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

The policy statements are high level and it is the way that they are implemented that needs addressing. It needs to recognize the realities of people's lives rather than a theoretical ideal that will never survive in the real world resulting in a notch-botch solution. An example is the closing of Tythe Barn Lane when DH was planned causing all through traffic to be routed through the "village" and past the school, an fatality in the making. I suggest that the whole of Tythe Barn lane be re-opened to take excess traffic away from the school.

I agree with what is trying to be achieved but totally reject the possibility of it actually being possible. Mention is made of cycling however the road network in and around Solihull would have needed to be designed from day one with cycling in mind. The roads are to cramped and to busy to allow safe cycling by more than the brave few and I just can't see this happening. Also it appears to be assumed that local hosing developments will mainly contain people who will work in the town centre, what proof is there of this?

a logic leap here. more houses should attract better bus services. recent history in Balsall Common of a specialist bus service removed! expansion of Balsall Common may be more acceptable with better bus services.

I disagree. I do not agree with the section on Bypass Improvement Lines - paras 266/267.
The road proposed by Coventry if built will remove most of the increased traffic expected to arise from the HS2 hub. No Balsall Common by-pass should be considered until plans for this road are finalised. It certainly should not be pursued as a "basis for new residential developments"
See also my representation to question 15 earlier.

Bypass Impovement Lines - Balsall Common
The provision of a bypass to the east of Balsall Common will not alleviate the increased traffic to the JLR Plant at Fen End and indeed could exacerbate it along Balsall Street. The current congestion on the A452 at peak times is caused by local traffic. It was not deemed necessary in the 2013SLP and only the building of 1150+ homes may change this depending on where they are located.
A trunk road linking the A46 with the A452/A45 via Warwick University should alleviate through traffic coming from the M40 towards the NEC, M42. M6 and the HS2 hub.
A Balsall Common by-pass should not be considered until plans for this road are finalized and it should not be pursued as a "basis for new residential developments"

see attached letter for full text . Generally supportive and the letter comments on each of the 23 questions.

Where I generally agree with most of the points highlighted in the consultation I do not agree with them all and post my concerns and suggestions.

None of the proposed sites in Balsall Common/Berkswell fulfil the criteria set out in policy 7. A lack of public transport means the proposed developments will be heavily car dependent, and do not encourage sustainable travel The present frequency of limited bus services does not meet the criteria for 100+ dwellings, and the poor rail connectivity of only two trains an hour Monday to Saturday and only one an hour Sunday means the public transport accessibility is inadequate for the three sites proposed. Policy P8 indicates SMBC are unlikely support these developments sites in such circumstances.

I agree with the policies and principles for an integrated approach to transport and development but I don't believe that this actually will be applied on the ground. I already experience grid lock in the monring and evening because of the volume of traffic coming from Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green

I am concerned about increased traffic flow in the Tamworth Lane area. There is already congestion between 8.00 and 9.00am with commuters travelling out of Dickens Heath towards Shirley so the additional homes will make this worse. Thought needs to be given to traffic flow here along with sufficient infrastructure to cater for those additional homes before they are built

Cheaper, safer and more availability is needed to ease road congestion. More car parking at Whitlocks End and Shirley Stations would be needed if more houses are to be built in the area.

It will be required to demonstrate that the proposed housing sites at West of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley have been assessed in accordance with Policy P8 Managing Travel Demand and Reducing Congestion. There is already severe traffic congestion in the morning peak time along Dickens Heath Road from traffic leaving the village, and on Stratford Road from traffic heading towards the nearby business parks and the M42.

In accordance with Policy P8, the proposed housing sites at west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley should not be supported since the impacts of increased delay to vehicles taking account of the residual cumulative transport effects of development are likely to be very severe. A Transport Assessment would be required to accompany planning applications as the proposed housing sites at west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley would likely have a significant impact on the local highway network. The local highway network leading out from Dickens Heath is already subject to severe congestion in morning peak time.

I agree with the thrust but you haven't really taken any consideration for the use of the motor vehicle and current congestion it seems to me. The North west of BC is clearly better connected that the south east of the but has been ignored. I don't understand how you reconcile this.

It mentions that a bypass around Balsall Common will not be assessed until later. However, the plan already concludes 1150 new houses will be sited at Balsall Common.
The two issues are completely interlinked and no allocation of new housing in Balsall Common should be undertaken without the firm commitment to build a by-pass, with the village having a right to see, review and challenge the proposals.

Policy P7
Housing developers should not be allowed to construct roads of inadequate width and pavements of inadequate widths.
Some estate roads are only just wide enough for a removal lorry, for example. This is the total road width so two way traffic is not a possibility. Similarly, if a health visitor is making a visit to one house another health visitor cannot easily access an adjacent house. Furthermore, fire services will only rescue people trapped on an upper floor if two fire engines are present, and the width of some roads do not allow such access. This is totally unacceptable planning.
Pavements should be continuous and also be wide enough for a double buggy. It is not acceptable to build a pavement just wide enough for the slimmest of single buggies. It should not matter whether or not the road is to be adopted by the Council. Furthermore, on some estates pavements have only been provided on one side of the street, alternating with house frontages, which is dangerous for pedestrians and restricts the sense of community.

Policy P8A
It is not acceptable that the Knowle to UK Central corridor is not included in the rapid transit plans. The Plan assumption must be that people will use the M42, which is clearly flawed both in terms of the M42 capacity and in terms of environmental degradation. The skill mix in the Knowle and Dorridge area means that UK Central will be a vital source of local jobs. A Knowle to UK Central rapid transit corridor must therefore be included in the Plan. This requirement is only magnified by the proposal to increase the population of Knowle by 25% through new housing.

Letter from Agent - Turleys - see attached

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

Really supporting and promoting effective bus travel as a realistic alternative to the car journey is agreed. Perhaps implementing a holistic public transport policy would be the way forward. A 'congestion' charge in Birmingham together with increasing the cost of parking in the city would enable/encourage people to actually use the buses,

Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the proposed policy.

Network Rail is the public owner and operator of Britain's railway infrastructure, which includes the tracks, signals, tunnels, bridges, viaducts, level crossings and stations - the largest of which we also manage. All profits made by the company, including from commercial development, are reinvested directly back into the network.

Network Rail is looking at how we can work smarter to help enable development near to the railway.

(1)
It has come to our attention that where applications have an impact on the railway network, in particular on level crossings, the application is delayed or is objectionable because negotiations with developers are not agreed before a Planning Application is submitted.

I am sure you are aware that Network Rail is a statutory consultee for any planning applications within 10 metres of relevant railway land (as the Rail Infrastructure Managers for the railway, set out in Article 16 of the Development Management Procedure Order) and for any development likely to result in a material increase in the volume or a material change in the character of traffic using a level crossing over a railway (as the Rail Network Operators, set out in Schedule 4 (J) of the Development Management Procedure Order); in addition you are required to consult the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).

Where there is an adverse impact on the operation of the railway, Network Rail will require appropriate mitigation measures to be delivered as part of the planning application process. By this stage in the process our request for further information such as a Transport Assessment (to provide detail of the suspected impact) and where necessary, the provision of planning obligations can cause significant delay. This can be highly frustrating for any developer who has undertaken pre-application advice, and invested time and money, in working through mitigation measures including Heads of Terms for Section 106 agreements.

To help alleviate this problem it is requested that you add a standard paragraph to any pre- application response you provide. I have put together a paragraph which if included as general advice, may help avoid any disruption further along the process.

Should your development be likely to increase the level of pedestrian and / or vehicular usage at a level crossing any future planning application should be supported by a full Transport Assessment assessing such impact. Any required qualitative improvements to the level crossing as a direct result of the development proposed should be included within the Heads of Terms.


(2)
Within Transport Assessment's there is a review of local needs regarding public transport; this usually focuses on buses. However, Transport Assessments should also take into account their impact upon footfall at railway stations. Developers are encouraged to consider including within Transport Assessments trip generation data at railway stations. Location of the proposal, accessibility and density of the development should be considered in relation to the relevant railway station in the area.
Where proposals are likely to increase footfall at railway stations the Local Planning Authority should consider a developer contribution (either via CIL, S106 or unilateral undertaking) to provide funding for enhancements as stations as a result of increased numbers of customers.

I support the policy but consider that it has not been applied in the case of Balsall Common where the proposed developments are in an area of inadequate public transport and will serve to increase car usage in the Borough substantially. This is contrary to the stated policy.

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.

I feel that point 267 should state where the alternate route will lie as it will affect the character of the area quite considerably

The Improving Accessibility paragraph is woefully short on detail. The Council cannot simply state what they want to achieve without telling us how they plan to achieve it. The journey time by bus into Birmingham is currently close to 60 minutes during rush hour. The alternative of rail travel is acceptable but the parking at the local stations are dire, no spaces at Widney or Shirley after 7:30 am. Weekend travel for shopping or visiting relatives is also an ordeal at the moment without the addition of extra housing in south Shirley. Travel time by car through 14 sets of traffic lights along the Stratford Road through Shirley can take 15 minutes for less than 1.5 miles.

New homes in Balsall Common will generate significant increases in traffic in total and in particular on small/narrow roads. Public transport is not adequate. 2 trains an hour already overcrowded at peak times and 1 bus per hour

Feel it is important that the work in paras 266/7 is completed before any consideration of development and housing in BC. The insertion of a bypass, say on line of previous UDC route would fundamentally change the accessibility assessments of most of the proposed BC housing sites, but in public consultation meetings both SMBC officers and elected members seem unwilling to acknowledge this, and the opportunities this would create. As a result considerable time and energy is being expended considering sites that a sensible bypass route / strategy would exclude.
If considering a bypass for BC then it should also address West/East traffic flows. This could be provided by taking a route from near the Saracens Head and proceeding towards the existing A452 roundabout at the George in the Tree, and then following Hallmeadow Road and onto the old UDC bypass line, largely in the existing railway line corridor to rejoin existing A452 where it currently forks to go to Kenilworth / Meer End. A spur could also be developed to link to Westwood Heath Road in order to access S of Coventry and University, as much of this corridor will be blighted by HS2 route and its construction so loss of Green Belt amenity would be minimal.

On a separate note, given how much is made of JLR links and the UK Central hub, I feel the plan should investigate the feasibility of some form of rapid transit link from UK Central to Solihull Town Centre / station and the Lode Lane JLR site, in order to encourage public transport usage, improve the viability of Solihull Town centre and reduce car traffic to the new Interchange station.

more pie in the sky talk about none car modes of transport, walking and cycling. and no detail on the metro and rapid transit , both of which could be disruptive and take more land dependant on the route .Solihull dont have a great track record for sustainable travel. Resort World and the Arena at the NEC have been allowed but they are not on a main bus route or accessible except by car

In Balsall Common, I would really welcome a bypass. The traffic is vey heavy and fast during rush hour. I walk along Kelsey Lane to the primary school. It feels unsafe as lorries and cars speed along the road many doing over the 30mph speed limit. With the proposed housing development there will be more cars on the road. Parents will be put off walking from the new housing development due to the unsafe levels of traffic on Kelsey Lane, Alder Lane, Kenilworth Road.

Balsall Common public transport is inadequate to support travel to work for most people. A bypass will be needed but will bring major issues if it uses Hallmeadow Road which has a Doctors Surgery and housing estates off it. It is also used as overspill parking for the station car park.

Homes should be built where public transport is available at frequency greater than 30 minutes or 15minutes

The distance to a regular bus route is nearly half a mile. This is excessive, particularly in bad weather, for the elderly or ill, and when carrying heavy bags.
However, two of the three proposed developments for Balsall Common (Barrets Farm and Windmill Lane) are so large that a large percentage of the dwellings will be OUTSIDE this criteria.

The impact of car travel demands will be huge:
*GRIDLOCK in the village centre
*peak travel commuter trains will be DANGEROUSLY FULL/INADEQUATE
*station car park OVERFLOW will double to 400 yards up the "bypass".
The developments SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED.