Q19. Do you agree with the policies for protecting the environment? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

I agree with the policies but I am at a bit of a loss to understand how some of the proposed housing plans fit in with the policies. I for instance live on Pinfold Road which is on the boundary of the proposed development off Lugtrout Lane. At the moment I look out across fields, in the last two weeks have seen a Tawny Owl, Barn Owl, Sparrow Hawk, Kestrel, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Cattle in Field .... If the plan goes ahead I will see none of these, I will lose my tranquil view and suffer increased noise.

Overview / Summary

The provisions are lacking in detail in a number of important respects. In particular, existing sand and gravel quarries are not mapped in any way, there is no indication of their expected lifespan and hence an indication of when new facilities will be required. Exploration and pre-application procedures take a long time. Future planning is not assisted by the Council's proposals.

why promote development in Green Belt without accompanying public transport services - another logic leap. Sound very "motherhood and apple pie" - fine words have to be delivered.

one the whole a good idea. BUT From Frog Lane to Meer End, there is open countryside. the nomination of Frog Lane as a development sites is nonsense and contrary to this policy. some clear thinking needed here.

dark sky is important in the countryside. development at Frog Lane Balsall Common is contrary to that. site should be withdrawn

Suggest the Council's green policy is unrealistic and at odds in this part of the Borough - With HS2 likely to come on stream, traffic, and increased airport traffic over the village, how does the Council intend to reduce the noise and pollution around Balsall Common?

Does the Council intend to insist that housing developers create new green spaces for residents? will we need more GP practices? more schools? has the required infrastructure been considered vis a vis "protecting and enhancing the environment"? Council should realistically balance the need for development while protecting the quality of life in Balsall Common.

But with mineral extraction,hs2 construction ,JLR developments it would be reasonable to delay additional housing?

There is not much in this section which I disagree with. However, I do not understand how destroying large areas of Green belt will protect the Arden landscape.

With reference to 287: I would expect that the emissions from cars used by owners of the new, several hundred proposed houses to be built in Knowle would significantly effect air pollution and congestion. The immediate area and main routes into Solihull are already heavily congested for significant periods; the bus services are infrequent, parking at Dorridge Station is insufficient, and the cycle routes become progressively more dangerous the closer to Solihull. I would ask there is a study of the likely emmisions to be undertaken, and that a review of the overall useable, practical alternative transport is undertaken.

Probably, but the Draft Local Plan does not adhere to these principles with regard to protecting the Arden Landscape and protecting key gaps between urban areas and settlements.

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.

But the three sites selected in Balsall Common/Berkswell contradict policy P10, particularly in protecting the Arden Landscape, green infrastructure assets and habitats, and should be withdrawn. Furthermore,policy P11, refers to Sustainable Drainage Systems, and we question whether the full impact of the proposed developments on the existing aging drainage system in the area has been fully assessed.

I hope that there will be enough central funding to deliver all the proposals set out.

The proposed housing sites at west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley should be removed as these two sites do not support the policy of protecting and enhancing the environment given that: would result in the loss of ponds, hedgerows, woodlands and public rights of way; the site west of Dickens Heath would result in the loss of designated ancient woodlands and local wildlife sites; the loss of wildlife corridors between urban areas and rural village settlement of Dickens Heath that support legally protected species including badgers, bats and great crested newts.

I agree, but again with the Frog Lane you are building on green belt land, including parts and allotments, and next to ancient meadow land which seems to me counter to your policies - which I agree with.

see attached letter

Letter from Agent - Turleys - see attached

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

Policy P10 Natural Environment
Whilst we are pleased to see the references to ancient woodland in the 'Biodiversity and Geodiversity' paragraph of Policy P10, it still does not reflect national planning policy as we highlighted in our earlier Issues & Options consultation response in November 2015. We therefore raise two objections to this Local Plan Review document -
1. The reference to ancient woodland in the 'Biodiversity and Geodiversity' paragraph of Policy P10 should also include a reference to ancient and veteran trees.

It is crucially important that there is no further avoidable loss of ancient and veteran trees through development pressure, mismanagement or poor practice. The Ancient Tree Forum (ATF) and the Woodland Trust would like to see all such trees recognised as historical, cultural and wildlife monuments scheduled under TPOs and highlighted in plans so they are properly valued in planning decision-making. There is also a need for policies ensuring good management of ancient trees, the development of a succession of future ancient trees through new street tree planting and new wood pasture creation, and to raise awareness and understanding of the value and importance of ancient trees. The Ancient Tree Hunt (http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/) is designed specifically for this purpose and has identified ancient trees like the ancient Sweet Chesnut (grid ref: SP153 803) at the Lode Lane intersection with the Solihull Bypass.

'Keepers of Time' (Defra, 2005) - now re-affirmed in the Government's Forestry Policy Statement - requires that: 'Ancient and native woodland and trees should make an increasing contribution to our quality of life....Take steps to avoid losses of ancient woodland and of ancient and veteran trees' (P.10/11).
Other local authorities are already including support for protection of ancient trees in their planning documents -

Torbay Local Plan (adopted December 2015) Policy C4 - Trees, hedgerows and natural landscape features
"Development will not be permitted when it would seriously harm, either directly or indirectly, protected or veteran trees, hedgerows, ancient woodlands or other natural features of significant landscape, historic or nature conservation value".
Deane Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (adopted Dec 2016) Policy ENV1: Protection of trees, woodland, orchards and hedgerows
"Development should seek to minimise impact on trees, woodlands, orchards, historic parklands and hedgerows of value to the areas landscape, character or wildlife and seek to provide net gain where possible. Where the loss is unavoidable, the works (or development) should be timed to avoid disturbance to species that are protected by law. Adequate provision must be made to compensate for this loss. Development which would result in the loss of Ancient Woodland, Aged or Veteran Trees will not be permitted. The proper management of this resource for nature conservation purposes will be sought".
2. The wording of the ancient woodland protection in the 'Biodiversity and Geodiversity' paragraph of Policy P10 does not provide the absolute protection, other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, that ancient woodland requires. We would also like to see mention of Natural England and the Forestry Commission's standing advice for Ancient woodland and veteran trees: protecting them from development - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences.

Emerging national policy is increasingly supportive of absolute protection of ancient woodland and ancient trees. The Communities and Local Government (CLG) Select Committee published its report following its June 2014 inquiry into the 'Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)', in which it has specifically recognised the need for better protection for ancient woodland (Tues 16th Dec 2014). The CLG Select Committee report states: 'We agree that ancient woodland should be protected by the planning system. Woodland that is over 400 years old cannot be replaced and should be awarded the same level of protection as our built heritage. We recommend that the Government amend paragraph 118 of the NPPF to state that any loss of ancient woodland should be "wholly exceptional". We further recommend that the Government initiate work with Natural England and the Woodland Trust to establish whether more ancient woodland could be designated as sites of special scientific interest and to consider what the barriers to designation might be.' http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmcomloc/190/190.pdf.
This shows a clear direction of travel, recognising that the NPPF does not currently provide sufficient protection for ancient woodland. Until the NPPF is amended there is a clear role for Local Plans and associated documents to provide this improved level of protection and to ensure that irreplaceable habitats get the same level of protection as heritage assets enjoy under the NPPF.

This is already being reflected in local planning policy -

The Bristol City Council - Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (Adopted July 2014) [part of Local Plan) Policy DM17: Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure
"Trees
All new development should integrate important existing trees. Development which would result in the loss of Ancient

Torbay Local Plan (adopted December 2015) Policy C4 - Trees, hedgerows and natural landscape features
"Development will not be permitted when it would seriously harm, either directly or indirectly, protected or veteran trees, hedgerows, ancient woodlands or other natural features of significant landscape, historic or nature conservation value".
Deane Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (adopted Dec 2016) Policy ENV1: Protection of trees, woodland, orchards and hedgerows
"Development should seek to minimise impact on trees, woodlands, orchards, historic parklands and hedgerows of value to the areas landscape, character or wildlife and seek to provide net gain where possible. Where the loss is unavoidable, the works (or development) should be timed to avoid disturbance to species that are protected by law. Adequate provision must be made to compensate for this loss. Development which would result in the loss of Ancient Woodland, Aged or Veteran Trees will not be permitted. The proper management of this resource for nature conservation purposes will be sought".
We propose amended wording to the ancient woodland protection in the 'Biodiversity and Geodiversity' paragraph of Policy P10 to read (upper case amendments) - Designated sites, ancient woodland, ANCIENT AND VETERAN TREES and priority habitats SHALL BE PROTECTED OTHER THAN IN WHOLLY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND shall include the establishment of buffers to any new development so that they connect with existing and created green infrastructure assets.

We would also like to see protection for ancient woodland and ancient trees, as well as support for new woodland creation, set out in a separate dedicated Trees & Woodland Policy, backed up by a Trees & Woodland SPD.

Policy P14 Amenity
We are pleased to see the support for protecting existing trees, hedgerows and woodlands, as well as the support for new woodland creation. We note that the listed abbreviations include a reference to the WAST (Woodland Access Standard) but there is no reference to this anywhere in the Local Plan Review text.
We assume that this is derived from research by the Woodland Trust set out in our Space for People publication - https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/publications/2015/02/space-for-people/. We believe that the WASt can be an important policy tool complimenting other access standards used in delivering green infrastructure for health benefits.

The WASt is complimentary to Natural England's ANGST+ and is endorsed by Natural England (further details on Space for People can be provided on request). The Woodland Trust Woodland Access Standard recommends:
- that no person should live more than 500m from at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 2ha in size
- that there should also be at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 20ha within 4km (8km round-trip) of people's homes.

We would therefore like to see the WASt referenced in the supporting text for Policy P14 Amenity.

I agree but I am concerned about the plan for housing between Lougtrout lane and Pinfold Road. These are fields on green belt with mature hedges and lines of trees separating the fields and around the edge of the fields, including a fairly wide strip of trees and hedges at the back of Pinfold road. I would hate to think it would be considered ok to remove any of this. In fact I think it is important these boundaries are extended, wider green area's not only allowing more wildlife to travel along the boundaries but also potentially to block the view and noise of any development.

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.

Building on Barratts Farm could cause significant drainage issues when coupled with HS2 and increase flooding risk which is already an issue at Berkswell Station

Building in the Meriden Gap at it's narrowest point is a major concern. Building on Barratts Farm will impact local drainage especially when coupled with HS2 works. The station underpass already regularly floods.

Agree

"Quality of life" is referred to in this section. I do not consider that the Council's proposals will achieve this.

I cite the impact on the current population of Balsall Common of the three proposed developments in the village. If these are allowed:
*green belt space is further eroded, and critically, THE MERIDEN GAP IS FURTHER REDUCED
*the near doubling in size of the village will irrevocably destroy the character and nature of the village
*it will become a herculean task for the falling relative academic standards of the overscribed secondary school to be turned round. CHILDREN WILL SUFFER

Yes even though the developments proposed within the document seem to be at odds with Policy P10- particularly as regards the Arden Landscape. I do question as regards Policy P11 (water management)as to whether the impact of additional proposed developments for Balsall Common has been fully considered in respect of the existing drainage system in the village

However, when you look at Balsall Common proposal it would appear that these policies have either been ignored or their has been a lack of assessment of the impact of the proposed developments

There is no clear commitment to protect the Meriden gap to stop the sprawl towards Coventry or preserve green belt close to existing residential areas.

In addition to renewable energy and energy efficiency there has to be local energy plan to ensure that domestic heating commercial heating and road transport can be decarbonised to ensure that carbon reduction targets can be met.