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

Allocation 13 .There is less than one kilometre of open green fields between Shirley and Dickens Heath at this moment, building on this land will leave a very narrow corridor/airfield of green belt land, with no public footpaths.

Our current use of the land which may become part of the Knowle Arden Triangle development contributes to Policy 15 challenges C,F,J.K.
Additionally we hope that the developers conform to the Policy by altering the boundary line to allow us to retain of land for the delivery of mental health services. The policy states that developments must demonstrate that it 'respects and enhances landscape quality, including trees, hedgerows and other landscape features of value and contributes to strategic green infrastructure'.

The policy should acknowledge and address the impact on Balsall Common. Large scale developments are already leading to the creation of a disconnected series of housing estates rather than a broader community and every attempt must be made to avoid this. Adoption of a series of smaller sites rather than the Barratts Farm large site would assist in this.
The policy does not recognize that there is significant impact on green belt at Balsall Common. Specifically Meeting House Lane is a rural lane and plans must be adjusted to maintain this without significant loss of local amenity.

The policy should acknowledge and address the impact on Balsall Common. Large scale developments are already leading to the creation of a disconnected series of housing estates rather than a broader community and every attempt must be made to avoid this. Adoption of a series of smaller sites rather than the Barratts Farm large site would assist in this. The policy does not recognize that there is significant impact on green belt at Balsall Common. Specifically Meeting House Lane is a rural lane and plans must be adjusted to maintain this without significant loss of local amenity.

Future generations will not thank us for allowing Green Belt to be used. The ONLY alternative is to build UP.
I am in my 50s and thinking back to when I was bringing up a family, I would rather live a few floors up, with good size rooms & have easy access to Green Belt/ recreational parks than tiny living space & a postage stamp size back garden.
Other major cities in the work accept high rise living as the norm & sometimes it is the most sought after. High rise living should be considered

Although I agree with most of the policies I do not understand how this allows or justifies the allocation of 20% of the new housing plan to Balsall Common - in Green Belt and also in Meriden Gap.
The quality of new houses is also an issue - if the model recently seen in Elysian Gardens development on Kenillworth Road - then SMBC will have a massive problem in the future

see attached letter

The Green Belt is there to be protected. Balsall common and Berskwell are in the Green Belt, and are not suitable areas for any further housing

Balsall Common should be added to the list of settlements shown in Policy 17 at the bottom of page 119 that are classified as inset within the greenbelt.

I agree with policies for quality of place. However, this has not been addressed in the proposed sites in Balsall Common. Greenbelt land has been used over brownfield sites which is unacceptable. Key gaps between urban settlements of Balsall Common and Berkswell have not been maintained. The village will loose its identity as a village and become a small souless commuter town servicing the motorway. Residents of Balsall Common already have increased traffic and congestion, noise pollution from the airport, the proposed HS2 development to contend with. Do not place further stress on our community by siting these developments.

While agreeing with the policies, all three sites proposed for development in Balsall Common/Berkswell fail to meet the Council's ethos with regard to the Green Belt. 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, and I am pleased that SMBC have dismissed development of Grange Farm in the site selection as there would be no defensible boundary between Balsall Common and Hampton if this was allowed.

The current design guides are inadequate for the needs of Rural Village settlements as evidenced by the recent 'Middlefield Spring' scheme by TW in Knowle.
Local Design standards from agreed Neighbourhood Plans should be a material consideration in deciding planning applications.

7. Do you agree with the policies for the quality of place? If not why not and what alternatives would you suggest?
7.1 Policy 15 seeks to ensure that new development achieves delivery of high quality places which achieve inclusive and sustainable principles of design.
7.2 The policy seeks to ensure that new development responds to climate change and meets the requirements of Part M of the Building Regulations.
7.3 The government has created a new approach for the setting of technical standards for new housing. This rationalises the many differing existing standards into a simpler, streamlined system which will reduce burdens and help bring forward much needed new homes. The government set out its policy on the application of these standards in decision taking and plan making in a written ministerial statement, which also withdraws the Code for Sustainable Homes.
7.4 Given that all new residential development will need to meet the requirements of Building Regulations, BDW and Gallagher Estates Ltd are concerned that the reference to such through Policy 15 is unnecessary and simply repeats national planning policy.
7.5 Additionally, Policy 15 requires adherence of new residential development to the principles of Secured by Design.
7.6 Whilst BDW and Gallagher Estates Ltd are supportive of measures to improve the design quality of new development, mandatory Building Regulations covering the physical security of new dwellings came into force on 1 October 2015 and planning authorities should no longer seek to impose any additional requirements for security of individual dwellings through plan policies.
7.7 As drafted, Policy 15 would be unsound as it would not comply with national policy.
Actions required to achieve soundness
7.8 Policy 15 should be amended by omitting reference to the need to achieve compliance with Building Regulations as this is a requirement of other legislation.
7.9 Reference to Secured by Design should be omitted as this is now addressed through Building Regulations.

Policy P15

The White Paper Fixing our broken housing market is indicating a change to national policy to recognise the value of using a widely-accepted design standard, such as Building for Life 12, and making it clear that this should be reflected in plans and given weight in the planning process. Richborough Estates Limited does not object to this as a matter of principle.

However, the dogmatic application of national standards and the other advice/guidance contained in the documents referred to in Policy P15 should be avoid because, in some circumstances, they can stifle innovation, originality or initiative design of the type referred to in the National Planning Policy Framework. Master plans for developments should fit their context because there is no a one size fits all approach available in national design guidance which can be adopted in all cases.

Policy P17

As sought under Policy P20 and the site-specific representation concerning land West of Dickens Heath (Potential Housing Allocation 4), Richborough Estates advocate the removal from the Green Belt of the land generally contained by Tythe Barn Lane, Tilehouse Lane and the Stratford upon Avon Canal to the north of Dickens Heath as a specific allocation for outdoor sports and recreation, namely a Community Sports Hub.

However, in the alternative, the current drafting of Policy P17 is such that a change of use of land to accommodate outdoor sports and recreation uses requires very special circumstances. Richborough Estates Limited object to this policy because it should be amended to enable such changes of use in Solihull Borough to be regarded as not inappropriate development.

Although the forthcoming amendment to the National Planning Policy Framework cannot be fully known at the current time, one of the potential matters which could be addressed is the re-instatement of the previous policy which allowed for changes of use of land provided such uses do not adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt. The reintroduction of this policy would address the anomaly that buildings associated with sports and recreation uses in the Green Belt may be considered as not inappropriate development. The White Paper Fixing our broken housing market has started to consider this point by suggesting that facilities for cemeteries may be included in the Framework as not inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is a response to Case Law.

Irrespective of any change to the Framework, if the Borough Council wishes to promote a healthy lifestyle for its residents then the opportunity exists for Policy P17 to support outdoor sports and recreations uses within the Green Belt by allowing changes of use of land provided the individual proposals preserve the openness of the Green Belt. The need for very special circumstances can be obviated by a redrafting of Policy P17.

If there are concerns that such an amendment would be drafted too widely a refinement could be that the Proposals Map identifies areas where such changes of use within the Green Belt would be assessed as not being inappropriate development. In this context, Richborough Estates would encourage the Council to identify land generally contained by Tythe Barn Lane, Tilehouse Lane and the Stratford upon Avon Canal to the north of Dickens Heath as a location within the Green Belt for outdoor sports and recreation as part of Policies P17 and P20. The principle of land being identified for such uses and remaining in the Green Belt has been incorporated into the Warwick District Local Plan to the south of Kenilworth. This assumes that the land is not, as advocated by Richborough Estates, taken out of the Green Belt and allocated as a Community Sports Hub.

The provision of a Community Sports Hub can deliver the approach identified in the White Paper of securing compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining Green Belt land, particularly for community, sporting and recreation purposes.

It is considered that the Proposals Map should be altered to exclude from the Green Belt all land between Widney Manor Road and the railway line in the vicinity of 114 -118 Widney Manor Road in order to facilitate allocation of the site as housing land. It is suggested that this apply to all the ribbon of development surrounding and to the north of Widney Manor Station.

This note invites officers concerned with the Local Plan to visit the site.

Please see uploaded attachment

P15/ Securing Design Quality
The key objectives of contribute or create high quality places & spaces; regard local distinctiveness and achieve high quality, inclusive & sustainable design are appropriate. P15 also suggests that there should be engagement in pre planning decisions, there are concerns in relation to current levels of engagement with developers and SMBC in relation to recent planning decisions and consultation on local developments (i.e. BVP). The policy would need to outline in more detail the terms and levels of pre planning consultation.
P16/ Conservation of Heritage Assets & Local Distinctiveness
Yes, agree with the principles of P16. In a recent consultation with local residents key feedback was that residents felt it important to keep the "village feel" of HH and remain its rural character.
P17/ Countryside & Green Belt
Agree with policy that inappropriate development will not be permitted in the Solihull green belt. Concerns raised by HHPC/Residents Association and residents at local consultation that plan states that small settlements of ........, HH, which are inset in the green belt are not subject to green belt policy. Following recent planning decisions in and adjacent to HH there are concerns that SMBC will not take into account the importance of the rural setting and note any feedback or objections from HHPC and residents of HH. The importance of maintaining the distinctiveness of HH and its separation with Dorridge should be reinforced in the Local Plan.
Any further development in HH would put significant strain on the already inadequate infrastructure of the village. Poor quality roads, which are regularly affected by traffic congestion on local motorways (M42/M40) would be further affected with additional developments resulting in an increase in traffic.
Feedback from residents urge SMBC to consider brown field sites as a priority for re development before green belt areas.

There is much to support in these policies. Mention additionally should be made of air quality and the contributions to poor air quality from housing, industry and vehicles. More efficient design standards can reduce the need for increased heating demands usually provided from gas combustion which contributes to climate change and poor air quality.

Balsall Common originated from several hamlets and farms and benefits from the character these provide. There are over 20 listed cottages, farmhouses, inns, barns, some dating from the 17th century, as well as a Grade 2* windmill. These add hugely to the street character of Station Road, Meeting House Lane, Frog Lane, Balsall Street East etc. Despite your rather skewed description of Balsall Common as suburban cul-de-sacs with a station on the Birmingham/London rail line, this is not its dominant character and should not be presented in this way. Sounds as if there is nothing to regard of value.

The development of green belt land in Balsall Common to my mind does not qualify special circumstances as Solihull has not illustrated why. Removal of a vast swathe of the quotably important Merdien Gap at Barratts Farm is not in agreement with the national or local guidelines on protecting the green belt. What does Government think of the proposed destruction of the green belt? This proposal needs to be escalated and ratified by the highest national powers if we as residents are to believe the circumstances are special enough to build over a 1000 homes on virgin green belt.

The plan talks about distinctive places - but the plan, and Solihull's actions over the past few years, show that as far as Shirley is concerned, the Council isn't prepared to pay even lip service to the built environment. It has encouraged the demolition of distinctive buildings, encouraged development on public realm (and then not benefited financially after all). Solihull Council gives no impression that it considers Shirley as anything other than a cash cow for the local authority. This plan does little to dispel this impression, with no plans for the Quality of the Shirley Place.

It should not be necessary to build on large green belt sites as this leads to a significant reduction in quality of life for people living close to these spaces.
Agricultural land should be kept whenever possible. In light of Brexit there is more pressure than ever on the production of local agricultural produce. Keeping agricultural land safe from housing developments should be a key priority for the Borough Council

I would highlight in P16/ Conservation of Heritage Assets & Local Distinctiveness
Yes, agree with the principles of P16 but would like it emphasised how important it is to Hockley Heath to keep the "village feel" and remain its rural character.
In respect of P17/ Countryside & Green Belt
Agree with policy that inappropriate development will not be permitted in the Solihull green belt. Concerns raised by HHPC/Residents Association and residents at local consultation that plan states that small settlements of ........, HH, which are inset in the green belt are not subject to green belt policy. Following recent planning decisions in and adjacent to HH there are concerns that SMBC will not take into account the importance of the rural setting and note any feedback or objections from HHPC and residents of HH. The importance of maintaining the distinctiveness of HH and its separation with Dorridge and Blythe valley should be reinforced 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

see attachments

Solihull LPR Site 16

As a resident of Lugtrout Lane, I wish to voice my concerns over the possible building of 650 new homes according to the LPR ref. Site 16. I recognize that SMBC have to provide a solution to the identified housing shortage, but I ask you to review your intention to include this particular site in the plan on the grounds listed below.

1) Building on Green field land.

2) Potential loss of prime agricultural land

3) Loss of accessible recreational sports facilities which seems contradictory to Challenge J Improving health and wellbeing for everyone (page22 Draft Local Plan)

4) The field is within the Meriden Gap an area that you have recognized is under considerable development threat and should be protected where possible. It is possible to meet your own commitment by not promoting this site for development.

5) Whilst you recognize that most of the bordering roads will need upgrading I do not believe this will go anywhere to resolving the ongoing traffic issues that this area is constantly subjected to: widening roads does not reduce traffic. Promoting a site of 650 dwellings will ultimately result in potentially 6000 + traffic movements per day. The continual expansion of JLR facilities will result in increase in traffic particularly on Damson Parkway and Lugtrout Lane, which will be exacerbated by the movements to and from dwellings. Policy P8 suggests that the Council is unlikely to support developments where the increased delay to vehicles is severe.

6) Upgrading two of the roads mentioned namely Lugtrout Lane and Field Lane has the potential of completely changing the character of the rural local area, a feature which SMBC continually promote as a reason why the Borough is so popular.

7) The plan also recognizes that certain facilities need increasing, namely schools, public transport and local health services. The plan seems to contain no guarantees that the increased provision will be provided. Schools and local surgeries are already over -subscribed. At present bus services in the area do not meet "Policy P7 Accessibility and Ease of Access " requirements for new developments in terms of frequency. Currently operators have shown little interest in improving them.

8) Policy P19 Range and quality of Local Services promotes developments will need to be sensitive to local character and enhance public realm and suggest that a development of this size in this locality fails to meet this criteria.

9) By allocating this site for development SMBC are breaching one of its own objectives namely that shown on page 21 Challenge E Protecting key gaps between urban areas and rural settlements. The field you have selected is 1 of 2 that separate the settlement of Catherine-De Barnes from Solihull. By allocating this site the distance between Solihull and Catherine-De-Barnes is eroded by 50%.

I do hope you will consider the points raised when you discuss the proposed plan.

see attached letter and graphics

see attached response

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.

see attached response