.

Please find attached letters prepared on behalf of the Trustees of the Berkswell Estate in respect
1) land at New Mercote Farm, Balsall Common.
and 2) land at Coventry Road, Berkswell.

see attached letter

see attached letter

I have just spent over an hour registering and endeavouring to fill out the incredibly cumbersome online form for the above only to find that next to none of it has saved. So, whilst I wanted to respond in the way suggested I am having to redo it via email. I did hear complaints about the form from others but thought it was due to their technical limitations - I realise now its due to SBCs limitations!

I now don't have as much time but I want to oppose in the strongest terms the above residential proposal. It seems to contradict many of the aims in your plan and looks like a dash for cash rather than a considered response to the boroughs housing needs!

It terms of health and well being the playing fields and the allotments are planned to be built on - in any studies these are key contributors to health and well being, not to mention developing community cohesion and actitiy for the young and the old.

In terms of sustainability the development is out or walking reach of shops and employment so will mean at least 150 extra cars - in a part of the village already congested. It is a highly visible site so wont add to the value or sense of place for those living here.

I know that there has been a environmental study undertaken meaning that the land at the most western part of the Frog Lane development wont be built on as it is ancient meadow land (that assessment has not been made public to my knowledge or indeed available to SBC). I am concerned that there will be contamination of the biodiversity of life on that land if the development were to go ahead.

There is ground water flooding on this site which will, if developed will run off into surrounding houses and farmland.

I could go on.

I think the plan is largely quite good - disagreeing with it is like disagreeing with world piece but you have not followed your own principles here - and you really should think again.

Please find attached the response on behalf of the Governing Body of Heart of England School to the Draft Local Plan.

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

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Land.

I object to the special strategy on the grounds that the housing proposal for the Shirley area will have huge implications with green spaces, traffic congestion (already a problem in the area) and demand on schooling.

There are masses of wildlife in the area and a thorough review needs to be undertaken to ensure endangered species such as great crested newts are not affected.

Please find attached the Response of The Knowle Society to your Consultation of the draft Local Plan 2017 Review.

Dear sirs

Please find a statement in connection with the local plan review.
I strongly object to any additional development in Dickens Heath.
We have suffered too much fringe development and over development in recent years together with an appalling lack of infrastructure improvements and highway maintenance works, to such an extent the surrounding road networks are verging on third world standard!
Dickens Heath is a new village, it was designed as a contemporary village and should remain so, Local plan proposals seek to eradicate the village and extend the boundaries into surrounding rural/semi-rural settlements whereby Dickens Heath village actually becomes part of Shirley conurbation!

As a resident of Dickens Heath for over 13 years, I wish to strongly object to the allocation of Site 4 for residential development of 700 dwellings.
Dickens Heath is a planned new village with clearly defined limits. It is unique in Solihull as having emerged through the Unitary Development Plan process as an entirely new community. It has an architectural character of its own. It is not an urban extension. It differs therefore from previous urban development in the Borough of Solihull, planned and carried out in previous decades as large-scale urban extensions: Chelmsley Wood (1960s/70s) and Cranmore-Widney (1970s-80s).
Dickens Heath should be identified in the Local Plan as having a particular character and design and that there should be limits to its continued growth in terms of numbers and direction; the Village should be protected and conserved as a new village, together with its character and setting in the countryside.
The housing proposals for Dickens Heath in the Plan Review do not comply with the stated Policies as set out in both the existing adopted Local Plan and this Local Plan Review. It would be unsustainable and would no longer make Dickens Heath a "special place". In the Vision for the Borough, Dickens Heath is addressed at paragraph 87:

"... whilst retaining its intrinsic character of distinctive villages separated by open countryside". The proposed major development of Site 4 would not be in accordance with this stated policy.

The Government has consistently committed to protecting the Green Belt and stated that the single issue of unmet housing demand is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt. It is my opinion as a Developer professional that there are a substantial number of other sites in the Borough more suitable for development. No robust and detailed appraisal of alternative sites has been carried out in a sequential test. The Council has not fully examined the infrastructure requirements that would justify and mitigate altering the Green Belt. Permanence is a feature of Green Belt and any decision to change its status should be considered carefully. Areas of land which are assessed in the Atkins Green Belt Assessment as having a score of 7 or higher - presumably because they perform best against the criteria for being in the Green Belt - should not therefore be removed from the Green Belt. Instead some of those higher performing sites have been proposed for removal from the Green Belt for no logical reason.

The proposed large-scale housing allocations on Green Belt land in Dickens Heath Parish would be a major expansion of the urban area and would reduce or remove key gaps between settlements such as Majors Green. The attractive rural setting of Dickens Heath will be partly lost to development. In Dickens Heath Parish, access to the countryside and recreational opportunities will be reduced, not improved.

There is also a disproportionate amount of the additional housing proposed in the Plan Review proposed to be located in the Blythe Ward - Parishes of Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green. 45% of all the proposed additional housing would be sited in these two Parishes. I consider that this is an excessive burden placed on such a small area. It notes that there are no housing proposals at all in the Dorridge & Hockley Heath Ward, although this comprises a significant part of the Borough and has a number of locations suggested for development in the 'call for sites' and identified in the SHELAA (Housing Land Availability Assessment). None of these have been properly assessed in the analysis conducted to arrive at the final suggested allocations. There should be a preference for smaller sized housing allocations rather than the almost entirely proposed large scale mass housing locations controlled by a few national house builders. Indeed, the Government promote the use of SME builders in developing small scale housing for local needs as suggested in the recent Housing White Paper. There appears to be little cognizance of this vital tool for local employment and economic benefit within the proposals.
The Plan should be revised to reduce the number and scale of large allocations, and to replace some of these with a wider range of small/medium housing sites which would be delivered faster and can be absorbed more easily into their communities.

The proposed allocation of Site 4 does not accord with Government policy to protect Green Belt from development. An example is the Secretary of State's statement in the Commons on 18 July 2016:

"The Green Belt is absolutely sacrosanct. We have made that clear: it was in the Conservative party manifesto and that will not change. The Green Belt remains special. Unless there are very exceptional circumstances, we should not be carrying out any development on it."

In addition, the opening paragraph of the Solihull Local Plan Review states:-

"At the heart of planning is the need to plan positively for sustainable development. One of the principal ways this is achieved is by having a local plan to guide the development of an area. Having a local plan is key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities."
"Sustainability will be a key focus of the Review including sustainable transport accessibility."
"The vision recognises the importance of the Borough's distinctive rural settlements and wider rural area."
"Growth in rural settlements will be considered in the context of emerging Neighbourhood Plans and the capacity of local infrastructure or the potential for new capacity."

The new Housing White Paper includes further strengthening of policy on Green Belt as well as asking for smaller sites to be made available for development by local builders and those wanting to self-build. Build more homes on public sector land; Local Authority to be allowed to sell land with the benefit of planning permission; encourage estate regeneration.

Green belt to be used as a last resort (once LA have demonstrated that they have examined fully all reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements) and the impact is to be off-set by compensatory measures.
"Green Belt land will continue to be protected in order to meet its strategic purposes, including countryside protection, in accordance with established principles and the NPPF."
I do not agree that exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated to release, in particular, the Housing Allocation Site 4 from the Green Belt. There has not been a sequential test carried out to identify which sites are the most sustainable. There are other small and medium sized sites now within the Green Belt which have a lower score in the Atkins Assessment than Site 4, and would be more sustainable with less adverse effects.

Proposed Housing Allocation Site 4 would not be in a sustainable location and would create substantial car traffic. While it would be close to Whitlock's End railway station, the rail service at that station gives access to Central Birmingham and to Stratford-upon-Avon. It does not provide a service to Solihull Town Centre, for which there is only a slow and indirect bus service or across the Borough to UK Central. There would no direct access from Site 4 to the services and facilities in Dickens Heath village itself, as there would be no direct road or cycleway to the village centre. Cycle and pedestrian access to the village centre was a core principle of the design for Dickens Heath.

If Site 4 is included in the Local Plan, there would be a major loss of sports grounds and playing fields. Sport England as a Statutory consultee would object to any loss of sports grounds especially those which are regularly used. Taking a sustainable approach would consider replacement elsewhere a waste of money and resources, it is doubtful any new facilities will be used by the greater community in higher volumes. If the current facilities are in need of renovation, there are grants and charitable donations available to support such schemes negating the need to sell to developers for a fast buck.

The Green Belt which would be lost to Site 4 contains a variety of different types of sports facilities. The proposed replacement sports facility on Site 4 between Tythe Barn Lane and the Stratford Canal would not adequately replace the many sports clubs' requirements. There are already many objections to the loss of the several current sports fields and facilities; these are used by people from a large area of the Conurbation and surrounding towns.

The suggested replacement new sports facilities - which appear to be included as part of the housing allocation - are more urban and would include significant built development and car parking. They would be too large and intensive to be capable of being appropriate development in Green Belt. The openness of the Green Belt, which the current sports fields preserve effectively, would be lost. There would be no guarantee that that new sports area would not be the subject of further housing development proposals later. It should be entirely removed from the Housing Allocation site if that allocation remains despite the Parish Council's deep concerns about it in principle. We have actually fallen victim to this very trick in Dickens Heath less than two years ago. The current Bellway development had a MUGA pitch designed within the site proposals only to be removed at the 11th hour without any public consultation, due - we are told - to Solihull MBC's refusal to take on the ownership and future maintenance! A fantastic result for the developer who managed to increase the number of oversized multi million pound executive houses realizing substantial windfall profits and reduced community benefit contribution costs.

Additionally, and significantly, the valuable and popular Akamba Heritage Centre on Tythe Barn Lane would be lost, which is also a good local employer. This is because the land on which it stands would be redeveloped for car parking and new more intensive set of sports facilities. Akamba offers an unusual leisure and recreation experience and its character contributes to the quality of the environment. It merits protection under Policy P10. There is no prospect of any community benefit from the Site 4 proposal which could outweigh the loss of it as an existing leisure, cultural and recreation facility. The Housing Allocation Site 4 proposals would force its closure.

This has not been the case in proposing Site 4 against the evidence provided in the Green Belt Review with the Green Belt in this location scoring 7 & 8 due to the coalescence with neighbouring settlements. Site 13 has a lower Green Belt score of 6. Another main issue of the SLPR is the challenge of protecting the environment, particularly the Green Belt/rural character and building into the Review an emphasis on sustainability/climate change. Site 4 is would significantly adversely affect the Village character and rural setting and would be unsustainable as the proposed development is more than accepted walking distance of 800 metres to the centre of the Village. As this increased traffic would place an unacceptable burden on the already inadequate, congested road system and the existing Village centre car parking shortage, the proposals would not be in accordance with the stated policy or with the policies also stated below.

"Sustainable development will be a central focus for the Review and will take into consideration effects on communities, HS2 and flood risk."
In the Scope, Issues and Options Consultation - Summary of Representations and the Council's Response, it is stated on Page 25:-
"The Council will seek through a managed growth approach to ensure that growth does not result in deterioration in the quality of life of residents and visitors."
"Enhancing Solihull as a place where people aspire to live, learn, work and play, whilst recognising and protecting character and local distinctiveness."

The original concept design for Dickens Heath by John Simpson stated that "A village works as one cohesive entity because the perception is that everything is within easy walking distance". The emphasis for the scheme as a whole is on accessibility where the majority of the residents will be no more than 5 minutes walking time from the centre. The majority of the Housing Allocation Site 4 location would exceed this walking distance, so the new residents would favour the use of cars to the village amenities (where car parking is already a major problem). In transport terms Site 4 would be entirely unsustainable.

The highway network for the original John Simpson design of the Village was for only 700 dwellings. This figure was subsequently increased to a long term maximum of 1,500 dwellings with some highway improvements, but the current highway network is unsuitable for the current 2,200 dwellings plus the increased through traffic from Tidbury Green when the Lowbrook Farm and Tidbury Green Farm developments are completed, never mind an additional 700 dwellings plus the cut-through traffic that also now use the road network. Again, on highway safety grounds the proposals are unsustainable. If major further development was to take place, major road improvements would have to be carried out. However, this would mean the removal of established hedgerows and mature trees which greatly add to and enhance the character and setting of the Village and the central Village road network was not designed for such usage. In addition it is not possible to upgrade the internal Village road network through which additional traffic would have to travel. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Development of 700 additional dwellings would have a cumulative severe impact on the area.
In John Simpson's 1991 Proof of Evidence in Para. 2.04.1, he states:-
"In general Dickens Heath has strong boundaries defined by the Stratford-upon-Avon Canal on two sides and a site of interest to Nature Conservation (SINC)". The SINC comprises of an ancient woodland which forms a natural boundary to the north-west.
John Simpson's Report goes on to analyse the McAlpine proposals where the site for the new village would be moved north-west. In Para. 3.01.3 states that,
"The combination of the woodland SINC, the woodland with tree preservation orders (TPO) and the existing housing provide a further barrier to development running north-south and splitting the site in two." This proposed extension to the Village would have the effect of elongating the settlement pattern to the north-west which cannot be linked by footpaths to the existing built areas, would have the effect of denying Dickens Heath of its village character and so the Village would lose its identity and become a town. The UDPs stated that for the Village to work in the sense of being "a recognisable community with a distinctive character", the inhabitants of the village would need to feel close to the centre of activity and identify with it. This will not be possible for the new residents of the proposed site.
One of the main reasons put forward by McAlpines was the close proximity of Whitlock's End station; the same reason Solihull Council has for including site 4 in the Local Plan Review. This reason alone does not outweigh the substantial unsustainable elements of this proposal.
There would also be a loss of ecological value as there are two badger setts on the sports fields. Bats, sparrow hawks, greater spotted wood peckers also fly over the site for foraging.
To build houses on Site 4, there would need to be extensive piling. There is evidence from neighbouring sites that piling had to go to depths of 8 metres owing to the presence of boulder clay. The cost of developing this site would therefore also be unsustainable and a considerable amount of fill material would have to be brought in as the site is liable to flooding during sustained wet periods.
The Solihull LPR states, "Development will be expected to preserve or enhance heritage assets as appropriate to their significance, conserve local character and distinctiveness and create or sustain a sense of place."
The proposed major extension to Dickens Heath would seriously undermine the Village status as a unique, nationally important model for a new village.
For the reasons given above, I strongly urge Solihull Council to remove the proposed allocation of Site 4 west of Dickens Heath from the Plan.

Hampton Rd Site Objections:
The site includes listed trees and these areas need to be removed from the development.
The site includes Purnells Brook and this floods to protect the Blythe floodplain. This area should be removed.
The development area shown encroaches into the Streamside trust protected area.
Development should not take place on the highest point in the village. This area of the site should be removed.
There is inadequate consideration of the traffic issues on the Hampton Rd., this development will increase the risk of accidents on an already dangerous road.
The development encroaches into the green belt area on the east side of the village and should not be permitted.
The development would make traffic issues on the Hampton Rd., Warwick Rd junction worse.
The size of the development is too large, the local consultation requested small scale developments.
Developments should be spread across Knowle, Dorridge and Bently Heath, not all focussed on Knowle, which does not have services to support this development. This development would put at risk the unique character of Knowle

Letter responding to draft local plan review.

Letter responding to draft local plan review.

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.

Quality is mentioned in several areas and I assume that relates to residents quality of life. It is difficult to see how placing greater burdens on the local roads and schools in Knowle while also providing spaces for travellers really helps to maintain quality. Also, it is difficult to see how the constant erosion of green-belt land is improving quality. It appears that the plans are driven more by the appeal to property investors and political correctness than a real housing strategy.

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.

Proportion allocated to Shirley sites too high, in particular site 13 is well utilised by the local community and important to remain as public access to footpaths and open area to wildlife.
Not acceptable to use Solihull green belt areas and sports sites to compensate Birmingham shortfall.
Proportionate allocation of social housing inappropriate and will alter to detriment the nature of established housing genre.
Inadequate provision available for infrastructure to support increased population and necessitates movement for employment in other areas resulting in higher volume of traffic.
Suggest moving higher allocations to North Solihull, Catherine de Barnes, Dorrige, Hockley Heath.

Whilst I appreciate that there is a need to provide more housing across the country, I object to the number that are proposed within the Solihull area. My main objections are based on concerns for the infrastructure to support this amount of development: the roads around the area are currently at saturation point, along with school, hospital and health facilities. This development would also be destroying significant pockets of green belt which support varied wildlife and provide green spaces for the current residents. More traffic fumes will also have a negative impact on the health of current residents.

Please find attached an objection to the allocation of Site 4 for 700 dwellings.
As a resident of Dickens Heath for 18 years, I wish to strongly object to the allocation of Site 4 for residential development of 700 dwellings.
Dickens Heath is a planned new village with clearly defined limits. It is unique in Solihull as having emerged through the Unitary Development Plan process as an entirely new community. It has an architectural character of its own. It is not an urban extension. It differs therefore from previous urban development in the Borough of Solihull, planned and carried out in previous decades as large-scale urban extensions: Chelmsley Wood (1960s/70s) and Cranmore-Widney (1970s-80s).
Dickens Heath should be identified in the Local Plan as having a particular character and design and that there should be limits to its continued growth in terms of numbers and direction; the Village should be protected and conserved as a new village, together with its character and setting in the countryside.
The housing proposals for Dickens Heath in the Plan Review do not comply with the stated Policies as set out in both the existing adopted Local Plan and this Local Plan Review. It would be unsustainable and would no longer make Dickens Heath a "special place". In the Vision for the Borough, Dickens Heath is addressed at paragraph 87:

"... whilst retaining its intrinsic character of distinctive villages separated by open countryside". The proposed major development of Site 4 would not be in accordance with this stated policy.

The Government has consistently committed to protecting the Green Belt and stated that the single issue of unmet housing demand is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt. Other sites in the Borough are more suitable for development. No robust and detailed appraisal of alternative sites has been carried out in a sequential test. The Council has not fully examined the infrastructure requirements that would justify and mitigate altering the Green Belt. Permanence is a feature of Green Belt and any decision to change its status should be considered carefully. Areas of land which are assessed in the Atkins Green Belt Assessment as having a score of 7 or higher - presumably because they perform best against the criteria for being in the Green Belt - should not therefore be removed from the Green Belt. Instead some of those higher performing sites have been proposed for removal from the Green Belt for no logical reason.

The proposed large-scale housing allocations on Green Belt land in Dickens Heath Parish would be a major expansion of the urban area and would reduce or remove key gaps between settlements such as Majors Green. The attractive rural setting of Dickens Heath will be partly lost to development. In Dickens Heath Parish, access to the countryside and recreational opportunities will be reduced, not improved.

There is also a disproportionate amount of the additional housing proposed in the Plan Review proposed to be located in the Blythe Ward - Parishes of Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green. 45% of all the proposed additional housing would be sited in these two Parishes. I consider that this is an excessive burden placed on such a small area. It notes that there are no housing proposals at all in the Dorridge & Hockley Heath Ward, although this comprises a significant part of the Borough and has a number of locations suggested for development in the 'call for sites' and identified in the SHELAA (Housing Land Availability Assessment). None of these have been properly assessed in the analysis conducted to arrive at the final suggested allocations. There should be a preference for small/medium sized housing allocations rather than the almost entirely proposed large housing locations which would be controlled by a few main house builders as suggested in the recent Housing White Paper.
The Plan should be revised to reduce the number and scale of large allocations, and to replace some of these with a wider range of small/medium housing sites which would be delivered faster and can be absorbed more easily into their communities.

The proposed allocation of Site 4 does not accord with Government policy to protect Green Belt from development. An example is the Secretary of State's statement in the Commons on 18 July 2016:

"The Green Belt is absolutely sacrosanct. We have made that clear: it was in the Conservative party manifesto and that will not change. The Green Belt remains special. Unless there are very exceptional circumstances, we should not be carrying out any development on it."

In addition, the opening paragraph of the Solihull Local Plan Review states:-

"At the heart of planning is the need to plan positively for sustainable development. One of the principal ways this is achieved is by having a local plan to guide the development of an area. Having a local plan is key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities."
"Sustainability will be a key focus of the Review including sustainable transport accessibility."
"The vision recognises the importance of the Borough's distinctive rural settlements and wider rural area."
"Growth in rural settlements will be considered in the context of emerging Neighbourhood Plans and the capacity of local infrastructure or the potential for new capacity."

The new Housing White Paper includes further strengthening of policy on Green Belt as well as asking for smaller sites to be made available for development by local builders and those wanting to self-build. Build more homes on public sector land; Local Authority to be allowed to sell land with the benefit of planning permission; encourage estate regeneration.

Green belt to be used as a last resort (once LA have demonstrated that they have examined fully all reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements) and the impact is to be off-set by compensatory measures.
"Green Belt land will continue to be protected in order to meet its strategic purposes, including countryside protection, in accordance with established principles and the NPPF."
I do not agree that exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated to release, in particular, the Housing Allocation Site 4 from the Green Belt. There has not been a sequential test carried out to identify which sites are the most sustainable. There are other small and medium sized sites now within the Green Belt which have a lower score in the Atkins Assessment than Site 4, and would be more sustainable with less adverse effects.

Proposed Housing Allocation Site 4 would not be in a sustainable location and would create substantial car traffic. While it would be close to Whitlock's End railway station, the rail service at that station gives access to Central Birmingham and to Stratford-upon-Avon. It does not provide a service to Solihull Town Centre, for which there is only a slow and indirect bus service or across the Borough to UK Central. There would no direct access from Site 4 to the services and facilities in Dickens Heath village itself, as there would be no direct road or cycleway to the village centre. Cycle and pedestrian access to the village centre was a core principle of the design for Dickens Heath.

If Site 4 is included in the Local Plan, there would be a major loss of sports grounds and playing fields. The Green Belt which would be lost to Site 4 contains a variety of different types of sports facilities. The proposed replacement sports facility on Site 4 between Tythe Barn Lane and the Stratford Canal would not adequately replace the many sports clubs' requirements. There are already many objections to the loss of the several current sports fields and facilities; these are used by people from a large area of the Conurbation and surrounding towns.

The suggested replacement new sports facilities - which appear to be included as part of the housing allocation - are more urban and would include significant built development and car parking. They would be too large and intensive to be capable of being appropriate development in Green Belt. The openness of the Green Belt, which the current sports fields preserve effectively, would be lost. There would be no guarantee that that new sports area would not be the subject of further housing development proposals later. It should be entirely removed from the Housing Allocation site if that allocation remains despite the Parish Council's deep concerns about it in principle.

Additionally, and significantly, the valuable and popular Akamba Heritage Centre on Tythe Barn Lane would be lost, which is also a good local employer. This is because the land on which it stands would be redeveloped for car parking and new more intensive set of sports facilities. Akamba offers an unusual leisure and recreation experience and its character contributes to the quality of the environment. It merits protection under Policy P10. There is no prospect of any community benefit from the Site 4 proposal which could outweigh the loss of it as an existing leisure, cultural and recreation facility. The Housing Allocation Site 4 proposals would force its closure.

This has not been the case in proposing Site 4 against the evidence provided in the Green Belt Review with the Green Belt in this location scoring 7 & 8 due to the coalescence with neighbouring settlements. Site 13 has a lower Green Belt score of 6. Another main issue of the SLPR is the challenge of protecting the environment, particularly the Green Belt/rural character and building into the Review an emphasis on sustainability/climate change. Site 4 is would significantly adversely affect the Village character and rural setting and would be unsustainable as the proposed development is more than accepted walking distance of 800 metres to the centre of the Village. As this increased traffic would place an unacceptable burden on the already inadequate, congested road system and the existing Village centre car parking shortage, the proposals would not be in accordance with the stated policy or with the policies also stated below.

"Sustainable development will be a central focus for the Review and will take into consideration effects on communities, HS2 and flood risk."
In the Scope, Issues and Options Consultation - Summary of Representations and the Council's Response, it is stated on Page 25:-
"The Council will seek through a managed growth approach to ensure that growth does not result in deterioration in the quality of life of residents and visitors."
"Enhancing Solihull as a place where people aspire to live, learn, work and play, whilst recognising and protecting character and local distinctiveness."

The original concept design for Dickens Heath by John Simpson stated that "A village works as one cohesive entity because the perception is that everything is within easy walking distance". The emphasis for the scheme as a whole is on accessibility where the majority of the residents will be no more than 5 minutes walking time from the centre. The majority of the Housing Allocation Site 4 location would exceed this walking distance, so the new residents would favour the use of cars to the village amenities (where car parking is already a major problem). In transport terms Site 4 would be entirely unsustainable.

The highway network for the original John Simpson design of the Village was for only 700 dwellings. This figure was subsequently increased to a long term maximum of 1,500 dwellings with some highway improvements, but the current highway network is unsuitable for the current 2,200 dwellings plus the increased through traffic from Tidbury Green when the Lowbrook Farm and Tidbury Green Farm developments are completed, never mind an additional 700 dwellings plus the cut-through traffic that also now use the road network. Again on highway safety grounds the proposals are unsustainable. If major further development was to take place, major road improvements would have to be carried out. However, this would mean the removal of established hedgerows and mature trees which greatly add to and enhance the character and setting of the Village and the central Village road network was not designed for such usage. In addition it is not possible to upgrade the internal Village road network through which additional traffic would have to travel. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Development of 700 additional dwellings would have a cumulative severe impact on the area.
In John Simpson's 1991 Proof of Evidence in Para. 2.04.1, he states:-
"In general Dickens Heath has strong boundaries defined by the Stratford-upon-Avon Canal on two sides and a site of interest to Nature Conservation (SINC)". The SINC comprises of an ancient woodland which forms a natural boundary to the north-west.
John Simpson's Report goes on to analyse the McAlpine proposals where the site for the new village would be moved north-west. In Para. 3.01.3 states that,
"The combination of the woodland SINC, the woodland with tree preservation orders (TPO) and the existing housing provide a further barrier to development running north-south and splitting the site in two." This proposed extension to the Village would have the effect of elongating the settlement pattern to the north-west which cannot be linked by footpaths to the existing built areas, would have the effect of denying Dickens Heath of its village character and so the Village would lose its identity and become a town. The UDPs stated that for the Village to work in the sense of being "a recognisable community with a distinctive character", the inhabitants of the village would need to feel close to the centre of activity and identify with it. This will not be possible for the new residents of the proposed site.
One of the main reasons put forward by McAlpines was the close proximity of Whitlock's End station; the same reason Solihull Council has for including site 4 in the Local Plan Review. This reason alone does not outweigh the substantial unsustainable elements of this proposal.
There would also be a loss of ecological value as there are two badger setts on the sports fields. Bats, sparrow hawks, greater spotted wood peckers also fly over the site for foraging.
To build houses on Site 4, there would need to be extensive piling. There is evidence from neighbouring sites that piling had to go to depths of 8 metres owing to the presence of boulder clay. The cost of developing this site would therefore also be unsustainable and a considerable amount of fill material would have to be brought in as the site is liable to flooding during sustained wet periods.
The Solihull LPR states, "Development will be expected to preserve or enhance heritage assets as appropriate to their significance, conserve local character and distinctiveness and create or sustain a sense of place."
The proposed major extension to Dickens Heath would seriously undermine the Village status as a unique, nationally important model for a new village.
For the reasons given above, I strongly urge Solihull Council to remove the proposed allocation of Site 4 west of Dickens Heath from the Plan.

Thank you for your letter of 8 December 2016 informing me of the consultation process.
Please find attached my response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Consultation.
Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan Consultation

RESPONSE

This is to raise objections and concerns about the proposal to build 1050 new houses in Knowle, this being on two sites, namely the 'Arden Triangle' with 750 houses and Hampton Road with 300 houses.
My wife and I have lived in Knowle for over 37 years. I have been active, since its inception, in the work of the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum (KDBH-NF) and am consequently familiar with relevant background evidence including the Residents' Survey and data related to infrastructure, transport and services.
The proposed excessive housing allocation for Knowle is in complete conflict with the evidence base.
This document supports points made in the response from the KDBH-NF, which presents a convincing argument to significantly reduce the proposed allocation of housing in Knowle.
The points made below are often inter-related and represent only a sample of the arguments for opposing the proposals for Knowle in the Draft Local Plan
1050 extra houses for Knowle is far too many.
* This increases the housing stock in Knowle by over 25%, this is not counting the recent and current developments taking place. There has been zero allocation to Dorridge and Bentley Heath. This seems abundantly unreasonable.
* Where there is to be a mix of large and small-scale developments across the Borough, it would seem logical that any large development (over 400, for instance) should be adjoining urban areas to minimise detrimental impact and the 'smaller' developments (100-400) equitably sited around the villages to avoid overload of services and infra-structure. To put two large developments in the village is a sure way to secure maximum harm to services and infra-structure.
* There will be extremely detrimental impact on the identity, character and appearance of Knowle. Outcomes such as increased traffic density, reduced provision of personalised service, diminished sense of community and lack of locally specific services will erode the 'village character' currently valued by residents.
* The residents' survey has identified that there are already problems with parking, traffic congestion at peak times and access to primary medical care. Development of such magnitude will undoubtedly take this infrastructure beyond breaking point. Recent roadworks in Knowle have shown that any further stress on the road system will bring about gridlock.
* There would be a need for just under 2 additional forms of entry at primary school level. Even with this, primary school admission arrangements will be severely disrupted by the increased numbers of primary age children in two large blocks of new housing.
* With regard to retail facilities, it seems inappropriate to build all the houses in Knowle, where the provision of a Waitrose is problematic, and no houses in Dorridge where there is a new Sainsbury's with additional parking.
* The area, by nature of its village context, is not well connected or adjacent to the main transport links. There are much better sites.
* The proposal will ensure that Knowle effectively becomes a building site for 15 years with all that recent developments have brought to the village - mud on the roads, large lorries on small roads, noise, danger and inconvenience.


The rationale for choosing the two sites is unclear and there is a lack of strategic planning.
* It is unclear how the choice of sites arises from the policies, criteria and spatial strategy. The methodology to arrive at the proposal seems unsound.
* Access and transport criteria appear to have been evaluated from the nearest point to the village of each site, giving a falsely favourable reading to the site suitability overall.
* The methodology of basing choices around the 'call for sites' model seems to contradict the government current and intended policy of only using greenbelt in 'exceptional circumstances'. The two sites chosen perform highly on SMBC's own assessment of quality of green belt and therefore should have been safe from major development.
* The decision to choose the two sites seems to be swayed by the promise of community facilities. However, much of this is problematic at best.
* It seems absurd to base the future of Knowle around the aspirations of two independent organisations. It is particularly incomprehensible that the Solihull Draft Plan assumes that these two organisations are in a position to judge community need, particularly when on a parochial basis. In contrast, KDBH-NF has spent the last year collecting data, much of it from SMBC, and feedback, such as the residents' survey carried out by an independent organisation across every household in the area, that gives, without bias, as clear a picture as possible of community need and aspiration in the KDBH area.
* There is no account of the cost in terms of lost estate, revenue, recent investment and resource. A rough estimate is at least £50m - this at a time of increasing demands on public finances. There is no attempt to match income from developers to assessed need in order to make best use of finance.
Arden Triangle
The 'Arden Triangle' scheme was made known approximately 4 years ago. Proposals dated January 2013 were for a small-scale land swap scheme to provide new buildings for Arden Academy, a figure of 250 new homes in keeping with existing properties being mentioned. Since then, the vision has magnified considerably, there currently being a number of issues that are not clear, including any guarantee of accessibility and availability of community resources and the extent, type and density of new housing within the scheme in order to deliver the full package with appropriate facilities, playing fields and access. Assertions previously made, such as the nature of housing, have changed and cannot be kept once the project is in the hands of developers. The prospect of new buildings for Arden, promoted over the past 4 years, is seen by some as attractive. However, the cost, need and impact aspects have not been made public and many of these implications would not impact on those many parents and pupils favouring a new school who live outside Knowle. The proposed new school is reported to cost approximately £30m, a further cost being poor return on past and recent investment in existing buildings, some relatively new, to be demolished. This total cost is presumably at a loss to SMBC and could be spent on the basis of well researched priorities. This need analysis would certainly entail a condition and capacity assessment of all schools in KDBH. Overall, what evidence is there to justify the need for a new school at a cost of £30m+ and the detrimental impact on Knowle of 750 houses? This needs far deeper public scrutiny with consideration of alternatives.
Existing projects, such as the MIND garden area, had not been considered. There must be clear arrangements to avoid distress to vulnerable people.
There is mention of moving St George and St Teresa school to the new site. However, the logical priority for school places arising from current trends and the proposed housing would appear to be an additional two forms of entry at primary, these being sited with regard to reducing travel distance from any new houses and at a school that has a priority for local children.
In general, there must be maximum protection for public investment in new school buildings, whether primary or secondary, as this presents an extreme financial risk, particularly in the light of the autonomy of academies in relation to access to resources and in their admission policies which, even currently, cater for the admission of a high proportion of students from outside the area.
The proposed site for the 750 houses would present difficulties of access and considerable increases in traffic through the village as it is the 'wrong' side for access to Birmingham, the NEC, airport, railway stations and motorways, these being centres for employment and onward journeys.
This site, if extending to the full 750 houses, would have a significantly detrimental effect on the street scene in Station Road and approach through Stripes Hill and Grove Road.
The proposal has arisen from the stated aim of providing new premises for Arden Academy, it is not put forward as a planned scheme for new housing. The need and cost implications have not been made public. Whilst there may be some aspects of merit, the lack of independent assessment of need, the vagueness of outcome and no public awareness at this point of any concept masterplan, means SMBC is proposing a scheme that will undoubtedly have a devastating impact on Knowle and with little idea of what the plan will cost and what it will deliver.
Hampton Road
The proposals from the football club are at a more moderate scale. However, there are still questions about the cost to SMBC and the ownership and availability of resources. It is clear that the football club have a large number of teams that cannot be accommodated easily with the current number of pitches. However, provision of new resources would be of greater benefit if extending to more sports beyond football in order to cater for a wide range of skills and consequently attract more people to sport.

The views of residents have been ignored.
* The Draft Local Plan is as far away as possible from the views of residents, as reflected in the Neighbourhood Forum survey. Whilst it may have been impossible to accommodate the view about total numbers, there is serious conflict with regard to the size and location of sites, the appropriateness of the housing mix and the need to address the impact on local services and infrastructure. As one example, 98% of residents wanted sites on green belt to be less than 500 houses and 96% wanted them to be less than 100 houses. The current proposal is clearly way out of line with this and other views of residents.

The type and density of housing is inappropriate.
* The stipulation of 50% affordable housing and, in particular, the requirement for rented accommodation, is out of keeping with the area and will have a detrimental effect on the profile and character of Knowle.
* The densities quoted for the two sites are too high, particularly as this presumably average figure takes into account the school and club playing fields.
Recent housing development in Knowle has shown what high-density mixed housing looks like and the difficulties created, particularly with regard to parking and street scene. These recent developments are an indication of how developers can have little regard for providing building that is in keeping with existing housing.

Suggestions
The present proposal is a potential disaster for Knowle and needs a radical rethink along the following lines:
* Significantly reduce the number of houses that are proposed for Knowle by considering:
A new freestanding small-scale garden city that can have its own purpose-built community facilities;
Allocation of large sites to existing conurbations rather than villages;
Other sites outside the area such as those suggested by the Neighbourhood Forum and Knowle Society;
Smaller sites of around 200 to 300 around Dorridge and Bentley Heath to spread the load. Sites 207 (retains adequate separation from Solihull), 104, 135, 241, 199, 029, 210, 127 would take some pressure off Knowle and 059 in Knowle, as a last resort, would ease some aspects of impact in Knowle.
* Assess the costs and benefits of the two existing proposals and, if favourable, set this within a wider planning perspective as below.
* SMBC, in partnership with KDBH-NF and its extensive database, takes an overall strategic view of the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath area, not accepting without question what is being offered by the two organisations and developers currently favoured. Such proactive planning to take account of:
Making the sites no larger than that needed to secure outcomes that meet proven need;
The need for additional primary school places and planning that take regard of travel plans and maximum preservation of primary school catchment areas;
The need for additional and enhanced primary medical care provision;
Additional resources for a wide range of sport and leisure activities and that have full and long term availability to the community;
Accessibility of community resources, including retail;
Accessibility of sites;
Reducing the use and impact of the car;
Transport links to employment, railway stations, airport and major centres;
Minimal impact on the character of the three villages.

It is difficult to see the current Draft Solihull Plan as anything but a long term disaster for Knowle. It is essential that there is an objective, evidence based re-assessment of the plan for Knowle that evaluates priorities, responds to need, examines cost implications to the public purse and delivers housing in a way that has minimum detrimental impact on services, infrastructure, environmental issues, landscape and village identity.

see attached letter and report from BC BARRAGE action group