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

Showing comments and forms 61 to 90 of 355

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 672

Received: 01/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Moses

Representation Summary:

Object to the concentration of 2550 homes in such close proximity to the South Shirley area and seek a fairer distribution across the Borough.
Development is in the Green Belt
There should be retention of a wider Greenbelt between South Shirley and the built area of Dickens Heath.
Retain and enhance the existing amenity fields and the green corridor to the bridle way, with access to Bills Lane, the canal and the countryside beyond.
The environmental impact on wildlife by the removal of such large amounts of Greenbelt.

Full text:

Local Plan Review - South Shirley and Dickens Heath Areas.
With reference to the Local Plan Review for South Shirley and Dickens Heath. I as a resident of Majors Green wish to draw the following concerns to your attention with respect to the draft consultation proposals in this area:-

* To retain and enhance the existing amenity fields and the green corridor to the bridle way, with access to Bills Lane, the canal and the countryside beyond.

* I object to the concentration of 2550 homes in such close proximity to the South Shirley area and seek a fairer distribution across the Borough.

* That there should be retention of a wider Greenbelt between South Shirley and the built area of Dickens Heath.

* More houses being built on an area which is part of West Midlands Greenbelt.

* Areas such as Dickens Heath have been expanded over the last 15 years and must have, by now, reached their limit. Any further expansion would reduce gaps between the new village and other settlements and therefore create urban sprawl.

* The impact of existing developments on local road systems which have had no road improvements to compensate for additional growth is significant.

* Whitlocks End railway station is on the boundary with Bromsgrove District Council and is the main public transport facility for Dickens Heath. Whitlocks End station car park is heavily used and consequently this has led to an increase in traffic on local roads, again without any improvement in infrastructure.

* The environmental impact on wild life by removal of such large amounts of Greenbelt.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 699

Received: 02/02/2017

Respondent: Mr J Davies

Representation Summary:

Sites in Catherine De Barnes / Knowle & Dorridge should be considered.

Full text:

Representations regarding the draft local plan for Shirley/Solihull
Please note the comments below as my own submissions:

I am concerned that the draft local plan for additional housing is centred almost entirely on Shirley - and the area of Shirley linking Bills Lane to Cheswick Green and beyond.
The plan looks to develop the existing green space near Baxter's Road/Woodloes Road as well as some of the Christmas Tree Farm.

This green space is much-used by residents as it is the only land of its type in the area, and provides much needed recreational space for children, dog walkers, walkers, cyclists and nature-lovers. The space was set aside specifically for residents when those two areas were built-on.
I am completely opposed to the destruction of this amenity.

Doctors, Schools and road systems are already heavily overloaded or over-subscribed and there can be a great deal of doubt over whether the local road systems would cope.
It can already take 30 minutes to drive from the Bills Lane area to the M42 junction because of the existing levels of traffic - and the Shirley/Cheswick Green roads would become impossible - and unsafe - if these developments were to go ahead.

Finally, Shirley residents feel that we are being "dumped-on" when there are no plans for the Catherine De Barnes, Knowle or Dorridge areas where space is more readily available. This is completely unfair seeing as there are already developments in Aqueduct Road/Solihull Lodge and the Powergen site.

Please add my voice to any opposition to the proposals in their current form.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 712

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Mr David Roberts

Representation Summary:

The design & type of housing could be adjusted to make the number larger!

Full text:

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 725

Received: 05/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Roger Cook

Representation Summary:

Not agreed.

Alternatives available along M42 corridor and Catherine de Barnes

Full text:

It is not helpful to state that only 2.5% of the Green belt would be taken for housing. This will be the thin end of the wedge and housing development will then continue to creep across the Green Belt. Not only that but the Green Belt designated to be given up will be a pointless exercise and waste of precious land because the proposed housing developments in Knowle are completely unsuitable for the size and character of the village.

Other areas should be identified, why cannot the margins along the M42 be used for housing behind Lady Byron Lane up to the junction of the M42 and the A34 - a precedent for development alongside the motorway and has already been set with the Blythe Park development.

Also the area around Catherine de Barnes where it is already earmarked for business and commercial development close to the Airport & HS2. The people living there would be close to where the employment will exist.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 730

Received: 05/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Thomas Monksfield

Representation Summary:

The council should be thinking about innovative ways to look at finding space, such as multi storey car parks at the NEC and using the saved space for housing.

Full text:

41% of the Solihull housing allocation is being built in Shirley South the real need for housing is along the HS2 route.

The infrastructure to get across the borough and to the centre of Birmingham will not support the increased demand for the expected new residents as a result of HS2.

The allocation of 2000 houses from Birmingham should not be built in Solihull until Birmingham has developed all of its brownfield sites.

There are around 9 football and rugby grounds that will disappear around Shirley South.

The council should be thinking about innovative ways to look at finding space, such as multi storey are parks at the nec and using the saved space for housing.

There is only one amenity area in Shirley, Shirley Park, This has already been developed and shrunk.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 733

Received: 05/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Houghton

Representation Summary:

There are plenty of other areas with Greenland, why keep building in shirley. Traffic is bad enough. What about the wildlife?

Full text:

There are plenty of other areas with Greenland, why keep building in shirley. Traffic is bad enough

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 734

Received: 06/02/2017

Respondent: Pat Milnes

Representation Summary:

In support of Oakes Farm alternative proposal.

Full text:

My view on the Proposed sites for Balsall Common is that ..... : I lived in Balsall Common up until 5 months ago (48 years) and am currently Chairman of Berkswell Cricket Club who thrive in the Centre of the village.
Its great the see the demographic growing in Balsall Common as from a purely selfish point of view it will help increase our membership. The Oakes Farm development stands out from other proposed developments in the village as it is slightly on the fringes and does not impose on any existing 'green' and leisure areas within Balsall Common which, to be frank, other proposals do. Balsall Common has never been abundant with affordable housing and to see 50% of the proposal catering for this is really pleasing. I lived opposite Oakes Farm for 10 years and can safely say that the proposed area for development can only compliment what is there already. Out of all the proposals in Balsall Common, it is the stand out and obvious choice.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 769

Received: 12/12/2016

Respondent: Mr Peter Seddon

Representation Summary:

The Local Plan Review should seek other ways to meet its housing needs other than extending urban areas by pushing their boundaries into the green belt, and should not build on existing sports and leisure facilities that are close to urban areas unless there is a clear replacement and extension plan.

Full text:

Solihull Local Plan Review
Consultation Submission

I refer to the following areas proposed for housing development:

1. Proposed Housing Allocation 4 West of Dickens Heath
This development will result in the loss of a significant number of playing fields and sports amenities that are close to south Shirley and Dickens Heath. Research shows that "Regular physical activity reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia and some cancers by at least 30%." The UK Government has a clear policy (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/get-active-to-get-healthy) to encourage people to take regular exercise to reduce the possible impact of obesity with its attendant impact on not only the health of our nation but the cost to the NHS in treating obesity. These open spaces and sports and leisure facilities should not be lost whilst the health of our population is declining.

2. Proposed Housing Allocation 12 South of Dog Kennel Lane
This development will considerably reduce the open countryside between Shirley and Dickens Heath. This is contrary to the NPPF which seeks to retain individual communities and to resist coalescence of villages. In para 83 the plan talks about "The network of strong and vibrant communities across the Rural Area 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" whereas the plan seeks to extend many communities and leave only a small strip of dividing land.

3. Proposed Housing Allocation 13 South of Shirley
This development will considerably reduce the open countryside between Shirley and Dickens Heath. This is contrary to the NPPF which seeks to retain individual communities and to resist coalescence of villages.

In Para 87 there is no recognition of the new development at Lowbrook and Tidbury Green Farms for 387 houses in Tidbury Green. The plan review should recognise the reality of house building that has taken place in and around Dickens Heath. Since 1989 when approval was given for 700 houses to be built in Dickens Heath the area has seen approval for over 1500 houses plus the expansion of Dickens Heath from 700 to over 1500 houses, with the attendant loss of green space and little or no increase in amenities or leisure facilities.

Whilst the Borough has a vision to "retain its sense of identity both in its urban and rural area (including appropriate protection of the Green Belt); and the quality of the environment that make it a special place." It is difficult to reconcile that statement with the level of house building that has and will be taking place at considerable cost to the green belt (Site 4, 12 and 13 are all in the green belt.).

Conclusions
The Local Plan Review should seek other ways to meet its housing needs other than extending urban areas by pushing their boundaries into the green belt, and should not build on existing sports and leisure facilities that are close to urban areas unless there is a clear replacement and extension plan.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 771

Received: 13/12/2016

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Philip & Sharon Lapworth

Representation Summary:

It is also noticeable that there is no provision within the plan for development within the confines of Dorridge, which has superior access to shopping facilities, amenities and schools whilst maintaining direct access to London and Birmingham.

Full text:

We are writing in response to the advertised "Draft Local Plan Review Consultation (Dec 2016) and the proposal to construct 150 new houses on the land adjoining Holly Lane and Frog Lane in Balsall Common.
After reviewing the Draft Local Plan, the Town and Country Planning Act and the Planning Practice Guidelines we have several issues that we feel have not and currently are not being considered in the proposed development of the land.
1. Frog Lane is a Greenfield site and there are a considerable number of Brownfield locations around Balsall Common which had a better score for development within the plan. Why have these not been considered ?
2. It is understood that the land currently being used as a playing field is actually owned by Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) and leased to the Heart of England School and is now to be sold off without even discussing this with the School. This, at best raises suspicions as to SMBC's position and honesty with the public over the development and in the worst case actually appears to be a covert / surreptitious action to development without full consultation.
3. In the consultation held in November 2016 at St Peter's Church in Balsall Street East there was only a presentation for some 100 or so dwellings and these were not going to encroach upon the current land being used as playing fields. As of the end of November 2016 beginning of December 2016 the plan has been amended to include the land being used as playing fields and a significant increase in the number of proposed dwellings to be developed.
4. The current fields, whilst being owned by SMBC are a valuable public amenity, well used by local football teams, families and dog walkers whilst all other public amenities are located on the other side of the village. Government guidelines stipulate that they should be preserved and protected at all costs. We would have thought that this was of even greater importance in the current times of increasing obesity and health issues amongst people.
5. Solihull Connected (SMBC's latest transport strategy publication) acknowledges that the south of Balsall Common is the most congested part of the village with Balsall Street East (B4101) being a main thoroughfare between Knowle and Coventry. The addition of further traffic to this route (potentially 150 cars minimum from 150 houses) raises the risk of a road traffic accident or indeed a fatality (perhaps a young child on the way to school !) to a significant level.
6. The current proposed development is approximately 1.5 miles from the centre of the village, Doctors, shops, railway, etc., which, according to Government planning guidelines renders it unsustainable and appears to have received very little consideration in the decision process.

Whilst we appreciate that the local council has a responsibility to build new housing within its boundaries, it is also incumbent upon them to ensure that this requirement is fulfilled with due respect to the planning guidelines, sustainability studies, green belt requirements, etc.,.
The report therein identifies a shortlist of potential sites to the North of Balsall Common under growth option G which are eminently more suitable than Frog Lane / Holly Lane.
For example, Barratt's Farm (as identified on Page 144 under in Appendix C, Schedule of allocated Housing sites), a 57 hectare site with potential for 800 dwellings.
These sites offer the potential to develop a significant number of dwellings (including affordable housing) and infrastructure / amenities through the implementation of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Sections 203 and 204.
In the context of the above it is important to note that there are more constraints to development of the Frog Lane site and it would appear to have a poorer score for accessibility to the town centre so one can only assume that the primary objection to Barratt's Farm is the greater infrastructure / amenities development required for the increased number of the population and therefore schedule and costs.
It also noticeable that there is no provision within the plan for development within the confines of Dorridge, which has superior access to shopping facilities, amenities and schools whilst maintaining direct access to London and Birmingham.
In summation, whilst the "Draft Local Plan contains lots of references to report and studies it singularly fails to provide solid justification for the selection of the Frog Lane site above others. Development for developments sake simply to meet government targets is not the way forward for local communities and we, as residents who will be severely impacted, deserve an objective assessment, consultation and a response that answers the many questions posed.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 778

Received: 05/02/2017

Respondent: Jean Fleming

Representation Summary:

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

Full text:

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:


"Do you believe we are planning to build 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?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) I do not believe the central village has the parking, facilities or general capacity to deal with further growth within Balsall Common.

2) There are insufficient bus services to service the area resulting in more vehicle traffic and the resulting issues this causes.

3) The current crossing at the Kenilworth Road/Alder Lane/Kelsey Lane junction is already treacherous due to the many large lorries passing through, general volume of traffic and no pelican crossing. This is a nightmare for local children trying to get to school.

4) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the"very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.


5) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".


6) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.


7) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.


8) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

9) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties


10) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.


11) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.


12) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.


13) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:


1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development


5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 795

Received: 06/02/2017

Respondent: David Miller

Representation Summary:

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

Full text:

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:
"Do you believe we are planning to build 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?"
I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.
The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.
1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".
2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.
3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.
4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.
5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".
6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties
7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.
9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.
10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."
In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:
1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport
2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots
3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2
4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development
5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged
6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 806

Received: 07/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Phillips

Representation Summary:

trees fields birds fresh air healthy living family walks what housing estate would give us this benefit apart from extra pollution damage to the ecological balance of the environment.

Full text:

trees fields birds fresh air healthy living family walks what housing estate would give us this benefit apart from extra pollution damage to the ecological balance of the environment.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 808

Received: 06/02/2017

Respondent: Mark O'Regan

Representation Summary:

Objection to Sites 2 and 3, Balsall Common.

Full text:

NDP Comments
I would like to make an objection to the proposed development of the Frog Lane site in Balsall Common. I realise that the council needs development to take place, however the site off Frog Lane is not suitable as the infrastructure would need significant improvement which could cause significant problems for the residents. The site is south of the village in the worst traffic hot spot in Balsall Common, with traffic quite often in queues and parking outside the primary school making it dangerous for pedestrians.

Several potential sites (some partially brownfield) were identified to the north of the village, and they all scored more highly than Frog Lane in terms accessibility, these locations such as The Grange should be prioritised over the Frog Lane site.

According to the plans shown at the council consultation the playing fields (which is Green Belt land) are to be included in the Frog Lane development. This is totally wrong as in the south of the village there is a lack of public green space with this being the only park land. The park is used by a wide range of groups including dog walkers, sports teams and the girl guides. Government advise states disposal or change of use of playing field and school land requires prior written consent of the Secretary of State for Education (which includes any transfer/sale of freehold or leasehold land and the grant/surrender of a lease). Applications and notifications must be made to the Education Funding Agency. Before making an application (or giving notification) to the EFA. Sport England should also be consulted when an application involves removing playing fields.

It is my belief that Solihull Council should remove the Frog Lane development from the NDP and look at alternative sites.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 820

Received: 17/12/2016

Respondent: Father Peter Thomas

Representation Summary:

Understand the need for new housing and that Balsall Common should take some of these. However, national planning guidelines were being ignored by SMBC that is:- a. the preference to use brownfield sites where possible, b. place new housing close to amenities such as doctors surgeries, shops, frequent public transport. There are brownfield sites closer to the amenities mentioned to the north of Balsall Common that could be used but are not included in the proposals. I therefore find it difficult to justify using greenbelt land in preference to the brownfield sites.

Full text:

I write after attending the Balsall Parish Council meeting last week. At that meeting many pieces of information were given by local residents regarding issues around the proposed local development plan and particularly the site at Frog Lane.

First we discover that it is proposed, at the Frog Lane site, to take the whole of the area, including the playing fields and allotments, out of the green belt with the suggestion that Frog Lane is a defensible boundary. I was told at the exhibition last August that the playing fields and allotments were not included and was assured, when I asked, that Frog Lane would not be widened/upgraded. In the plan now proposed it states the possible widening/upgrade of Frog Lane and has the playing fields and allotments included in the hatched area. The playing fields are a well used amenity for sports by the schools, other clubs and the general public. There are also many dog walkers making use of the fields. The Church has also used the fields for its youth groups as do the local brownies and guides. Both Chruch and brownie/guides meet regularly in premises next to the fields. Whilst we were told that the fields were not going to be developed I suspect that once they come out of greenbelt there will be pressure to develop them as it would be easy pickings. I also think that it is no co-incident that the day the proposals were published I receive an offer to purchase my house which boarders onto the playing fields. I also strongly believe that a widened/upgraded Frog Lane is no more a defensible boundary than the existing greenbelt boundary. For these reasons alone I make strong objection to the proposal.

Second we learn that the Jaguar/Land Rover site at the end of Holly Lane/Beres Lane will employ up to 3000 people. This is something that has no mention in the proposed local plan. If we assume that even a third of those will come from north of the site then that will mean a minimum of 1000 vehicle movements twice a day using an already overloaded road network through Balsall Common viz. Holly Lane, Gypsy Lane, Balsall Street and Kennilworth Road. All of this is before adding the potential of 300 vehicle movements twice a day from the Frog Lane development alone. We learnt that there is evidence that a majority of traffic movements to employment from the surrounding area are northwards thus building further housing on the south side of Balsall Common will increase further the traffic flows through the village which has already been identified as having some of the busiest roads in the borough of Solihull.

Thirdly it was noted that national planning guidelines were being ignored by SMBC that is:- a. the preference to use brownfield sites where possible, b. place new housing close to amenities such as doctors surgeries, shops, frequent public transport. There are brownfield sites closer to the amenities mentioned to the north of Balsall Common that could be used but are not included in the proposals. I therefore find it difficult to justify using greenbelt land in preference to the brownfield sites.

The proposals as they stand make no condition on development that infrastructure should be improved it is only 'suggested'.
First, on my calculations if Balsall Common were to receive over 1000 new houses that would entail about 50 school pupils per school year. This would mean the necessity of at least another 2 form entry primary school. The current primary school is already 4 form entry and is located on the south of the village. The secondary school site (also on the south side of the village) would struggle to find space to expand to take the extra pupils.
Second, we already have an inadequate congested commercial centre in Balsall Common with restricted parking. To increase the population without putting in plans to improve the centre substantially appears to be a grave mistake.
Third, there is no assurance that public transport is to be improved eg more frequent services and more parking at the rail station.
Fourthly there is no condition that any improvement/benefits for the community to come from the developments will be in place before, or even concurrent with any construction

I would also like to question whether there has been any consideration of the effect of the HS2 construction will have on the whole area around Balsall Common. With this construction going on at the same time as the proposals in the plan it will mean the current residents living effectively in a building site for 15 years with all the construction noise and traffic that will go with it.

I urgently appeal for a careful reconsideration of the proposals put forward for Balsall Common. I understand that there is a need for more housing and that Balsall Common should take some of these, however given the history of expansion over the past 30 years (four large housing estates and numerous infill and back garden development) with little change to the infrastructure it must be considered that Balsall Common is at saturation point without major public infrastructure work.

Peter Thomas
(Vicar St Peter's Balsall Common)

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 831

Received: 31/01/2017

Respondent: Mrs Wendy Wilson

Representation Summary:

Balsall Common is not an accessible location. It has limited employment opportunities. Justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common is fundamentally flawed. Development of Balsall Common sites will occur at the same time as HS2 and Riddings Hill, putting additional strain and disruption on the settlement.

Full text:

Please find attached the detailed report compiled by the BARRAGE action group in response to the Draft Local Plan.

I believe you will have received many letters of objection already which make reference to this report.

Please note that the focus of the report responds to Q15 in the DLP in that we do not believe that sites 2 and 3 should be included in the plan and would propose that serious consideration should be given to the inclusion of site 240 instead.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 846

Received: 01/02/2017

Respondent: D Pick

Agent: Nigel Gough Associates

Representation Summary:

Should make further allocations and identify reserve sites in sustainable locations such as Dickens Heath/Tidbury Green.

Full text:

see attached letter from agent

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 856

Received: 09/12/2016

Respondent: Mr Paul Law

Representation Summary:

Why are all of your proposed sites within the green belt? Surely there are brownfield sites within the Borough.

It is bad enough that Solihull is even considering expanding Balsall Common to such a degree (more than 25% of the proposed new houses for Solihull), without ruining the remaining facilities. Have we not had enough expansion over the past 20 years?

Full text:

I should like to express my disappointment that Solihull Council is even considering giving planning permission for the building of new houses on the playing fields at Holly Lane and Frog Lane corner in Balsall Common. These playing fields are used by many groups within Balsall Common, not least the Sunday league football teams, the Scouts and the local Nursery, etc., as well as many people out for a walk or run, with and without dogs. There are few places where young people go for outdoor activities within Balsall Common. The obvious result of removing this facility would be kids roaming the streets and fouled pavements from dogs, to say nothing of an even greater obesity problem. Furthermore, Frog Lane is one of the few remaining, untouched rural lanes in existence anywhere in the country, without Solihull planning to ruin it. Why, indeed are all of your proposed sites within the green belt? Surely there are brownfield sites within the Borough.

It is bad enough that Solihull is even considering expanding Balsall Common to such a degree (more than 25% of the proposed new houses for Solihull), without ruining the remaining facilities. Have we not had enough expansion over the past 20 years? Did you not even consider the feedback you received recently. Mind you, even that was a farce, with the questions being loaded on an assumption of the expansion being a given. I can only assume that Balsall Common is one of the furthest points from the centre of Solihull, yet still within the Borough boundary and so is considered to be the dumping ground for the Council. Oh, of course it is!

I should like you to consider this as an official complaint and a request to reconsider using Balsall Common as a dumping ground without even due consideration for maintaining the existing facilities. We don't vote Councillors in or provide jobs, through our rates, for those people to act against our interests.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 860

Received: 08/02/2017

Respondent: Andrew King

Representation Summary:

Object to proposal to build an unreasonable amount of houses east of Balsall Common, all on green belt land, when there is sufficient brown belt land within the borough. Over 1000 houses is far too much in an already busy village and will bring too much construction, destroying valuable green belt and coinciding with the nearby HS2 line. I understand houses need to be built, but it is the sheer volume which is wrong. Please reconsider the building of so many houses in our village and protect our valuable green belt.

Full text:

You have chosen to build an unreasonable amount of houses east of Balsall Common, all on green belt land, when there is sufficient brown belt land within the borough. Over 1000 houses is far too much in an already busy village and will bring too much construction, destroying valuable green belt and coinciding with the nearby hs2 line. I understand houses need to be built, but it is the sheer volume which is wrong. Please please reconsider the building of so many houses in our village and protect our valuable green belt.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 874

Received: 19/01/2017

Respondent: Terry & Tracey Hughes

Representation Summary:

proposal that smaller build sites should be spread across borough

Full text:

Estate plans across Solihull Borough
After viewing and studying some of the proposed housing estate builds across the Solihull borough I would like to give some helpful and constructive advice if I may
I had observed that some parts of the borough are earmarked for some very large and overwhelming estate builds while other areas and communities seem to be taking very little if any housing.
I think it would be much better and fairer if you could spread the housing developments into smaller builds across the borough fairly so that each local community can take on some housing but also retain some valuable landscaped nature reserve/ garden green space to lessen the impact on local communities and this would benefit nature and the environment.
I do think some of the past mistakes in planning and development can be avoided if you can try to avoid ramming so many houses into a one area build and ripping up mature tree's and hedgerows and retain at least some field space between existing communities and new builds, because we all benefit mentally and physically from green space and nature.
This idea of spreading the housing into smaller builds across the borough would also lessen the impact on roads and local communities infrastructure which I am sure would save money.
I hope this advice is of some help for you as I am sure you have a difficult job in hand.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 891

Received: 07/02/2017

Respondent: Richard Evans

Representation Summary:

No.
The main reason for the size of the "Barratts Farm" development appears to be to get funding from the developers to fund the proposed bypass to relieve congestion on the A452. As mentioned before this will inevitably lead to further infill development.. The infrastructure of the village barely copes as it is, parking in the "thriving village centre" is already positively dangerous. Cars reverse out from both sides of the roads and there are frequents bumps and pedestrians being knocked over, I suspect a future fatality is inevitable.
Against purpose of Green Belt and preventing coalescence.

Full text:

RESPONSES 1-YES
2-YES
Spatial Strategy
3- The size of the proposed developments around rural villages appears out of proportion to the size of the villages themselves. This is particularly exemplified in Balsall Common. The proposed by pass that would create an area of land between it and the A452 that would eventually be filled in with future housing developments.
The alternative options would be to concentrate future housing developments closer to the local areas of employment-JLR, Airport, NEC, Motor Cycle Museum, Birmingham Business Park and Hams Hall. There are sites available around Bickenhill, the junctions of the M6 AMD M42,Melbecks Garden Centre and even perhaps the site that was proposed for the new National Football Stadium before the new Wembley got the nod.
There are also areas around Water Orton and Coleshill which could be considered Sustainable Economic Growth
4-YES
5-YES
6-YES
7-YES
8-See previous answer to 3 9-YES
10-See previous answer to 3 PROVIDING HOUSES FOR ALL 11-YES
12-The principle of 50% affordable housing is laudable but judging by past local developments around Balsall Common this is never realised. The current Elysian Gardens Development is a case in point. The proportion of larger 2-5 bedroom detached houses always seem to dominate these development I suspect so the land owners and developers and landowners can maximise their profits.
13-No opinion
14-NO-Why should we have to take on a proportion of Birminghams number of development in the HMA. If you travel by train in from Berkswell to New Street their are plenty of unused brown field sites to be seen, are these not an option as green belt is cheaper to develop.
15-NO-Refer to answer to question 3.The main reason for the size of the "Barratts Farm" development appears to be to get funding from the developers to fund the proposed bypass to relieve congestion on the A452.As mentioned before this will inevitably lead to further infill development. The infrastructure of the village barely copes as it is, parking in the "thriving village centre" is already positively dangerous. Cars reverse out from both sides of the roads and there are frequents bumps and pedestrians being knocked over, I suspect a future fatality is inevitable.
16-As identified the infrastructure within Balsall Common is small. There is a lack of capacity at the primary and secondary schools. They are already over subscribed and have lack of space to expand into. Re-siting them would take them out of their central position where most pupils can walk to. If that were to happen additional school runs would be inevitable adding to the traffic congestion.
It is identified in the report that parking at the train station is inadequate, Hallmeadow road has become the unofficial overspill(part of the proposed bypass)
Extra parking is proposed but where. The only land by the existing car park is not being considered for the housing development because of recurrent flooding. As detailed in the report the number of car to house ratio at 1.6 is the highest in the borough so compounding the problem. As a regular cyclist I can assure you that adding cycle lanes on already narrow roads will not work.
The village centre is quoted as "thriving" in your report, the only useful development recently has been the addition of the Costa store where local people can meet up over coffee and socialise.
An obvious opportunity that has been lost is the development of the disused office block and
parking area for housing by the Co-op. This would have been an obvious site for a public funded facility for recreation and social needs-i.e. citizens advice, meeting area for the elderly/vulnerable and planned activities for the teenagers. Instead as before it has gone to the more profitable housing option. The village centre as it is has nowhere to expand to, and if moved would completely change the individuality of Balsall Common.
The only existing facility within the village that could cope with an increased local population is the new health centre. With an increase in patient number there will follow increased funding and an ability to employ more doctors and associated staff. The village badly needs a public funded development as previously mentioned that could provide recreational and social facilities
for the whole age range. The existing youth club is barely used for lack of activities leaving the streets and the park for the kids to fill their free time.
If the proposed developments do go ahead-3 in Balsall Common far more thought needs to be put into the impact they will have on theses small rural communities. The whole purpose of developing the concept of greenbelt and the greenbelt acts was to stop the creepage of large towns/cities into rural areas so they can keep their own unique character and charm. Increased urbanisation of the countryside between the cites of Birmingham and Coventry flies in the face of this agreed and accepted philosophy
17-YES
IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY AND ENCOURAGING SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL 18-YES
PROTECTING AND ENHANCING OUR ENVIRONMENT.
19-YES
PROMOTING QUALITY OF SPACE
20-YES
HEALTH AND SUPPORT OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
21-YES AND NO-There is an historic under funding of health care between Birmingham and Solihull as reflected by our local CCGs overspend and the combined Birmingham CCGs underspend. Perhaps this issue needs to be addressed at a Governmental level but it grates somewhat when we are expected to provide additional housing sites to make up for Birmingham's shortfall.
DELIVERING AND MONITORING 22-YES
ANY OTHER COMMENTS
23-I refer to my previous comments about the purpose of greenbelt and attach a document which I think is self explanatory.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 915

Received: 09/02/2017

Respondent: Peter Renwick

Representation Summary:

I am particularly concerned with the proposed overuse of green belt land, development in areas where it will not be adequately served by local infrastructure, and where it will engender yet more reliance on car transportation instead of public transport.
As a Dorridge resident, I am specifically in support of KDBH Neighbourhood Forum's response.
When we applied to Solihull 15 years ago for a 1 metre extension to the rear of our property, it was refused on the basis that 'it is the space between the houses which gives Knowle and Dorridge its character'. Has that planning tenet been abandoned?

Full text:

I am particularly concerned with the proposed overuse of green belt land, development in areas where it will not be adequately served by local infrastructure, and where it will engender yet more reliance on car transportation instead of public transport.
As a Dorridge resident, I am specifically in support of KDBH Neighbourhood Forum's response.
When we applied to Solihull 15 years ago for a 1 metre extension to the rear of our property, it was refused on the basis that 'it is the space between the houses which gives Knowle and Dorridge its character'. Has that planning tenet been abandoned?

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 956

Received: 10/02/2017

Respondent: John and Mary Maguire

Agent: Colliers International

Representation Summary:

it is evident that further land will need to be identified for housing to meet the full need, once fully identified through the Local Plan Review process and joint working, particularly with Birmingham City Council. The site promoted in these representations would assist in meeting the Solihull housing need and also the Government's direction in the White Paper stating that local planning authorities will need to provide 10% of housing targets as smaller size allocations.

Full text:

The emerging draft Local Plan Review has found it necessary to release land from the Green Belt in order to meet the Council's housing targets. Given the shortfall within the wider Housing Market Area and the potential requirement for Solihull to accommodate further dwellings within the plan period, particularly to address Birmingham's significant shortfall, it will be necessary to identify further sites for development within the Borough and further Green Belt land release is likely to be necessary.

These representations therefore promote land to the west of 227 Lugtrout Lane as suitable for residential development and it is requested that the Council consider its release from the Green Belt. The site was considered a suitable site for development which was available and achievable, scoring highly on all matters considered in the Council's SHELAA (site ref 28) and in accordance with the recent White Paper on housing, local planning authorities should be looking to allocate sites for smaller developments to meet up to 10% of their housing targets. This site would suit that purpose.

The site is currently located in Green Belt and the Local Plan Review is an appropriate place to review Green Belt boundaries to identify land to meet need, which, as discussed above, this would do. The Council's own Green Belt Study identifies the land as lower performing when considered against the objectives of including land within the Green Belt for all purposes except one, where it is considered to perform 'moderately' in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The release of this land from the Green Belt would not result in the merging of any settlements. It is a well contained piece of land which has development surrounding it and its release would not adversely affect the role or objectives of the Green Belt.

In summary, it is evident that further land will need to be identified for housing to meet the full need, once fully identified through the Local Plan Review process and joint working, particularly with Birmingham City Council. The site promoted in these representations would assist in meeting the Solihull housing need and also the Government's direction in the White Paper stating that local planning authorities will need to provide 10% of housing targets as smaller size allocations.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 957

Received: 10/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Neil Murphy

Agent: Colliers International

Representation Summary:

it is evident that further land will need to be identified for housing to meet the full need, once fully identified through the Local Plan Review process and joint working, particularly with Birmingham City Council. The site promoted in these representations would assist in meeting the Solihull housing need and also the Government's direction in the White Paper stating that local planning authorities will need to provide 10% of housing targets as smaller size allocations.

Full text:

The emerging draft Local Plan Review has found it necessary to release land from the Green Belt in order to meet the Council's housing targets. Given the shortfall within the wider Housing Market Area and the potential requirement for Solihull to accommodate further dwellings within the plan period, particularly to address Birmingham's significant shortfall, it will be necessary to identify further sites for development within the Borough and further Green Belt land release is likely to be necessary.

These representations therefore promote land to the west of 227 Lugtrout Lane as suitable for residential development and it is requested that the Council consider its release from the Green Belt. The site was considered a suitable site for development which was available and achievable, scoring highly on all matters considered in the Council's SHELAA (site ref 28) and in accordance with the recent White Paper on housing, local planning authorities should be looking to allocate sites for smaller developments to meet up to 10% of their housing targets. This site would suit that purpose.

The site is currently located in Green Belt and the Local Plan Review is an appropriate place to review Green Belt boundaries to identify land to meet need, which, as discussed above, this would do. The Council's own Green Belt Study identifies the land as lower performing when considered against the objectives of including land within the Green Belt for all purposes except one, where it is considered to perform 'moderately' in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The release of this land from the Green Belt would not result in the merging of any settlements. It is a well contained piece of land which has development surrounding it and its release would not adversely affect the role or objectives of the Green Belt.

In summary, it is evident that further land will need to be identified for housing to meet the full need, once fully identified through the Local Plan Review process and joint working, particularly with Birmingham City Council. The site promoted in these representations would assist in meeting the Solihull housing need and also the Government's direction in the White Paper stating that local planning authorities will need to provide 10% of housing targets as smaller size allocations.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 963

Received: 10/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Richard Drake

Representation Summary:

All sites for Balsall Common our on Greenbelt land including in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap. PDL sites and the proposal for a new village north of Balsall Common have been ignored

Full text:

All sites for Balsall Common our on Greenbelt land including in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap. PDL sites and the proposal for a new village north of Balsall Common have been ignored

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 989

Received: 11/02/2017

Respondent: Colin Davis

Representation Summary:

No.

Full text:

a whole list of sites
site 4 - shouldn't be allowed to sprawl across and join almost to majors green . the existing roads cant cope
site 5 - a no brainer what on earth will happen to the existing road network and the traffic corridor for the Chester road/ Collector road especially with all the expected extra growth at the HS2 hub . traffic east bound on this route to bham will increase. The last road improvements on the chester road at Craig croft and the Timberley shops have been heavily criticised so the council dont have a great track record on roads in North Solihull. also you would not build on a large open island in South solihull so why is it ok in Chelmsley Wood,
site 7 - yes if its done sensitively and enhances kingshurst. but if the homes are more modern Bellway shoeboxes like at Woodlands next to smiths wood college then it is a waste of an opportunity.
Site 14 - same as site 7 Arran way deserves well planned homes . not high density modern slums
site 15 - yes to building on brownfield but not the open space /sports ground. why does chelmsley wood have to lose all its open space
site 16 - major road works would be needed to prevent gridlock back onto Damson park way , hampton lane and the warwick road junction to the M42. proposed high growth at the A45 corridor from JLR / HS2 will have a massive impact on this whole road network between A45 and A41 & M42
site 17 - if the council depot and light industry move out where will they be relocated . will more green belt be taken elsewhere . Lode lane is a congested traffic corridor . the site would have to be carefully designed to avoid all the social and parking problems that wharf lane next door has experienced

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 997

Received: 11/02/2017

Respondent: Ms Lisa Inkpen

Representation Summary:

The developments in Balsall Common will all lead to a flow of traffic towards the Kenilworth Road and then northwards through the village. The Kenilworth road is already very congested. Kelsey Lane is getting via busy and the speed of the traffic is very worrying. I am also concerned about the building on greenbelt when alternative brow fields sites have been considered.

Full text:

The developments in Balsall Common will all lead to a flow of traffic towards the Kenilworth Road and then northwards through the village. The Kenilworth road is already very congested. Kelsey Lane is getting via busy and the speed of the traffic is very worrying. I am also concerned about the building on greenbelt when alternative brow fields sites have been considered.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1000

Received: 11/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Drake

Representation Summary:

Building in Balsall Common will increase road traffic. The existing public transport is inadequate for working other than at the Airport or Birmingham and Coventry City Centres. The trains are only 2 an hour and overcrowded already at peak times

Full text:

Building in Balsall Common will increase road traffic. The existing public transport is inadequate for working other than at the Airport or Birmingham and Coventry City Centres. The trains are only 2 an hour and overcrowded already at peak times

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1007

Received: 11/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Drake

Representation Summary:

Greenfield sites almost exclusively selected while many PDL sites ignored. No mention of suggested new settlement to north of Balsall Common.

Balsall Common sites will put large traffic increases on to local roads

Full text:

Greenfield sites almost exclusively selected while many PDL sites ignored. No mention of suggested new settlement to north of Balsall Common.

Balsall Common sites will put large traffic increases on to local roads

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1072

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Kevin Thomas

Representation Summary:

1215 new houses in Balsall Common (1350 with current permissions) is wholly inappropriate due to:
1. use of greenbelt in priority to available PDL sites
2. disproportionate level of build when compared to other borough locations with better transport links
3. combined with HS2 and developments planned for Coventry places unacceptable pressure on existing green belt
4 delivers housing in south east when employment opportunities are in North and West with an absence of reliable sustainable transport options.
5. More housing could be created by Berkswell PC proposals for use of reclaimed land at Cornets End Lane for new settlement.

Full text:

The proposal to build 1215 new houses in Balsall Common (1350 with current permissions) represents a strategic change which will both fundamentally change the balance and nature of the existing community and will overwhelm already precarious village infrastructure.

Expanding the existing settlement by over a third is disproportionate when measured against the impact on other areas such as Dorridge which have equally good transport links and better infrastructure provision.

The plan provides no convincing reason as to why similarly rated sites in these areas have been disregarded in favour of Balsall Common options.

A failure to spread development more evenly loses the opportunity to deliver housing needs without major disruption to infrastructure and with sensitivity to existing residents.

The three sites proposed for Balsall Common all utilise green belt in priority to a number of potential PDL sites all of which appear to have been disregarded without a reason being given.

As such I regard the proposals as inconsistent with existing NDDP requirements and Solihull's stated strategy. Why is this being ignored in the case of Balsall Common?

In particular, the size of the proposed Barratts farm development when combined with major developments such as HS2 and planned for west Coventry places unacceptable pressure on existing green belt and in doing so threatens the very essence of the Meriden Gap.

The siting of such a major development is also inconsistent with the Plans stated sustainability objectives. Building housing in the south east when employment opportunities are in the North and West with an absence of reliable sustainable transport options can only serve to further impact existing road congestion.( see further comments on infrastructure requirements below)

I understand that that more housing could be created by resurrecting the Berkswell Parish Council proposals for use of reclaimed land at Cornets End Lane for creation of a new settlement. Has this been considered and if so why was it rejected?

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1077

Received: 12/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Paul Joyner

Representation Summary:

There is under representation of development in other areas of the borough, most notable towns like Dorridge, and the lack of consideration for new settlements

Full text:

There is under representation of development in other areas of the borough, most notable towns like Dorridge, and the lack of consideration for new settlements