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

None of the existing or proposed developments in Balsall Common meets the requirements of point 2 P7. Additional parking will be needed at the train station especially if Hall Meadow Road would no longer be used for overflow vehicles(would become part of the by-pass). Better train service essential as current one is already at full capacity(standing AND seating ) at peak times.

All proposed developments in Balsall Common will be car dependent. Under Policy P8 it states in these circumstances the Council would be unlikely to support such developments

Your policy reads well but the housing areas proposed for Balsall Common do not follow it.

If you are going to build 800 homes you can put in a new bus route to service it. Wherever you build houses they will be within half an hour's walk of Berkswell train station .

The simplest way to manage congestion and access id to build housing where the road capacity is, and avoid putting it at the wrong end of a village. Balsall Common development should be at the north of the village, with perfect access to motorways and HS2.

Do not agree with the HS2 Strategy.

In rural locations such as Balsall Common and Berkswell you must recognise that public transport of the frequency you envisage is unlikely to be sustainable, its not commensurate with life style of community that is predominantly rural and dormitory travelling fair/major distances to work, this is what people do, you don't seem able to recognise it. If buses are put in place they are unlikely to be sustainable.. In large towns/cities buses do work but rural locations 6+ miles from a nearby big town or city its doomed. Improve the rail frequency and build a bigger car park.

Need to provide significantly improved cycling and pedestrian routes. Also need much better public transport tfrom Solihull town centre o Birmingham airport and business parks.

Not enough parking at Shirley and Whitlock's End railway stations, cars parked on residential roads,

Why is Balsall Common regarded as a sustainable transport location? Bus services are intermittent and do not run in evenings. Journey times to Solihull are very slow due to the indirect route adopted. There are only 2 local train services per hour in each direction with over 40 minutes gap and services are often overcrowded. Local roads are poorly maintained and often dangerous for cycling. Employment opportunities in the vicinity are limited meaning residents have to travel for work. All these will serve to limit the delivery of affordable housing which is often dependent on good public transport links.

I am in general agreement but am concerned that the focus of developments proposed in Balsall Common will have the effect of increasing car use in contradiction to the overall intentions of the policies. The only explicit improvement mentioned is a bypass route for the A452. Extensive new housing is proposed despite existing public transport being insufficient to comply with the criteria specified, and the mix of housing may not lead to adequate usage for any improvements such as an evening bus service or more frequent train services.

Why is Balsall Common regarded as a sustainable transport location? Bus services are intermittent and do not run in evenings. Journey times to Solihull are very slow due to the indirect route adopted. There are only 2 local train services per hour in each direction with over 40 minutes gap and services are often overcrowded. Local roads are poorly maintained and often dangerous for cycling. Employment opportunities in the vicinity are limited meaning residents have to travel for work. All these will serve to limit the delivery of affordable housing which is often dependent on good public transport links.

The Council is unlikely to support developments:

*where the impacts of increased delay to vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists, taking account of the residual cumulative transport effects of development, are severe. This would indicate that all other forms of development will be supported. This is not sustainable. There needs to be far more restrictions on the private car.

HS2 should not be supported and the threats to the future of Meriden Gap should be rejected.

Allocation 13 has not obvious access to main roads with little or no options to be improved via Bills Lane or Tamworth Lane
Shirley & Whitlocks end train station car parks are over current capacity with not many options to improve and already has issues with parking in local side road and estates

see attached letter

With the increase of new residence we can look forward to yet more cars park in our residential road with people looking for parking space to use the train, buses and shops. Haslucks Green Road enjoys almost traffic jams at present so we will be able to enjoy a complete gridlock should all the 41% be realised. This brings me back to health issues. Pollution from additional traffic is yet another increase to be looked forward too.

However, it makes me question why you have picked Balsall Common for development? We do have a train station, but this does not go to places like Solihull, Warwick etc and the bus service isn't great!

If you want to build in BC, you need to improve public transport links otherwise your idea to manage car use will be mute!

Departure from existing policy regarding access to public transport not acceptable.
By densely building at Barratts Farm will increase car useage. No exit onto Meeting House Lane due to H & S!!
Existing walks and paths will be pushed much further out of the village.
The availability of car parking at the station is currently totally inadequate - cars parking almost on the roundabout at the station every working day! This can only get worse if the planned disproportionate increase in housing is allowed to go ahead

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Local Plan Review (LPR) outline the 3 reasons for the review, which can be summarised as the need to make new development allocations, including those related to transport infrastructure (the HS2 Interchange), and the associated need to review Green Belt boundaries. Motorway Service Areas (MSAs) comprise major transport related development for which there is an overriding need within Solihull (set out subsequently). Any MSA within Solihull will, through locational necessity, need to be sited within the current Green Belt. Accordingly, it is self-evident that the LPR is the appropriate point in time for the Council to allocated a site for a MSA and make the appropriate release of land from the Green Belt.
Paragraphs 268 - 270 of the LPR outline the case of need for an MSA within Solihull Council's administrative area, between junctions 3a and 7 on the M42. However, this is rather understated. The factual position is:
* In 2009 the Secretary of State determined: "....there remains a significant unmet need for one additional MSA serving traffic travelling in both directions on this stretch of the M42, and that this need is somewhat greater than that which existed in 2001..."
* Subsequent to 2009:
o The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 paragraph 31 has identified that: "The primary function of roadside facilities for motorists should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user."
o New Government policy has been published (DfT Circular 02/2013) that seeks to ensure that drivers have the opportunity to stop and take a break at intervals of no more than 30 minutes travelling time (typically 28 miles or less). This indicates that if a gap of more than 30 minutes travelling time or 28 miles exists between MSAs, then the 'need' for a new MSA is established.
o Automated Traffic Management (ATM) has been installed on the M42 which has significantly increased its vehicular capacity and thus attractiveness to motorists. Traffic flows on this part of the M42 have materially increased since 2009.

Existing distances between MSAs on this part of the motorway network considerably exceed the maximum gap on both travelling time and distance. The actual gaps differ depending on routeing, but there are at least seven routes in excess of 35 miles, four of which exceed 45 miles. As a consequence, the need for a new MSA has unequivocally been established.

The planning application submitted by Applegreen plc for the new Shirley MSA on the M42 at junction 4 establishes that are no other potential on-line sites (i.e. between existing junctions) that could accommodate an MSA and comply with highway standards as set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. It then considers each of the relevant junctions on the M42 (3a to 7) and demonstrates that only two offer any potential for the development of an MSA, at junctions 4 and 5. It then draws the conclusion that of these potential alternatives, an MSA at junction 4 is clearly preferable in overall planning terms. Furthermore, there are no proposals for an MSA at junction 5, whilst there is a duly made planning application for an MSA at junction 4, which would meet the identified need.

In this context we recognise that the LPR references the undetermined planning application for an MSA at Catherine de Barnes. However, in light of Highways England's proposals for the improvement of junction 6 of the M42, to accommodate the HS2 interchange plus other major employment development, the Catherine de Barnes MSA proposal is no longer deliverable within an acceptable timeframe, if at all. In short, Highways England has consulted on 3 options for the improvement of junction 6. Options 1 and 2 result in the Catherine de Barnes proposal becoming an off-line scheme located on a new motorway junction. Option 3 wholly precludes an MSA at Catherine de Barnes. Highways England do not propose to have a final scheme for junction 6 until 2019.

Notwithstanding this fundamental barrier to the expeditious delivery of an MSA at Catherine de Barnes, the proposal has significant other planning barriers in respect of:
* The quantum of Green Belt that would need to be lost;
* The loss of Ancient Woodland;
* Impacts upon the setting of a Grade ll* Listed Building and a Conservation Area;
* The loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land.

Table 1 (attached) provides a comparison of key planning issues faced by the Catherine de Barnes MSA proposal when compared to the Shirley MSA proposal at junction 4. The starkest illustration of the difference between the two proposals is that the Catherine de Barnes MSA application boundary is 61.75 hectares compared to just 9.9 hectares for the Shirley MSA scheme at junction 4.

Based on the foregoing, it is submitted that there is an overriding need for an MSA on the M42 within Solihull; and that there is only one deliverable site for such a facility i.e. land adjacent to junction 4. Accordingly it is requested, that as part of the LPR, the land identified on Figure 1 (attached) be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for a MSA.

Should the Council not accept the above representation, then it is suggested, as a minimum, that the Proposals Map be updated to identify the junction 4 site as a potential location for an MSA within the Green Belt, noting that any MSA within Solihull Council's administrative area will have to be located in the Green Belt. It is also suggested that the LPR include a specific policy in relation to MSA provision, as outlined below.

Finally, should the Council not accept either of the above representations (allocation or identification on the Proposals Map) it is essential that the LPR includes a policy specific to MSA provision. Any such policy should encompass the following points:
* That the need for a MSA is capable of constituting very special circumstances that could justify the grant of planning permission in the Green Belt.
* That any MSA proposal should seek to minimise the loss of Green Belt land.
* That impacts upon the openness of the Green Belt, and the purposes for including land within Green Belts, should be minimised. Planning permission for an MSA will be granted where the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
* Any MSA proposal should seek to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.
* That any MSA proposal should comply with the other development management policies within the Local Plan in respect of the protection of: public amenity; landscapes (including trees and woodlands); heritage assets; best and most versatile agricultural land; biodiversity; and water resources.

The plan does not take into account that in Balsall Common the social and economic links are closer to Warwickshire and Coventry than with Solihull. Public transport routes need to reflect this.

I generally support these policies but object to the reduction from 3 trains hour hour to a 30 minute service which seems an illjudged justification to allow building in Balsall Common. I wish that SMBC would apply them when making their selection for sites which ignore these policies as far as Balsall Common is concerned. How can SMBC justify not building in Dorridge with its 3 trains per hour but can in Balsall Common where there is no 30 minute train service

The proposal suggests that the A452 associated with HS2 will already cause an increase in traffic. This has to be a strong reason for avoiding the contingent area (Barratts Farm) in Balsall Common.

I agree that with the principles behind the policies to improve accessability and encouraging sustainable travel. However, these have not been applied to the proposed development in Balsall Common. The majority of residents drive to work, many being commuters on the motorway network. This will not change with the proposed development. Despite access from Hall Meadow Road the volume of traffic will increase dramatically. The current train service operates twice an hour in each direction and is only used by a minority. As is the sporadic 87 bus service which operates a few hours per day. Accessibility is not addressed.

Unlike other areas of the borough none of the proposed sites in Balsall Common/Berkswell fulfil the criteria set out in policy 7. All will be heavily car dependent, and do not encourage sustainable travel. Poor rail and bus connectivity 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, and therefore they should all be withdrawn from the Local Plan.

Policy P7

The principle of new development being focused in the most accessible locations and contributing towards the enhancement of existing accessibility levels is supported by Richborough Estates Limited. The Potential Housing Allocations at Frog Lane, Balsall Common (Site 2) and West of Dickens Heath (Site 4) accord, or can be made to accord with, the locational and accessibility criteria of Policy P7.

Policy P8

The Potential Housing Allocations at Frog Lane, Balsall Common (Site 2) and West of Dickens Heath (Site 4), in which Richborough Estates Limited have interests, can or would be able to accord with the criteria in Policy P8 for managing travel demand, reducing congestion and providing parking. Highway consultants have been engaged by Richborough Estates Limited for both draft allocations to address access, linkages and impacts of the highway network.
It would be appropriate for Policy P8 to include thresholds for larger developments being required to include travel planning as part of the scheme.

For reasons set out in response to Question 15 it is considered that the omission of SHELAA site 134 represents a retrograde step in relation to the achievement of a sustainable transport pattern. It is very well located in relation to the rail link to central Birmingham and elsewhere.

At Hockley Heath's consultative event there was great concern over the level of traffic in the village - particularly on School Road and Stratford Road. The roads were described as inadequate, unsafe, narrow, rural and unable to cope with traffic today, let alone future developments. SMBC should instigate formal traffic monitoring to validate the traffic management study with respect to BVP, and HHPC would welcome discussions in this regard.
We acknowledge and welcome the plan's commitment to ensuring new developments are located in locations where reliance on the private car is low, and the statement that developments should be focussed in the most accessible locations, and do not result in the reduction of safety for users of the highway or other transport network.
A freight management strategy which removes the heaviest vehicles from residential roads is a positive move and would be welcomed in Hockley Heath as the Stratford Road (A34) is a relief road for the M40 / M42 network at times of accidents, roadworks and excessive traffic. HHPC would expect SMBC to support HHPC attempts to mitigate traffic impacts from developments, and policy wording to this effect would be welcomed.
The consultative event also demonstrated residents' desire for more cycle lanes / paths and it is disappointing there is so little mention of plans to extend the existing network.
HHPC support the conclusion that a bypass in Hockley Heath is no longer deemed necessary.

In P7, it is futile to expect (as some objectors do), that all housing sites can be built in the most accessible locations. Please also see my answer to the previous question.

Dorridge Station car park capacity could be trebled by making it 3 storey (basement/ground/first) without it being unduly intrusive.

All of Site 9 is within walking & cycling distance of both Knowle & Dorridge centres, and the Station, which makes it a particularly good choice for new housing. Well done.

Balsall Common has a poor bus service to Solihull. A combination of frequency, absence (nothing after 7pm or Sunday) and length of journey does not equate to a service for work purposes or for young people wanting to access town centre facilities in the evening for example.
Bypass improvement lines - the existing roads of Meeting House Lane, Windmill Lane and Station Road (east section) should not be used for bypass purposes.
Cycling and footpath access from new developments must be as direct as possible to encourage use, not tucked away; and pleasant to use.

Whilst these are a good beginning, again they are somewhat pusillanimous. There is little but lip service provided to cycle routes, for example. Solihull has an inglorious history of slapping some paint on a busy road and pretending that it's now a cycle path of some sort. The development about to be started at Blossomfied Road incorporates the standard amount of cycle provision for Solihull infrastructure developments - i.e. none.

These developments offer an opportunity to, at least, build a new approach that offers true separation for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles.

Berkswell Station car park cannot cope with the number of cars on a daily basis. Local roads used for additional parking daily.

At Hockley Heath's consultative event there was great concern over the level of traffic in the village - particularly on School Road and Stratford Road. The roads were described as inadequate, unsafe, narrow, rural and unable to cope with traffic today, let alone future developments. SMBC should instigate formal traffic monitoring to validate the traffic management study with respect to BVP, and HHPC would welcome discussions in this regard.
I acknowledge and welcome the plan's commitment to ensuring new developments are located in locations where reliance on the private car is low, and the statement that developments should be focussed in the most accessible locations, and do not result in the reduction of safety for users of the highway or other transport network.
A freight management strategy which removes the heaviest vehicles from residential roads is a positive move and would be welcomed in Hockley Heath as the Stratford Road (A34) is a relief road for the M40 / M42 network at times of accidents, roadworks and excessive traffic. HHPC would expect SMBC to support HHPC attempts to mitigate traffic impacts from developments, and policy wording to this effect would be welcomed.
The consultative event also demonstrated residents' desire for more cycle lanes / paths and it is disappointing there is so little mention of plans to extend the existing network.

see attached letter