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

see attached documents

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

Feedback on local plan sites 8 and 9

I wish to object to the proposal in the Solihull Local Plan to build 1000 + houses on two sites in Knowle - site number 8 Hampton Road and 9 land to the South of Knowle known as the Arden Triangle.

I fully accept that there is a real need for new homes within the borough. However, Knowle would be increased by more than 20% if these plans went ahead - a highly disproportionate amount. Given that Knowle has no major commercial or industrial areas, it is effectively becoming a "Dormitory Village" - a place from which many people travel in order to work in a bigger town or city. The village infrastructure is already stretched, parking is woefully inadequate and the primary schools and doctors' surgeries are reaching saturation point. Both proposed developments would make significant inroads into the Green Belt at a time when the Government has issued a White Paper to the effect that Green Belt should be protected at all costs.

I live in Chantry Heath Crescent, in one of the houses that will be directly overlooked by any new houses built in Hampton Road so do have a vested interest in what happens there. Notwithstanding that, having read the Football Club's proposal for houses to fund a new club, I dispute the conclusion on page 28 which claims that 'the parcel sits well within the village development pattern' whereas in reality, as per the KDBH forum submission, 'Development here would be beyond the built-up area of Knowle and a significant encroachment into open countryside.

In the Benefits section on page 28 of the Football Club prospectus they refer to

* The provision of much needed housing in the area. I would reiterate that Knowle itself does not need housing on the scale provided. Very few occupants of the new houses would find work in Knowle, but would add to current congestion on the village roads and add to the parking problems around each of the local train stations.
* The potential for a borough sports hub. I question whether the facilities listed in the prospectus (other than the direct relocation of the football club) would ever materialise. On page 6 it states that 'further funding for a sports hub could also come forward with support from Sport England and the FA,' which of course may never happen.
* Provision of a community meeting place. We already have the Village Hall, Knowle Church Hall, Downing Hall and the Methodist Church Hall all situated in the very centre of Knowle.

There is a great contrast between the current state of the football and cricket clubs on the Hampton Road Site. The cricket club has been proactive in improving their clubhouse, providing a new electronic scoreboard and maintaining the whole ground well. The football club on the other hand is in a very sorry rundown state, with few attempts at improvement. In their own prospectus they state that 'planning permission has been granted for floodlighting at the existing site. This has been commenced but not completed due to issues with funding'. They could have already fundraised and/or applied for funding from the FA, and other sources, (on which they wiil rely to add extra facilities at any new site), but have failed to do so. Do we really want to entrust new green belt to a club which appears too lacklustre and incompetent to maintain and improve the smaller site it occupies now?


In my opinion, none of the constraints that caused Solihull MBC to reject the request for planning permission on the land opposite Grimshaw Hall in the 2012 SHLAA have changed. What has changed however, is that developers have dangled the carrot of a new football club (and other amenities which may never materialise) in front of us, in the hope that we will overlook how much green belt we will all be sacrificing for ever, in order that the 291players, volunteers and supporters of the football club will get an extra couple of pitches to play on.

With regards to the Arden Triangle site, I accept that if we must have more houses, then by all means include a new school or two as part of the deal, as this will benefit so many more people that the Football Club proposal. Please only grant permission for as few new houses as would be needed to fund the new school and ensure that as little new greenbelt as possible is taken
Knowle is a popular place to live precisely because it still has a village feel. How much expansion can it take before this is no longer the case?

see attached letter

We would like to object to the proposed developments on the land around Knowle.

In our opinions the green belt land on stripes hill (located behind Arden school is an inappropriate and unnecessary location to build the number of homes SMBC are showing on their draft plan.

Personally we feel that the number of proposed house and density will vastly change the entire 'feel' of Knowle and Dorridge for the worse. The proposed overall increase in residents will only put a further strain on the local road networks and create a even more problems than we have, with 'overcrowding' of Doctors surgeries, infant/ Junior and senior schools alike. I believe that part of the proposal 'may' address the senior school issue, by way of developing Arden school. However, 750 new homes will require even more development to accommodate the earlier years schooling and health service needs that this increase itself will require,

I underrated there is an overall need to provide more housing, I do however believe that there are more suitable sites elsewhere in the Solihull borough that can be developed, my reasons for this are as follows;

1. 750 new homes in Knowle are too many when one considers;
a. The impact this would have on some of the most prestigious green belt we have in Solihull
b. The small number of Jobs in the Knowles and Dorridge area would not facilitate this amount of development and therefore require the majority of new homeowners to commute to other areas within the borough where the jobs are located
c. An increase in commuters will overcrowd our current village and surrounding roads which are ill equipped to deal with such an increase
d. The local amenities, such as schools and Doctors are already at capacity, so any increase in development of this size would I suppose require even more development to provide these 'additional' amenities

2. I believe that placing a larger number of homes on sites such as Dog Kennel lane / Cheswick Green / Meriden or Damson Parkway, would be much more suitable as;
a. The employment around the above areas (such as JLR or Cranmore business park and Blythe valley) would allow much more residents to work close to their homes and hopefully enable a larger number to walk /cycle to work -this I believe is as per Solihull's own long-term plan
b. The impact on the above alternatives such a development of this size would have would be far LESS in these locations than it would be Knowle, as these areas are already flanked by a combination of housing and large employers and supported by the necessary road networks to support this increase
c. The above alternative sites are far more 'affordable' locations to provide housing than that of Knowle and Dorridge - surely it makes more sense to build more affordable housing in a less costly area than Knowle or Dorridge?
d. The road network around the A34 and A45 would require far less improvement to cope with any additional traffic such a development would bring, as the current dual carriage ways, surrounding these areas are far better placed to cope with this increase than Knowle High street is. Again, any road improvements needed in these areas will also carry less of an impact to the surrounding character than any such changes would make to Knowle

I understand that the Knowle proposal is 'linked' to some 'support' to build a new school -We do NOT consider this a good enough reason to allow this amount of development in the Knowle or Dorridge area.

IF such a level of 'financial support' to build a school is required from any developer by Solihull MBC in order to provide the amenities for its residents, then surely SMBC can 'request' this level of support from another developer when agreeing to use alternative more appropriate sites within the borough? At least then SMBC can place the housing in the most 'suitable' locations and use any 'financial support' to upgrade the amenities and schooling in these areas (IF this type of 'financial support' is what is SMBC require?)

I trust that the above views will be helpful in steering SMBC DRAFT plans to locating any developments of this size to a more suitable and acceptable location(s) OTHER than Knowle

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

see letter and supporting statement

see letter from Agent

see letter

see letter from agent

see attached letter

see letter attached

RE: SMBC's proposed developments in Balsall Common.

I am writing to you in response to SMBC's Draft Local Plan and the affect it will have in the village of Balsall Common. My predominant concern is with the proposed development in Frog Lane and would propose that serious consideration be given to other PDL sites existing within the area and other areas in the borough, such as Dorridge as mentioned in point 8) of this correspondence.

1) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common when there are 14 PDL sites available in the village, suggests that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the green belt HAS NOT been demonstrated by SMBC.

2) 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. (SMBC's recent confirmation that the A452 is the most congested road in the borough at certain times. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing need 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".

3) Balsall Common is a settlement with very limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. (SMBC's own statistics state 80% commuter rate of Balsall Common residents). Any significant expansion will add unnecessarily to the road network as well as adding to the carbon footprint created by the additional traffic flow.

4) In addition to the above point 3), the 3,000 proposed jobs recently announced at the new JLR site at Honiley, although the site being in Warwickshire, SMBC will have the bulk of the traffic issues, with massively increased traffic flows, morning and late afternoon. This will add considerably to both A452 and that Holly Lane will become a "rat run", for the employees.

5) The proposed phasing of Balsall Common developments to take place over the next 15 years, at the same time as HS2, will add considerable 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 and unsustainable. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth".

As stated above, the existing facilities in Balsall Common are already inadequate for the size of the existing settlement. During any planned future development, the infrastructure HAS to be "put in place", before any further housing development is allowed. Your existing proposed plan has the Primary School to be developed in the third phase 10-15 years, this is "totally irresponsible of SMBC planners".

6) The proposed development of Frog Lane site, being in the south west of Balsall Common, will add to the existing congestion hotspot on Balsall Street East caused by the existing traffic congestion (mainly at school times) by commuter traffic travelling from/to Coventry/ Solihull, these being the main local employment centres.

7) I do not understand the logic of SMBC planners with regard to the proposed Frog Lane development, your draft document stated that the cottage and allotments are "protected" from any development, but the current school playing fields are not covered by this statement of intent. Elsewhere within SMBC's local plan document there is emphasis made of the importance of recreational facilities, so why is this omitted, in this instance? If SMBC planners are to be trusted, why this "double standard"?

8) Frog Lane site must score poorly in relation to all accessibility critieria, 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 made by car, adding to the existing congestion and very poor parking facilities.

9) As a general note, it is noticeable that Dorridge, which has a far superior railway station facility along with a more "open plan and spacious shopping centre, with plentiful car parking", appears to have no planned housing development in SMBC's proposed local plan. The cynic in me must ask the question of your council, "Who are the senior SMBC councillors living in this area?" who have protected it in the plan and should have "declared an interest", as Dorridge meets most of the SMBC's search criteria for future development.

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF RED ELK HOLDINGS
Red Elk Holdings support the identification of Knowle as a location for significant new development to take place on the edge of the settlement (paragraph 84 of the Draft Local Plan). However it is considered that site 234 in the Strategic Housing & Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) has not been properly considered as a reasonable alternative to the sites selected for development.
Site 234, located at Lady Byron Lane, Knowle, is a well-contained parcel of land immediately adjacent to the built-up area. It is entirely surrounded by roads, including the M42 and A4141. The perimeter of the site is also visually enclosed by trees. The site is too small and cut off from wider farmland to be productively used for agriculture and the site does not exhibit the qualities of a rural landscape due to the surrounding roads. The site would appear to have been given very limited consideration in the evidence base for the Draft Local Plan, despite being submitted through the Call for Sites in February 2016.
The site has not been included in the Sustainability Appraisal and for some reason it has only been assessed in terms of its suitability for employment development in the SHELAA. The site was put forward in the Call for Sites for a range of potential uses, including residential. We are therefore unable to understand the Council's reasoning for rejecting the site.
The site forms part of parcel RP33 in the Green Belt Assessment. This parcel achieved an overall score of 5 in terms of its contribution to Green Belt purposes. The proposed site allocations for housing in this area are on parcels of similar or higher value Green Belt. There is no explanation as to why site allocation ref 8 has been chosen over other reasonable alternatives, particularly in view of the fact that it is assessed as having Green Belt scores of 7 and 11 in the Green Belt Assessment - the highest scores in this area.

The Solihull Accessibility Mapping Methodology Report (6th December 2016) demonstrates areas within 400 metres of bus stops with a daytime frequency of services of 15 minutes or better (Figure 1D). Site 234 is not identified as falling within this catchment, despite the site being within 100 metres of bus stops on Warwick Road served by the S3, 87, 88, 513 and 514 bus services. These services combine to provide at least 4 buses per hour in each direction. It is therefore considered that the assessment of the site's accessibility is incorrect and the site should be reviewed in terms of its suitability for development.
We have been engaged with the preparation of the Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath (KDBH) Neighbourhood Plan in respect of site 234. We participated in the Developer Showcase on 16th July 2016, which was attended by over 400 local residents who gave their feedback on the 45 different sites offered for development in the area. The feedback received is summarised on the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum website http://www.kdbh-np.org/home.html
Our site received a lot of positive feedback - it was 2nd most supported out of all the sites. Generally people felt that the site had good access and could be suitable for development in that it is already 'built up' by surrounding roads. The land seems to be viewed by the community as a disused parcel of land, rather than unspoiled countryside.
Various potential uses for the site were discussed and residents fed back that, due to noise from the adjacent motorway, the site may not be suitable for general housing development. However it would be more suitable for commercial development, a hotel or care home, where the development would be designed so that the habitable rooms faced away from the motorway. Taking on board this feedback, our vision for the site is for the provision of a care home for elderly people. The attached concept plan shows how this might be arranged on the site, such that the development is positioned towards the southern end of the site and the habitable rooms face away from the motorway. Formal gardens could be shielded from the motorway by the new building and would present a pleasant aspect to the south. The land to the north of the building would be used for car parking. The majority of the site would remain open, the trees to the perimeter of the site would be retained and the development would relate well to existing development in Knowle, preserving the sense of separation from Solihull.
The site is adjacent to a frequent bus route and with this type of development facilities are provided on site. Such facilities might include healthcare, café, salon, IT space and a small shop selling convenience products for residents such as newspapers and confectionary. The site is also adjacent to another care home development, so the principle of this type of land use in this location seems to have been established.
In view of our representations in response to Question 14 (ID 1450), the proposal for a care home development at site 234 could provide for important unmet needs for accommodation for elderly people. Such a development could preserve the sense of separation between the KDBH area and Solihull and result in a development which responds positively to feedback from the community regarding how they wish to see their area develop. It is therefore considered that site 234 should be included as an allocation for C2 care home development in order to address the issues of soundness raised in response to Question 14 of this consultation.

Just heard about this, so please add me your your list of objectors as it shouldn't be allowed. There are better alternatives! Don't build on the Green Belt

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

see attached letter and supporting annotated map

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

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

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

Solihull's erosion of green belt.

Dear Julian MP , Solihull Planning team,

I note your lack of support for rejecting the local plan housing expansion sites.

Urbs-in-Rure; Solihull's motto. 'Town in country'. Not sure how much country(side) there will be left at the council's current proposals for green belt land release across the borough.

Firstly, allowing Solihull to 'take part of Birmingham's housing allocation' is ridiculous. Anyone knowing Birmingham can see acres of brownfield sites that could be successfully developed with mixed use, mid-rise buildings drawing in employment and sustainable communities in an existing urban centre. The strong core infrastructure is in place and ready for more housing and employment. Birmingham is well documented in leading in new employment and investment. Thousands of homes are planned already, but could take many more.
But I hear cries of "Birmingham needs family homes" - true, and this is a reason cited for outer lying more suburban areas needing more 'houses' for families. We daren't show the continent where families love in big lateral apartments with shared amenity spaces, play areas and the like - part of our problem is our very own desire to have the family detached idyll that we are force fed as the property ideal.
It is this idyll that has driven the demand for more homes and eating up of the green belt. It is inevitable that we will need to expand into the green belt in key areas; but is more (sub)urban sprawl really what is needed? Solihull's new land release proposals show more areas for growth. Can the infrastructure cope? Highway engineers will say yes, people living here say no. Hospitals? If you don't mind traipsing to Heartlands as our own service gets shrunken. Shirley edges being dumped with hundreds- thousands, of homes with no thought to creating proper places and with the council laying densities for development that show no attempt to soften the edges of the development, aid integration with existing or providing suitable buffer landscape zones to existing neighbours of for the land parcels viewed from the countryside. Hampton Lane parcels and those others dragging and expanding our surrounding villages further into countryside show a lack of thought and also it would be good to know who and which land owners are actively promoting their sites. Land promotion is a big valuable business with a lot of mouths at the trough. Are these the same land owners and developers who are sitting on thousands of housing planning permissions but refusing to release them quickly so as to avoid a glut of property on the market and therefore lowering the prices? We all know how the market is controlled to retain demand and therefore prices.

We desperately need some creative thinking about where and how to build new homes but if we simply release green belt land to private house builders, under our current system of planning and land ownership, the fear is that the suburban sprawl perpetuates, and the land will be wasted; low density, car-dominated, lacking social and physical infrastructure, and boring. We seem to have forgotten on how to build mixed communities with proper streets, corner shops, avenues, squares and places - places for people to enjoy and that look like Solihull.

My comments are below are specifically related to the housing proposals in Balsall Common:-

Strategy

In the 21st century it is entirely inappropriate to use parish (council) boundaries as arbitrary measures for building proposals. Few of these boundaries directly relate to building developments in the last 50/75 years. In the case of Balsall Common, the parish boundary runs directly through the centre of Balsall Common (BC) which places much of the village in Berkswell parish albeit no one in full command of their faculties would recognise that much of Station Rd., Hallmeadow Rd and even the railway station are in Berkswell. Nor is the proposed Barretts Farm development. In fact, I can see NO proposal to build houses in the village of Berkswell! Why has there been no development in or directly adjacent to Berkswell village in over 30 years?

Similarly, Hampton in Arden proposal is for 100 houses and Meriden is for only 50. So why, is Balsall Common targeted for > 1,000?

This is nothing more than SMBC expediency which culminates in an unfair and disproportionate burden on Balsall Common. I was advised by a SMBC rep. at the BC "roadshow" on 7 January that the land proposed for development had been "offered" to SMBC for inclusion in the plan. Is this really the best SMBC planners can do? It is clear that this approach has been favoured by landowners with a clear vested interest and greedy developers who wish to build on green field sites all around the borough and as the easy & expedient option for the council. SMBC will reply by saying - "What alternative sites are there?" Well, of course, the truth of the matter is for them to know and/or find out. It is not the job of local residents to locate suitable sites for housing development and then have to object when SMBC produce some kind of hare brained plan. I cannot recall this approach being adopted for the route of HS2. Local and national government didn't accept "offered up" sites for this!

There seems little evidence of brown field sites being considered or targeted. There are 14 PDL sites in BC.

Specifically

The housing developments in BC in the past few years (Kenilworth Rd.x 2, Riddings Hill, Kelsey Lane) have already overloaded the existing infrastructure.

BC Primary school operates with > 700 pupils on a site designed for 300+. This expansion has already blighted the lives of local residents because of traffic and parking problems. There is little enforcement of restrictions by SMBC CEOs. Traffic also causes concern & chaos for residents in the vicinity of Heart of England school which "imports" children from outside the catchment area.

The rail service is overloaded and run by one of the worst franchises in the UK. Trains are late or often cancelled, dirty and overcrowded. The station car park is full and cars are parking in nearby roads causing obstructions.

The bus service is haphazard. Again, services are late, cancelled and staffed by drivers who don't know the routes. History shows that operators can and will withdraw services with little notice.

The main A452 is a continual queue of slow moving vehicles during peak times in both morning and evening. The road itself is an "escape route" for traffic delays on the M40, M42 &M6 with side roads becoming "rat runs".

BC is poorly served by public transport and is gradually choking by virtue of traffic on the A452.

There is virtually no employment within BC hence most people will commute by car adding to the pollution and congestion.

There is already inadequate car parking in the village centre for both long and short stay motorists.

Financial institutions are increasingly closing their branches in BC.

The proposed development at site 2 (Frog Lane) will completely spoil one of the finest landscape views in the village looking south west.. It covers an area of allotments which have only been open in the past few years and a sports field which is the only available sports field on the west side of the A452. This is currently used by village football teams, joggers, walkers, dog walkers and is one of the few "quiet" environments left in BC away from traffic noise and pollution.

In SMBCs rush to add to an already over-developed BC, there appears to have little or no consideration given to historical sites such as the Windmill. The undoubted mess and confusion due to be by HS2 will be a further burden.

The effect of building 1000+ houses with (say) 4000+ inhabitants will virtually double the size of BC. The whole character and heritage of the existing community will change out all recognition. What other community within SMBC area will suffer the same expansion?

Conclusion

There can be no justifiable reason to foist this level of development on BC when taking a view on the minimal levels proposed for neighbouring villages. It is neither fair nor proportionate.

SMBC need to reconsider use of brownfield sites where suitable.

BC is already at breaking point with much of its infrastructure. Where are plans to improve this?

Protection needs to be established for the heritage and history of BC. It is not acceptable to double the population and lose its essential character.

Remove site 2 from the DLP as a prime piece of community used land offering a totally rural & tranquil environment away from traffic & pollution enjoyed by residents of all ages.

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

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

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

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

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

see letter re: site 18

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

Q14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?

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

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

SDC notes the following allocations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site 9 development

I am unable to send the form back but append my comments below.

I do not agree that Site 9 should be developed for housing/new school.

Combined with the Hampton Road site the increase in houses and consequent numbers of adults and children and their
cars would mean at least 2000 more people in the area and at least 1000 more cars. It is therefore completely implausable for SMBC to state on their plan for Site 9 that it avoids intrusion into the Conservation Area in Knowle village, Just because the houses are not actually located in the Conservation Area does not mean that there is no impact. What about the increase in traffic in the village and along Station Road? Where are all these people going to park their cars? What about GP provision? The village will be irreversably changed for the worse.

The mental health charity Solihull Mind has expressed concern that the plans indicate that they will lose most of their current space which will negate all their good work of the last 20 years and reduce or even destroy what they can offer. I share their concerns. If their land is taken I would regard this as a barometer of how poorly mental health provision is regarded.

This plan should be rejected in view of the environmental impact of cars and people on the village of Knowle.

I terms of the wider Draft Local Plan, why is there vacant office space in Solihull? Vacant office space and shops vacant for over a year should be converted into dwellings by compulsion.