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

SMBC policy should ensure that all new housing built in the Borough have a minimum energy rating of A.

Our project contributes positively to SMBC aims 274/279/280; in particular biodiversity and physical and mental health.
As explained in previous answers we also contribute to objectives C, J and K.
We contribute to Policy P10 in sections Arden Landscape and Biodiversity and Geodiversity through our conservation activities including hedgerow management,the planting of trees, hedges and shrubs to break up the area, and species-rich grass land.
This policy also states that 'Developers will be expected to incorporate measures to protect, enhance and restore the landscape.
The Arden development will prevent the positive contribution of the current use of the land.

The Green Belt around Balsall Common is vital in preserving a distinct boundary with Coventry and plays a valuable role within the community both in supporting a vibrant range of wildlife and in providing many paths for recreation,walking etc. The major Barratts Farm development will severely impact this and plans must reflect this by
1. retaining trees and hedgerows
2. preserving green corridors for wildlife, potentially through the creation of substantial green buffers or tree belts to protect existing residents from new build
3. linking such spaces with existing green leisure provision such as the Lant Trust.

The Green Belt around Balsall Common is vital in preserving a distinct boundary with Coventry and plays a valuable role within the community both in supporting a vibrant range of wildlife and in providing many paths for recreation,walking etc. The major Barratts Farm development will severely impact this and plans must reflect this by 1. retaining trees and hedgerows 2. preserving green corridors for wildlife, potentially through the creation of substantial green buffers or tree belts to protect existing residents from new build 3. linking such spaces with existing green leisure provision such as the Lant Trust.

However do they go far enough and have they the strength to stop inappropriate development? The other policies within this document are opposed to the thrust within these policies.

There is a need for a food waste collection service within the borough. This would reduce the amount of food waste and raise awareness of this issue. The collection could support anaerobic technology which could be mentioned in the plan.

I agree with the policy BUT the overloading of additional housing in Balsall Common is NOT consistent with this policy

In general I support the approach but suggest adding
1. All new commercial, retail and industrial development should contain solar generation capacity particularly room top capacity but also on green areas maintained for water run of management
2. All proposals for significant development should demonstrate that they would not add to the risk of flooding or pressure on flood plains

I agree with policies to protect the environment. However, these have not been put in place when proposing the development sites in Balsall Common. The site at Barrett's farm has several ponds throughout it which are vital to land drainage of existing homes and land. These also provide a safe haven for many birds, bats, animals, amphibians such as newts and frogs. Housing on this site is likely be used by two car family commuters which simply encourages carbon emissions and thus climate change. Instead additional housing should be in urban areas where people can walk or cycle to work.

But all three sites selected in Balsall Common/Berkswell fly in the face of policy P10, particularly in protecting the Arden Landscape, green infrastructure assets and habitats, and should be withdrawn from the Local Plan for this reason.

Policy P9
Subject to any energy efficiency measures not going beyond the Government's requirements and being cost effective for a development (i.e. viable), Richborough Estates Limited does not object to the principle of Policy P9. However, Policy P9 should be based upon a fabric first approach to reducing energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions.

By reason of high capital and revenue/management costs, district energy schemes or similar should not be encouraged because they can become financially unsustainable to manage and maintain in the long term without subsidy.

Policy P10

To accommodate the level of growth proposed within the Borough it is inevitable that there will be some effects on the natural environment. There is a need to balance these effects against other objectives, including the priority given by the Government to the delivery of new homes.
As a sequential approach, national or regional biodiversity interests such as Sites of Scientific Interest or locations with significant protected species interest should be preserved and enhanced.

However, the National Planning Policy Framework is generally silent on local biodiversity interests, including wildlife sites. Where practicable such sites should be retained. However, where their loss is likely, and as part of the wider planning balance considerations, then the mitigation of any loss should be taken into account, whether such measures occur on or off-site. Policy P10 currently denigrates off-setting away from the vicinity of a site but this approach could provide better opportunities to enhance biodiversity interests of a greater value than what might be lost. Richborough Estates Limited consider that a less dogmatic and more flexible approach is required towards local biodiversity interests.
The adoption of a flexible approach would have a greater potential to deliver the approach identified in the White Paper Fixing our broken housing market of securing compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.

Policy P11

Subject to any measures for water management not going beyond the Government's requirements and being cost effective for a development (i.e. viability), Richborough Estates Limited does not object to the principle of Policy P11.

Policy P12

For non-waste developments the level of detail required for site waste management plans or similar supporting documents should reflect the type of application, whether outline, full or reserved matters. As an example, outline applications can only realistically address the principles for waste management rather than provide details about where waste storage locations will be sited and the precise number of containers. A proportionate approach should be established in Policy P12.

Policy P14

Richborough Estates Limited consider that further thought should be given to the drafting of Policy P14. Most of the policy's criteria are addressing wider development control matters rather than just 'amenity' considerations. It may be more appropriate to separate out the living conditions of the occupiers neighbouring properties from wider design considerations. In any event, the first criterion of Policy P14 is unnecessary because of Policy P15.

CEMEX UK Materials Ltd. fully supports the continued identification of Marsh Farm as a Preferred Area for the extraction of sand and gravel (Policy P13). It also fully supports the identification of the wider Area of Search as a means of the Borough continuing to contribute towards its consumption of aggregate products.

Hockley Heath largely supports the plan's policies for protecting the environment but is disappointed there is so little mention of the village within the need to protect the natural environment. HHPC would welcome more reference to the canal infrastructure with feedback from Canals & Rivers Trust and historic reference to historic place of "Oakley Heath".
We would also welcome more alternative transport links such as cycle lanes to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
We would also point out that at our consultative event, there was discussion on the issue of poor drainage and flooding of Hockley Heath's roads after rain. This is particularly evident on Stratford Road, and in the gardens of houses on School Road. Requiring developers to have proper sewerage infrastructure for any new developments is a must.
We would add that with the frequent dumping of household and other waste in the roads around our village, the plan's requirement to address the waste capacity in Solihull is welcomed.

One aspect which seems to be overlooked is providing new housing developments that are pleasant to live in. Flat fields crammed with high-density housing, that forces people to live cheek by jowl, are not the answer. A more enlightened approach would be to allow reduced densities in areas, like Knowle, which have a pleasant and more spacious atmosphere, so that new development can be in keeping with the character of existing housing. The southern part of Site 9 (Lansdowne Farm) for example is not flat, and could provide really pleasant developments, surrounding the proposed new public park.

As a resident of Shirley South I am getting increasingly concerned about flooding that is affecting gardens in the area and also the effect of development on the land at Site 13. Site 13 has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land, evergreen forest and mature deciduous trees and hedgerows. There is a network of drainage ditches and well-established farm ponds and also a sink area which is effectively bog land. The area is very wet and for the most part of the winter is very boggy due to the very high water table and the constituent soil composition. This results in heavy flooding across most of this low lying area. Many of the houses that back onto the fields in Langcomb Road experience flooding in their back gardens on a regular basis. A phenomenon that has reduced to an extent following the intensive planting of Christmas trees in the field adjacent to the gardens.
If the proposed development of Site 13 was to go ahead then there would be significant effects on the water table in the area, both in terms of run-off and drainage. The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy from April 2015 doesn't factor in surface water meaning that the flood risk at site 13 is significantly underestimated. The long term predictions are for wetter weather throughout parts of the year. I am concerned that the constraints map used to detail the flood risk across the borough doesn't fully capture all the areas of concern, especially Site 13.

As a resident of Shirley South I am getting increasingly concerned about flooding that is affecting gardens in the area and also the effect of development on the land at Site 13. Site 13 has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land, evergreen forest and mature deciduous trees and hedgerows. There is a network of drainage ditches and well-established farm ponds and also a sink area which is effectively bog land. The area is very wet and for the most part of the winter is very boggy due to the very high water table and the constituent soil composition. This results in heavy flooding across most of this low lying area. Many of the houses that back onto the fields in Langcomb Road experience flooding in their back gardens on a regular basis. A phenomenon that has reduced to an extent following the intensive planting of Christmas trees in the field adjacent to the gardens.
If the proposed development of Site 13 was to go ahead then there would be significant effects on the water table in the area, both in terms of run-off and drainage. The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy from April
2015 doesn't factor in surface water meaning that the flood risk at site
13 is significantly underestimated. The long term predictions are for wetter weather throughout parts of the year. I am concerned that the constraints map used to detail the flood risk across the borough doesn't fully capture all the areas of concern, especially Site 13.

All the mature trees on any proposed development site should be preserved. This doesn't mean building so close to them that they are compromised by movement of machinery during construction as well as not placing them within the gardens of new properties where they all too often are subsequently removed as a perceived nuisance to the homeowner.

I do not agree with the policies put forward by the plan. The scale of development in Balsall Common is surely counter to any purported protection of natural ecosystems, species diversity and the health providing qualities of the external environment for existing residents. important wildlife species (Bats, mice, amphibians, migrating birds, domestic birds etc) all reside within the focused areas. I personally am an active walker of the Meriden gap and wealth of public footpaths that will be lost. the considerable amount of additional run-off from development at Barratts Farm will contribute to flooding, and then there's HS2 to consider

The proposals detailed are useful is as far as they go. Which isn't far. From a B90 perspective, there is no indication that access to public open space has been considered at all. This is already a very urban environment - the plans only increase the urbanisation, without any increase in public open space. Where buildings are currently set in space they are to be demolished and replaced with high-density developments.

Still, at least kids in B90 will be able to play on their Playstations safe in the knowledge that their power is generated sustainably...

Concerns that flood plains will be used to build on. Where will the additional water drain to. Will the local rivers flood and damage the local environment?

Protecting the environment is vital. However, the plans for housing developments on green belt land contradicts the policy on protection the environment. Food security is an important issue and will become even more important in light of Brexit. It is important that the Council doesn't just work to protect the environment but also agricultural land which will give people access to fresh, local produce in the future.

I largely support the plan's policies for protecting the environment but am disappointed there is so little mention of Hockley Heath within the need to protect the natural environment. I would like more reference to the canal infrastructure with feedback from Canals & Rivers Trust and historic reference to historic place of "Oakley Heath".
I would also welcome more alternative transport links such as cycle lanes to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
I would also point out the issue of poor drainage and flooding on Hockley Heath's roads, particularly evident on Stratford Road, and in gardens on School Road.

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

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

Having reviewed the document, whilst is noted that Policy P13 Minerals identifies Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) for deep coal resources in the eastern part of the Borough, I can confirm that we have no specific comments to make at this stage of the Local Plan preparation process.

see attachments

see attached letter and graphics

see attached letter