Q18. Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1861
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Stephen Holt
Broadly support the aims and content of the transport policies but need strengthening, particularly in relation to cycling as per Solihull Connected. The Local Plan needs to recognise that walking and cycling are separate modes that require separate consideration by developers.
New developments should be designed to make footway parking unnecessary.
The Local Plan should contain a policy that all new developments with roads adopted as public highways should include Traffic Regulation Orders to prevent pavement and verge parking. Where a development may lead to similar problems in adjacent areas this requirement might be extended to cover those areas.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1907
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor A Hodgson
There are many welcome elements of this part of the plan. I will be happy if they can be delivered. I am not aware of any decision having been made regarding the location of the new motorway service station between junctions 4 and 6 on the M42.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1996
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Balsall Parish Council
Support a long overdue bypass for Balsall Common to relieve congestion and provide better access for new development. Would create opportunities for cycle paths in the village
Public transport is poor in Balsall Common, this needs to be bettered to accommodate the level of development proposed. A realistic plan for how improvements to public transport are to be achieved must be included in the Local Plan.
see attached report
Balsall Parish Council resolved at the Council meeting on 15 February 2017 to submit this report in response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Consultation ending 17 February 2017
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2032
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: William Davis Ltd
Agent: Define Planning & Design
Policy P7 - Intent is supported but focus is too narrow on accessibility to bus and rail.
30 mins bus frequency is unduly onerous.
Will frustrate development of several sites coming forward.
Conflicts with Atkins Accessibility Study.
Policy should be revised to reflect Para. 17 of NPPF.
see attached letter and graphics
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2087
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Notcutts Limited
Agent: Lichfields
Agree with the principle of directing new development to the most accessible locations.
Support wording of Policy P7 which directs development proposals
for office, retail and leisure development to town centres in the first instance and then "other established locations".
These should include established hubs of activity within the Borough and not be confined to the Birmingham Business Park, Blythe Valley Business Park,
Birmingham Airport and the NEC.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2100
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council
Support policy 7 concerning access to public transport but do not support a reduction on bus service frequency from 15 minutes.
Do not support the change from a 'walking distance of 400m' to a 'distance of 400m'. The policy should be 'walking' distance.
Bus services should be improved or there should be no more homes in Balsall Common. How this public transport is included must be in the plan.
Affordable housing tends to be more reliant on public transport. Poor public transport is incompatible with the 50% affordable housing objective. The level of housing and/or affordable housing should be reduced.
see attached response
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2141
Received: 09/02/2017
Respondent: The NEC group
Support the extension of the metro and Sprint services as per Policy P8 in the DLP (page 3 of representation)
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2144
Received: 09/02/2017
Respondent: The NEC group
Support for Policy P7 and in particular final points of the policy
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2152
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: SMBC - Public Heath & Commissioning Directorate
P7
Remove '/or' from first sentence after bullet iv) and the following paragraph on the basis that both forms of active travel need to be promoted in order to maximise take of these sustainable forms of transport that also promote health.
I've reviewed the proposed plans from a public health - improving health through physical activity perspective and I make the following comments:
Challenges A, C, H, J, K
Are acknowledged with infrastructure that promotes physical activity, a key facet of a healthy lifestyle, that addresses the health inequalities, values the built and green infrastructure and that supports the creation of a health led environment will be crucial to creating a whole system that encourages activity rather than mitigate against it.
To this end Public Health has identified in the draft WM combined authority physical activity strategy supports the adoption of the Sport England and Public Health England 'Active by design' principles and specifying the Lifetime Homes standard in housing.
With respect to the specific policies or options further comment is offered as follows:
P15
We would advocate the adoption of the Sport England/Public Health England Active Design principles as a means of creating the environment to help get people active and sustain that activity creating the health benefit required in the Borough.
P7
Remove '/or' from first sentence after bullet iv) and the following paragraph on the basis that both forms of active travel need to be promoted in order to maximise take of these sustainable forms of transport that also promote health.
P15
The specification of Lifetime homes standard is supported. There needs to be a reference to 'the creation of civic spaces that promote physical activity'.
P18
i) By including 'that promote' sport and 'the differ needs of the diverse population that may use a development'
And rather than 'contribute' in ii and iii 'deliver'.
The reference needs to be to 'accessible' open spaces.
P20
There is a needs to make explicit reference the playing pitches as part of the sports & recreation provision and the playing pitch strategy as evidence.
UK central
As well as encouraging 'improved public transport' there needs to be 'improved opportunities for walking and cycling'.
HS2
Make a significant contribution to the transport issues associated with HS2 with a transport infrastructure that maximises the forms of active travel to and within the site creating a more sustainable and healthier development.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2168
Received: 13/02/2017
Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association
Many of the sites detailed in the plan do not enjoy a service to the levels required by P7 and there is no real commitment to them being provided. The size of the developments which are covered by the policy should be reduced from 100 to 20 as most of them shown in this document are situated next to existing communities whose residents could enjoy the benefit of this policy.
There is nothing in the Draft Local Plan or the Solihull Connected document to ensure that any of the various policy objectives will be achieved or adopted.
see attached response
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2254
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Department for Education
In identifying sites and developing policies for new schools, consideration should be given at an early stage as to how the use of public transport, cycling and walking can be encouraged to help reduce the number of car journeys to and from new schools. The inclusion of a well-developed local authority green travel plan can help to ensure that new schools are better integrated with existing communities. The EFA therefore support Policy P7 'Accessibility and Ease of Access' which broadly reflects these principles.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2276
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Meriden Parish Council
Unless rural travel is improved, it will not reduce inequalities in the area as those residents with disabilities will be discriminated against.
Question whether challenge J Improving health and well being is addressed in these policies. Walking and in particular cycling in Meriden is hazardous due to the rural roads that carry large vehicles with little or no cycle paths. More vehicles on the road increases air pollution. What about the provisions for those with disabilities? Will sustainable travel be dementia friendly?
Speeding traffic is a problem through Meriden.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2308
Received: 06/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs A Wildsmith
Agent: John Cornwell
Support.
see letter from agent on behalf of landowner
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2321
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Highways England
We will require further detail to be provided in relation to the proposed allocations and the transport related policies put forward in the Local Plan Review. This is necessary to consider the implications of the levels of planned growth upon the SRN so as to ensure the potential transport implications of developments are considered and necessary infrastructure is planned accordingly.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2344
Received: 16/01/2017
Respondent: Julie Betts
Should be concentrating on flattening the speed bumps on Tanworth Lane, Stretton Road and Hathaway Road and reducing the amount of noise from motorbikes and them using our roads like a race track.
Good evening,
I have just heard that there has been an interest in the land opposite Miller and Carter, Solihull. The planning application I believe is to build 2000 houses on green fields. Unfortunately I could not make tonight's meeting (copy of minutes please).
I was under the impression there may be some development on Dog Kennel Lane too, so if these developments are agreed, this will mean that the whole of Shirley South will be engulfed with further housing instead of the lovely countryside which drew me to coming from Shirley East.
I live just off Stretton Road and come across traffic queues from Tanworth Lane to Blackford Road/Dog Kennel Lane on my daily commute to central Solihull. This will be much worse once this development is erected. Currently we have the excess traffic from the existing Dickens Heath village plus new developments, Dickens Manor, The Paddocks and Cheswick Place which has definitely increased.
I understand there has been a willingness to sell land from the Christmas Tree farm owners and the Football Ground which I am very surprised.
We have lots of dog walkers, joggers and cyclists go through this area, where will they go now? Also there are steel Pylons through this land, surely that is not suitable building land?
I am very concerned about the old people living round this area and the extra houses and noise.
What you should be concentrating on is flattening the speed bumps on Tanworth Lane, Stretton Road and Hathaway Road and reducing the amount of noise from motorbikes and them using our roads like a race track.
What is going to happen to the pressure on school places with our schools bursting at the seams already? Both Dickens Heath and Woodlands cannot be expanded due to space, no one has thought about this. Why not build at Blythe Valley, right by motorway access? LEAVE SHIRLEY ALONE
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2411
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Ivor Jones
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport apart from Birmingham focused rail is very, very poor in the area
Response to Solihull MBC 23 questions extended consultation on the draft local plan
Question 1 are the right borough challenges identified?
Question 2 agreement with the Borough Vision
Only In a very small part yes, as they are clearly written from an urban Solihull centric perspective, once more bringing into disrepute the belief that Solihull successfully combines a well-balanced combined Urban and Rural vision. Looked at from a holistic position, Solihull MBC in this draft proposal will not be satisfied with following their own policies until an urban jungle is built through the most vulnerable portion of the Green Belt between Berkswell / Balsall Common Parish and Coventry City. Berkswell / Balsall Common is already a congested community with poor infrastructure and very poor public sector connectivity with the local economic centres which are primarily to the East and South ie NOT Solihull.
Adding the proposed disproportionate housing and its resulting population to Berkswell / Balsall Common will simply make the problems worse and continue the belief that SMBC will ignore its own Policy's when they do suit political goals.
Question 3 agreement with Spatial Strategy?
The approach defined for sites being appropriate for development as written looks good with the right priorities, But Unfortunately they have not been adhered to in this draft plan.
Barratt's farm land is Green field land not Brownfield land and has significant drain off issues. And as stressed above the village is virtually bereft of effective public transport The demolition of the Meriden Gap Green belt and its impact on the local ecology of the Green fields, ancient hedge rows and trees will directly effect the existing local residents and families who extensively use the area and its many crisscrossing footpaths for open air exercise and leisure activities. The additional traffic emanating from such a large increase in housing will add to the air pollution provided by poor control of the take off and landing heights from Birmingham Airport, especially the north turn over the settlement
If this land is built on the drain off problem identified above will represent a risk to local adjoining properties to the north and south.
Question 7 regarding sustainable Economic Development?
Good principles. But again not seriously considered in the draft plan with no consideration of the disproportionate building of houses on an already congested and ill planned village centre.
Question11 policy P2 providing homes for all
The total proposed housing numbers are grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing community and will have a very significant detrimental impact on the size, shape, character and environment of Berkswell / Balsall Common as a Rural Village. It is also noticed that while mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.
Question 15 appropriateness of draft proposed sites. As mentioned throughout this response mention is made of how Solihull MBC have failed to follow their own Policies in establishing the appropriateness of the chosen sites and yet proposals for a new village on a brown field site development to the north of the region have been ignored.
Question 16 completeness of required supporting infrastructure to complement the proposed draft development?
While Doctor and Schooling infrastructure is mentioned, no mention is made of shopping, banking etc Banks are withdrawing from Berkswell / Balsall Common and a lack of action on the site to the rear of the Co-op shop allowing it to be isolated from other retail outlets, preventing a cohesive village centre
Question18 sustainable Travel
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport apart from Birmingham focused rail is very, very poor in the area
Question 22 Delivery
CIL payments for local development should be focussed in the local area for locally requested and agreed infrastructure improvements.
Question 23 Any other comment
No explanation has been given to the fact that a grossly disproportionate number of houses are proposed to be built in Berkswell / Balsall Common in an important and sensitive Green Belt area compared with elsewhere in Solihull borough. Such as Dorridge, Knowle or other villages to the South.
There is a very strong perception in the Berkswell / Balsall Common region that Solihull MBC have abandoned the Greenbelt and consciously discarded their own policies and values and have lost what trust they had as a result.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2453
Received: 16/03/2017
Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council
Concern over traffic levels in Hockley Heath.
Acknowledge and welcome the plan's commitment to ensuring new developments are located in locations where reliance on the private car is low and 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.
Disappointing there is so little mention of plans to extend the existing cycling network.
original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2502
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Urban Growth Company
Agent: ARUP
In addition to the requirement for sites to be within 400m of a regular bus service, it is suggested that the unique nature of sites within UKC Hub is also taken into account given the relative proximity and access to a range of existing and future transport facilities.
The area will be the focus for new sustainable travel options both locally, nationally and internationally and will be one of the best connected locations in the country. Proposals for development of individual sites should be considered in the context of wider Hub aspirations in addition to the criteria in Policy P7.
see attached letter and supporting document (The UK Central Hub Growth and Infrastructure Plan)
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2507
Received: 07/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Mark Wilson
Broadly agree.
Greater emphasis should be on 'green buses' as in Norwich.
Metro could extend to Solihull TC, or even Coventry instead of SPRINT.
Extend Metro line along A45 from Birmingham.
Bus lanes add to congestion.
Recognise financial constraints.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2609
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Extra MSA
Agent: Pegasus Group
No mention of role and importance of Motorway Service Area in policies P7 and P8.
Whilst Paragraph 270 notes that significant unmet need remains, it is not clear that in previous appeals the the Secretary of State had concluded harm at Junction 4 exceeded the location close to Catherine de Barnes.
Paragraph 271 is a serious derogation of duty and conflicts with paragraphs 31 and 182 of NPPF.
Circular 02/2013 notes "the maximum distance between motorway service areas should be no more than 28 miles". Exceeded in Solihull and negative impact on highway safety.
see attached response by agent on behalf of Extra MSA group
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2630
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: NFU West Midlands
Farms and rural businesses are totally reliant on car and HGV transport, there is no alternative.
In order for these businesses to remain vibrant their needs must be taken into account when planning investment in the rural transport network.
Concerned that policy P7 will set out a sustainability trap for diversified businesses in the rural areas, particularly if they are not on a rural bus route.
Tourism business in desirable rural locations rely on access by private car, therefore important that new tourism enterprises are allowed to develop in locations other than those that are accessible by public transport.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2707
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mr S Catton
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Policy P7 is too prescriptive and simplistic.
It has restricted wording which prevents a more flexible interpretation of sustainable development to include social and economic considerations.
Should be an 'unless justified by local circumstances' clause like previous Policy P7.
see letter and various appendices supporting site land - between no. 39 and 79 Earlswood Road (The Paddock) and The Orchard, 79 Earlswood Road, Dorridge
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2725
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Michael Cooper
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport, apart from Birmingham focussed rail, is very very poor in this area.
Please find attached my response to your questionnaire which includes my personal concerns regarding my own land which appears to be included in the potential Barrett's Farm development but which has in fact never been offered by me for development.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2813
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Catesby Estates Limited
Agent: WYG
As drafted, Policy P7 expects developments to 'fulfil' a number of requirements for the location of development in terms of access. The policy is onerous and does not contain the flexibility of the PPF which states that development should be focused in locations "which are or can be made sustainable". In order to be found sound Policy P7 should be redrafted to be more flexible and encompass the 'can be made' focus of the NPPF.
see 3 separate letters
1) Land to the rear of Meriden C of E Primary School, Fillongley Road, Meriden
2) Land Hampton Lane, Solihull
3) Land Windmill Lane / Kenilworth Rd, Balsall Common
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2817
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Belle Homes Ltd
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Policy P7 is too prescriptive and simplistic.
It has restricted wording which prevents a more flexible interpretation of sustainable development to include social and economic considerations.
Should be an 'unless justified by local circumstances' clause like previous Policy P7.
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
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2874
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch
policies will not deliver sustainable travel - do not address congestion and pressure on key roads/m42.
- should be proposals for cycle routes and a cycle network
- re-siting of HS2 platforms to Birmingham International to protect the Green Belt east of M42.
-
see attached documents
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2916
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Johnnie Arkwright
Agent: Barton Willmore
Believe our proposal for development around Hatton Station to meet Greater Birmingham HMA's housing needs aligns with Section 8 of DLP, WMCA Movement for Growth strategy and Solihull Connected.
Support principle of Policy P7 of focussing development in most accessible locations.
Hatton station has direct links with Dorridge, Widney Manor and Solihull stations.
see attached letter re: Hatton Station (Warwick District)
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2968
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Mr F J Jackson
see letter
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2982
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Wendy Cairns
- A452 runs through BC and is commuter route, with heavy use during peak hours. increase in traffic on side roads.
- any access to barrett farm development from Meeting house lane, Oxhayes close, Barrets lande/sunnyside lane or even a new access point along the lane will increase the flow of traffic through and into the centre of BC.
Advisable to direct traffic away from centre and out to a feeder/collector road as was done for Riddings Hill.
car use in rural areas is high because PT links are non-sustainable, not available and not commercially viable
- BC bypass line, if needed, should Highway England input
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3059
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross Road) Ltd
Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd
Agree with the 3 policies in this section of the DLP.
see letter