Q20. Do you agree with the policies for quality of place? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

I think it is of great importance that the local areas have a level of protection. they are of historical importance and they add to so much of the great character of Solihull and the borough's appeal.

The term 'very special circumstances' is such a catch all statement it is next to meaningless in my view. Anything could be caught by this and frankly it would appear to be used as a justification for driving through the reduction of green belt. I assume the need for more housing is classed as a special circumstance but this is just an ongoing part of life and would not strike me as justification for the national ongoing erosion of green belt.

Also mention is made of good design , high quality and attractive places. History does not tell use that Solihull are very good at following this through, as any can confirm that has visited Dickens Heath with its cramped, over crowded badly planned layout, and terrible use of plain box type houses and flats with no character at all. This used to be a lovely rural setting and this has gone forever. Replaced with what I sure will be seen in future as yet another Coventry 1950's type development.

Quality is mentioned in several areas and I assume that relates to residents quality of life. It is difficult to see how placing greater burdens on the local roads and schools in Knowle while also providing spaces for travellers really helps to maintain quality. Also, it is difficult to see how the constant erosion of green-belt land is improving quality. It appears that the plans are driven more by the appeal to property investors and political correctness than a real housing strategy.

Policy P17

Add Knowle to the list of settlements when infilling in the Green Belt could take place.

Under Policy P17, limited infilling could take place in settlements such at Chadwick End and Tidbury Green but the same opportunity is not afforded to Knowle. Here, infilling could take place without harm, in roads in the Green Belt such as Lady Byron Lane, Hampton Road and Kenilworth Road.

consideration should be given to ensuring that provision for the elderly should be realistic not all old people are gardeners, but like areas to sit out. long/large gardens not essential.

The policy is right - once again stressing the importance of the Meriden Gap between Solihull and Coventry but it is not being implemented. Astonishingly, the sites proposed on the eastern edge of Balsall Common are in direct contravention of this policy and will eventually lead to total destruction of this part of the Meriden Gap.

Green belt and agricultural land needs to be preserved

No problem with the policy but the plan does not adhere to it.
Balsall Common is within the Green Belt and situated within the Meriden Gap. To the east this is at its narrowest between Solihull and Coventry. A lot of this will be eaten up by the HS2 corridor and proposed trunk road from A46 via Warwick University to the A452/A45. It is not appropriate to take another 57+ hectares out of the Green Belt in this gap.
The disruption caused by these major infrastructure projects should not be exacerbated by further construction work until completion of these projects

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 for development in Balsall Common/Berkswell does not meet the Council's ethos with regard to the Green Belt. Furthermore, it is imperative that any development in the Green Belt must be with clear, definable, and strong defensible boundaries to prevent urban sprawl and loss of this important 'quality of place' asset to future generations.

I agree in theory but I have concerns that Solihull Council's commercial considerations/aspirations will outweigh the need for retaining historical features, nature and the green belt.

I agree with the policies but again I am doubtful that the funding will be available to carry out all of the proposals. The major draft plans for the Shirley are does not take into account retaining gaps between urban developments.

The proposed housing sites west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley would result in the loss of key gaps between the urban area of Shirley and the rural settlement of Dickens Heath; would not conserve and enhance biodiversity due to the loss of trees, hedgerows and ponds and ancient woodland, and would not enhance landscape quality nor protect the character of the countryside.

The proposed housing sites west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley would impact negatively on public rights of way and permissable footpaths which are enjoyed by local residents and would remove opportunities for walking in the countryside and interacting with nature and wildlife observation; and would result in an increase in air pollution and noise from traffic congestion and increased risk of road traffic injuries; and increased flood risk from the increase in hard paving and loss of natural infiltration.

I agree with your policies for place but your actions need to be more ambitious. Adding on to local towns and villages in a way that you hope wont be noticed is not radical enough and will mean services, education, health and the environment will creak under the strain. The LA needs to think about what provision there will be for new residents and outline it clearly for the next 10 years - rather than immediately jumping into developers pockets! Also - and to repeat myself - a sense of place wont be enhanced by building on park and recreational land or allotments!

Policy P15

a) Developers should be required to demonstrate how the proposed development meets the principles of being well planned, designed and sustainable. They should describe what is innovative about the development and what makes it a locally distinctive place, and also describe how parks, play areas, community facilities, open spaces and environmental systems will function and help create the sense of place. Furthermore they should describe how local employment opportunities will be created to support the local community.
In the past it has been argued that smaller developments should be exempt from such requirements, but in places like Knowle where a number of medium sized developments are planned within a small area (resulting in a large development overall), developers should be required to cooperate to produce such statements.
b) 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.

c) Air quality standards should be included in Policy 15 with a requirement for on-going monitoring.

see attached letter

see attached letter

Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan Consultation
I am in receipt of your letter of 8 December 2016 giving notice that our property is adjacent to the Proposed Housing Allocation, 8 Hampton Lane, Knowle. I would like to put forward my opinion and objection to the proposals, which after discussion with many people and neighbours are in line with general opinion.

The proposal for 1050 new homes in Knowle is completely disproportionate with the proposed deployment of new homes elsewhere in the Borough. I have enjoyed living in Knowle for 45 years and have seen many changes, not all to the benefit of the community. However, this proposed expansion will destroy the village atmosphere and make it little more than part of the Birmingham urban sprawl. 50% affordable housing is far too high and will only serve to lower the standard of the existing environment. I believe Government guidelines state that 25% affordable housing is a reasonable objective and see little need for this to be so excessively exceeded.

The present infrastructure will not support this number of homes. New or improved schooling will need to be provided, additional car parking provided, improvement to access roads and additional medical care are a just few of the major considerations.

The current preferred option put forward by Solihull MBC includes just 2 development areas. The Arden Triangle and Hampton Road. This is ridiculous as the majority of the future generated traffic will be centred on the Warwick Road and High Street. Hampton Road is already too busy and its junction with Wootton Close, Arden Vale Road and the existing Football Pitch is an accident waiting to happen. Current street parking in Hampton Road creates poor visibility and interrupted traffic flow. The junction of the High Street with Hampton Road and Lodge Road is a notorious bottleneck. All of these problems will only be exacerbated with the additional homes.

Careful planning of the Arden Triangle could provide The New Schooling, a new Car park and medical centre. There would still be adequate space for the proposed development of up to 750 new homes. Access would be from Station Road and The Warwick Road. If this development is accepted it should be the limit to the development within Knowle itself. Fair use of the money derived from the sale of the Council owned land, and any Section 106 agreement would cover the cost of rebuilding the necessary infrastructure. The remaining homes should be built to the West in say Bentley Heath, where access would be via Widney Manor Road into Solihull, rather than the Warwick Road and motorway connection via the A34 (J4). Additional shopping could be provided together with other essential infrastructure facilities that are clearly missing at present. This would relieve the pressure on Knowle village, with its woefully inadequate parking; it would also be convenient to Widney Manor railway station.

With regards to the Hampton Road Proposal, this should have taken the form of 3 completely separate proposals. Each should be considered independently of one another. If planning permission were to be granted on the Football pitch and woodland, it should be up to the football club to seek an alternative site. The development of the football pitch itself could possibly be accepted, as it would not extend beyond the existing developed frontage of Hampton Road and would form a boundary limit to any future development to the East, within the Green Belt. I note that the plans for the football pitch also include the cricket pitch in one of the documents. This is very misleading and clearly shows that this proposed site is just the thin edge of the wedge. The football club have failed to maintain or improve their existing facilities, so I fail to understand how they can hope to maintain a very much larger complex. The owners of the woodland adjacent to the football pitch are currently felling many trees; I trust that this is being carefully monitored by the Council to ensure that no specimen or mature trees are felled and that TPO's have been put in place.

The creation of a commercial sports complex on the land off Hampton Road, by the canal, would be totally inappropriate within the Green Belt. The proposed site includes inadequate car parking, and the proposed increase in commercial activities is not acceptable within the Green Belt. A visit to the Old Silhillians Club at Copt Heath, on a Sunday morning, will quickly demonstrate the effect that the construction of a similar sports facility will have on the immediate area. There will be car parking all over the proposed new development and down Hampton Road. The Old Silhillian's site includes vastly superior car parking, yet cars are frequently parked on the verges and down Lady Byron Lane. One must also question whether yet another sports complex is actually required. The huge costs in running such a complex will necessitate large scale non sports related activities including: Bar& dining, Conferencing, Discos and other fund raising activities, all within the Green Belt. The use of Section 106 money for the building of this complex would be totally inappropriate; it should be for the benefit of the general local population, not just for the members of a local sports club.

The development of Thacker's nursery and the fields fronting onto Hampton Road, opposite Grimshaw Hall, is an unnecessary extension of the village into the Green Belt. This land has been deliberately neglected in recent years to aid an application for residential housing. It is basically good quality agricultural land which forms a sloping site down to Purnell's Brook. The lower area liable to flooding, and the drainage run off from the new site would greatly exacerbate the problem. . The development of this sloping/elevated site would have a devastating effect on the surrounding and adjoining housing. The area is a haven for wildlife including bats, badgers, birds of prey and other protected species. This land should be brought back into agriculture, rather than being left vacant in the hope of future development. If this proposal succeeds it will encourage more land owners to neglect vulnerable sites, in the hope of getting residential/commercial development.

It is my opinion that Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council have failed in their duty to fully consider all possible sites and have taken the easy option of adopting two professionally submitted proposals, to the exclusion of all other options.
There are several sites within the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath area which have been put up for consideration and overlooked. Inevitably future planning applications will be made on some of these which will be difficult to refuse, as they are eminently more suitable for development than the selected sites. This will result in the continuing urbanisation of the area and further increase the pressure on local facilities.

I therefore urge Solihull MBC to change its proposals and limit the Hampton Road proposed site to the Football pitch only.

Please acknowledge that this letter has been received and passed to the appropriate department.

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

Paragraph 369 - Why although Catherine de Barnes, Meriden, Hockley Heath, Hampton in Arden are not in Green Belt is there specific mention made about conserving their rural setting and special character when considering development proposals yet with regard to Knowle village with its rural setting and special character Area 9 has been selected to develop 750 homes despite this location being Green Belt.

This is an inconsistent stance to take and entirely at odds with the proposed intention to build in Knowle which has a better case for exclusion of building than the villages identified as being special cases.

see attached letter from Tyler Parkes on behalf of the West Midlands Police Chief Constable

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.

Barratts Farm proposed development is in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap

the size and location of new developments on green belt is directly opposite to the objective of sustaining the attractiveness of the Borough and protecting key gaps between urban areas and settlements

Balsall Common developments exclusively in Greenbelt ignoring PDL sites and narrowing the Meriden Gap

I consider that particular policies are inadequate/incorrectly applied. I cite the three proposed massive developments in Balsall Common.

Paragraph 343 - "Strategic importance of the Meriden Gap". There is only one Gap in the Borough and with continued piecemeal "justified excuses" to erode it, will result one day in a Coventry/Solihull urban sprawl. It is strategic, it is green belt, there should be NO PLANNING PERMISSIONS GRANTED for its destruction.

P16 - The "local distinctiveness" of Balsall Common will be DESTROYED by 1350 new homes

P17 - The green belt "visual amenity" will be DESTROYED by 1350 new homes

Yes - BUT are the proposed new developments in line with the ethos of this policy?

Not in the case of Balsall Common - there seems to be total disregard of the policies when the current proposals have been submitted. Balsall Common will cease to have any sense of place.

It should contribute to, or create, high quality places and spaces which have regard to local distinctiveness to achieve high quality, inclusive and sustainable design, ensure effective waste management and strike right balance between green belt protection and provision of required amount of housing, including affordable housing.