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

see response and supporting documents

see attached response and supporting documents

see attached

Please find attached Persimmon Homes Central's representations in response to the draft plan published November 2016. Also attached are our site specific representations regarding our site at Tythe Barn Lane, Dickens Heath, which forms part of the strategic allocation.

additional letter to supplement reps made online

see below comments on behalf of Stratford-on-Avon District Council to the Solihull Local Plan Review consultation.
Stratford-on-Avon District (SDC) welcomes the ongoing dialogue with Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council in respect of plan-making and in meeting both Councils obligations under to Duty to Co-operate.

Q14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?

The contribution of 2,000 homes towards the Greater Birmingham HMA shortfall is welcomed. However, following adoption of the Birmingham Plan in January 2017, further technical work looking at how the shortfall should be accommodated across the HMA is being commissioned by the 14 constituent authorities within the Birmingham HMA, including SDC and Solihull Borough. Whilst the results of this work are not yet known, given the strong relationship of Solihull to Birmingham and the fact that Solihull Borough is fully within the Greater Birmingham HMA, it is highly likely that Solihull Borough will be required to make further and significant provision towards contributing to the HMA shortfall. The Draft Local Plan should therefore make further provision to meeting these needs.

Q.15 Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?

SDC notes the following allocations:

* Approximately 700 homes West of Dickens Heath (Site 4)
* Approximately 850 homes South of Dog Kennel Lane, Shirley (Site 12)
* Approximately 600 homes South Shirley (Site 13)
* Approximately 950 homes at Blythe Valley Park as part of a mixed-use development and prime employment location.

SDC makes no comment as to the appropriateness of these allocations but stresses the importance of ensuring that the wider transport and infrastructure implications of these proposals, both individually and cumulatively, has been properly understood and assessed, particularly the impact of this scale of development on local rural roads. In particular, it is critical that any comments raised by Warwickshire County Council as the highway authority for Stratford-on-Avon are fully taken on board. Solihull Metropolitan Borough council should also ensure that, as a neighbouring council, they fully engage with Tanworth-in-Arden Parish Council in the preparation of their Local Plan.

Q18. Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

SDC is supportive of the proposals for the delivery of METRO and SPRINT as part of an inter-connected network of rapid-transit lines providing improved access to UK Central Hub and Birmingham Airport, in particular. However, no reference is made for the need to seek subsequent improvements on existing transport routes that would act as 'feeder lines' to the new rapid-transit modes. The plan should include such references (or at the very least, signposts to relevant transport strategies) in order to express support for proposals that would assist in the delivery of these improvements e.g. between the airport and the international tourist destination of Stratford-upon-Avon.

Q.20 Do you agree with the policies for quality of place? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

SDC supports the approach in respect of Hockley Heath that account will be taken of its rural setting and special character in considering development proposals. This should include the impact of any development on adjacent land and communities in Stratford District.

Appendix E: Draft Green Infrastructure Opportunities Map
SDC notes the identification of Earlswood Living Landscape and supports the principle of enhancing the biodiversity of this area. However, SDC would reiterate the previous concerns of local residents about how any such improvements were implemented.

Challenges
1. Do you agree that we've identified the right challenges facing the Borough? If not why not? Are there any additional challenges that should be addressed?
Vision

No.
Challenge C - Balsall Common village centre suffers from many of the challenges listed for Solihull, Shirley, and Chelmsley Wood Centres.

2. Do you agree with the Borough Vision we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
The vision seems to rely on increasing transport dependency. It implies that employment growth will necessitate people travelling from outside the area to work within Solihull, and Solihull residents travelling long distances outside the Borough to go to work. A better strategy would be to focus on creating local employment, with the transport growth aimed at transporting materials and goods. Transport of people for employment purposes could be reduced by improved broadband network infrastructure and tele-working.
the spatial strategy seems to run counter to the wish in para 74 for preserving the environment.
There doesn't seem to be any proposals to meet the aspiration in para 75 to reduce carbon emissions.
In para 86 it's said growth will occur on the edge of settlements which will inevitably increase traffic and transport need, and runs counter to the aspirations in paras 72 and 75. A bypass for Balsall Common is proposed without consideration of the impact on the viability of the village centre, the environment, or existing residents.

Spatial Strategy
3. Do you agree with the spatial strategy we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Sustainable Economic Growth

No.
The proposed significant expansion of rural settlements is in conflict with the stated preference and national policy of giving preference to brown field sites, and does not recognise the absence of high frequency public transport in most of the Borough.
Given the shortage of housing land to meet the Government's housing targets, it is essential that all new development is to a high density to reduce the land-take.

4. Do you agree with Policy P1? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
There doesn't seem any plan to mitigate the increased traffic, congestion, carbon emissions, air quality degradation, and noise disturbance. The land should not be developed until after the aggregate resources have been extracted. Renaming the area as Arden Cross is simply tacky and tasteless. It already has a name, Middle Bickenhill.

7. Do you agree with Policy P2? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
Balsall Common centre has suffered from the loss of business premises, the loss of the Health Centre to a greenfield site on the edge of the village, inadequate parking, the lack of a bus station, and now a proposal to divert through-traffic. A comprehensive development plan is required to address all these issues.

Providing Homes for All
11. Do you agree with Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
The shortage of land and the need for housing means that there should be a significant increase in density and the provision of smaller homes.

12. Do you agree with the level of affordable housing being sought in Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
The affordable housing provision should be greater than 50% for all sites - which would require development of an individual house to be "affordable".

14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?

No.
The housing target should just meet local needs. Excess requirements should be met in the rural expanses in neighbouring counties, who are expected to have a "duty to cooperate". Solihull should not cater for Birmingham overspill. Solihull Borough has essentially reached capacity in terms of housing provision, and a Predict and Provide policy will lead to a continuous decline in the quality of the environment and to the detriment of residents.

15. Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?

No.
The planning objectives of re-using previously-developed land and creating new settlements have been ignored. Areas such as Balsall Common are being encouraged to sprawl in contravention of accessibility, sustainability, and Green Gelt policies. The Green Belt analysis has not been conducted in line with the NPPF as non-defensible boundaries have been used. The scores attached to preserving the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap are too low and irrational. Balsall Common seems to have been singled out for concentrated and disproportionate expansion, in contrast to areas such as Dorridge, which has far better public transport. In particular, sites 1 and 3 appear to have been chosen for administrative convenience rather than compliance with local and national policies.
Preference should be given to developing brown-field sites and to raising the housing density generally.

16. Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are they?

No.
With regard to Site 1, the proposed highway access is completely unsuitable and will put traffic onto residential roads. No "bypass" is proposed, but with the lack of funding the proposals are likely to create a rat-run that will cause further environmental harm for residents. There is no strategy to deliver bus service and school provision. With regard to Site 3, it is far too distant from the village centre to benefit from the quoted infrastructure improvements.

18. Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
Para 267 is incorrect, the HS2 Environmental Impact has been assessed on the basis that no road improvements would be needed south of the A45. It is highly unlikely that people will travel from south of Balsall Common to HS2 at Middle Bickenhill when there are nearer and more convenient alternatives at Warwick. In addition, the current railway is available to feed the new station via the People Mover. The additional housing proposed for Balsall Common is wrongly sited if it creates additional commuting traffic. There are alternative sites to the north of Balsall Common that would have good access to new employment sites and would not require road improvements.
One reason for abandoning the bypass for Balsall Common was the need to maintain the vitality of the village centre retail options. The proposed new housing would be too far from the centre to offset any loss of through-custom. The A452 only becomes congested when there are problems on the motorway network, and there is no identified need for improved capacity. Much of the traffic is generated within the village. Capacity is limited by the traffic lights at the south of the village, and improvements to that junction should be the first to be considered if demand increases.
There doesn't seem to be any justification for expensive projects like Metro and Sprint (Policy 8A). The passenger demand should first be proven by running bus services. The main factors limiting greater use of public transport are: service interval; unreliability; lack of real-time information; primitive or non-existent waiting shelters; absence of evening services; difficult access for the less agile. Berkswell Station has an irregular service with 40 minute waiting times, and has had a marked reduction in the quality of the waiting facilities. It is difficult for the disabled to board the trains due to the platform gap.
The service interval target (Policy P7) has been increased from 15 minutes between busses and 20 minutes between trains. Rail services have been dropped from the policy, and should be specificed with the same targets as for busses. The previous target intervals were too long for many users, but the proposed 30 minute wait is far too long. The rural area generally has only an hourly service, and few dwellings are within 400 metres of a stop, so Policy P7 is hugely optimistic and unrealistic.

Protecting and Enhancing our Environment
19. Do you agree with the policies for protecting the environment? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
There should be a clear policy for requiring solar PV on all new buildings, and prohibiting green-field solar farms. In addition, policies should encourage use of solar PV in paved areas etc. There should be clear architectural/design standards for all solar PV installations.

Promoting Quality of Place
20. Do you agree with the policies for quality of place? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Health and Supporting Local Communities

No.
Policy P16 should be expanded to include requirements to identify unrecognised archaeological remains during any development. A more integrated approach should be adopted to finding traces of early settlement in the area. All works in new areas should be preceded by geophysical surveys.
Policy P17 should specify Balsall Common as inset in the Green Belt and protected like the other named settlements.

21. Do you agree with the policies health and supporting communities? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
Policy P20 does not provide sufficient long-term protection for public open space. All such areas should be designated as Village Greens, and green spaces in new developments should be dedicated as Village Greens by the developers.

Delivery and Monitoring
22. Do you agree with the Policy P21? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
Policy P21 should be clearer about spending all "planning gain" within the affected communities. In addition, all new developments should only be approved following agreement of a detailed strategic site plan agreed within the community.
**********************************************

Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Plan Consultation
Please find attached a representation from Gladman into the above referenced consultation

joint submission by Arden Academy & Mr Ved Goswami re: Arden Triangle site 9 Knowle
see attached documents

I am instructed by my client Gallagher Estates to submit representations to the Draft Local Plan Review consultation (December 2016).

The representations comprise of the following submissions:

* Representations to the Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan comprising of Pegasus Group Report with accompanying appendices:
o Site Location Plan (Appendix A); o Review of SHELAA (Appendix B); o Review of SMHA (Appendix C);
o Un-met Housing Need and the Duty to Cooperate (Appendix D)
o Chelmer Model Papers (Appendix E)

* Separate Background Documents relating to :
o Land at Damson Parkway , Solihull;
o Land at Four Ashes Road, Dorridge;
o Land off Bickenhill Road, Marston Green and;
o Land off Berkswell Road, Meriden

see attached documents

see submission and supporting documents from agent - Pegasus

see attached documents

see attached - site 12 land south Dog Kennel Lane

I wish to make the following comments on the current version of the Local Plan:

1. There is no mention anywhere in the draft, in any context, of dog-walking facilities. A very large proportion of Solihull households include at least one dog and in addition there are working dogs employed by the Police, Fire, security and airport services. There are currently relatively few places in the urban part of the Borough where dogs can be exercised properly off-lead away from traffic: these include Elmdon Park, the Conservation Fields off Brueton Park, Dorridge Park and Langley Hall Park. Smaller public spaces open to roads do not meet the needs of many dog walkers, mainly because of the danger of, and to, traffic. Many owners therefore make otherwise avoidable car journeys from their homes simply to take the dogs somewhere they can have a decent safe walk, at least once a day. They then require parking provision at or near the park. "Country" walks are available along rural footpaths but there is hardly ever any car parking available at the beginning or end of the walk. Dog-walking and cycling are not particularly compatible as each is a nuisance to the other. The provision of adequate land for exercising dogs is relevant to a number of the Policies, especially but not exclusively, provision of housing (need to ensure that there is significant acreage of off-road, enclosed, walkable land within walking distance of new housing and also that access to such amenity land from existing housing is not compromised by the interposing of a housing estate), health and wellbeing (a daily walk with a dog has multiple health and social benefits) and climate change (providing dog walking space within walking distance from home will reduce the number of polluting car journeys).

2. Your question 7 (agree with Policy P2?): I do not believe the case for relocating the railway station to Monkspath Hall has been made. It would be an enormously expensive venture for no benefit - for instance, there is no mention of a direct train connection to Birmingham International or HS2 - and it would, rightly in my view, be seen as a vanity project. Officers have suggested that the current station is too far from and too inaccessible to the town centre but the journey from a new station at Monkspath Hall would be uphill and therefore less accessible for anyone with fitness issues, buggies, luggage etc. It would also inevitably entail losing part of Tudor Grange Park and much of Monkspath Hall car park. (Despite the insistence of officers that there is oversupply of car parking in the town centre, the views expressed to me by the general public are very much to the contrary).

3. Your questions 15 and 16. I have already emailed my comments on your site ref. 16 "East of Solihull". In case these have been lost, I reiterate: this site is in Green Belt and:

The staggered junctions of Yew Tree Lane, Hampton Lane, Marsh Lane and the Solihull Bypass cause significant traffic congestion (with concomitant noise and air pollution and delays to journeys) particularly back along Hampton Lane towards Catherine de Barnes, and not only at peak times. Traffic congestion along Damson Parkway/Yew Tree Lane will probably be exacerbated by the opening of the JLR logistics operation and flow through Hampton Lane is likely to increase with the development of UK Central. A housing development opening out on to any of the adjoining roads could only make matters much worse. Some of the land earmarked is used for children's sports and the football pitches, the need for which would increase with the influx of new families, would be lost.

I suggest the alternative proposal of developing instead land to the south of Catherine de Barnes, along and between Henwood Lane, Berry Hall Lane and Ravenshaw Lane. Not much mention is made in the draft Local Plan of Catherine de Barnes. This settlement already has some community infrastructure in the shape of a village hall, pub, shop, restaurant and some small businesses. The village could be enlarged into a sustainable settlement with the addition of a school and health centre if there were sufficient new homes. Upgrading Ravenshaw Lane to provide direct access on to the A41 Solihull Bypass near Junction 5 of the M42 would actually alleviate some of the existing congestion along Hampton Lane. This proposal has the added advantage of preserving the green space between Damson Parkway, Lugtrout Lane, Field Lane and Hampton Lane as a buffer against urban spread.


4. Finally, re Policy P15: there is an increasing trend towards enclosing residential properties with high iron railings. Many of these, notably along St Bernard's Road and Dovehouse Lane have made the properties look unpleasantly like compounds: they have a forbidding look and are obviously designed to exclude. They all detract from the relaxed, traditional, friendly street scene that contributes to Solihull's attractiveness as a place to live and are absolutely out of character with the atmosphere of the Borough. It would assist planners in refusing planning applications for more of these if policies on design could include emphasis on retaining more traditional boundary treatments and specifically on discouraging the erection of railings where none previously existed.

see JLR letter via agent

Please find attached

Kind regards

Dear Sir/Madam

Please can you confirm receipt of this email, as significant research and analysis has been undertaken in writing this response and would be grateful to know that this has been taken into account. See response to consultation below.

Kind regards
Sarah Smith

Start of response

14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?
An extra 15,000 houses in an area that currently only has 86,000 houses seems an extraordinarily high number. The population of Solihull is around 207,000 people, compared to a national population of 64.1 million people. The Government's target is to build 1,000,000 new homes by 2020 (i.e. over its 5 year tenure). For the sake of argument, Solihull should be looking to build 0.32% of these houses based on its population, which is 3,229 houses over a 5 year period, which is only 9,687 over a 15 year period. Therefore, there is no justification to aim to build over 15,000 more houses at the expense of the quality of the surrounding area.

15. Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?
No. There are too many developments, too focussed on the area south of Shirley where roads are already too busy and there is no space to widen roads or provide new infrastructure. Traffic congestion on Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane and the surrounding area is already extremely bad at rush hours, and it is increasingly difficult to turn out of Tanworth Lane near the doctor's surgery due to the large volume of traffic coming from the new development in Dickens Heath. Proposed allocations 12 and 13 will exacerbate these problems significantly by putting an extra 1,450 houses on them - potentially an extra 2,900 cars, not to mention the extra 400 houses and 800 cars on the TRW site (plus any additional commuters if there is to be additional employment on that site). Even if new roads are built to access the Stratford Road, there are already traffic jams on the Stratford Road trying to get onto the M42, so putting extra traffic onto the Stratford Road is not going to resolve traffic problems, but will make them worse.
More of these sites should be focussed around the HS2 site if that is one of the main draws for new housing in Solihull. In particular, there are a number of sites marked as lower quality green belt land nearer the HS2 development that aren't being earmarked for development such as parcels of land RP18 and RP19 just north of Hampton in Arden on the Green Belt Assessment report 2016 (both plots of land only have a grading of 4, compared to RP69 and RP65 both graded as 6 but the latter have been earmarked for building allocations 12 and 13 even though they serve a better green belt purpose).
There are also a number of poorer quality greenbelt areas around Dorridge which would be more suitable for development. These areas would be closer to HS2, and are also closer to a better quality train-line than that in Shirley or Dickens Heath. Housing in Dorridge would provide commuters with access to around 72 trains per day to Birmingham (compared to only 45 on the Shirley line), and would also provide easy access to commute to London via either the existing Chiltern service, Birmingham International or the new HS2. In particular RP34 only has a grading of 3, and other sites are graded 4 or 5 (RP33, RP41, RP39, RP40, RP48, RP47, RP45). It would be preferable if you considered these sites to proposed allocations 12 or 13.
The added benefit of building around Dorridge is that Arden School is (I believe) being rebuilt on a new site, so this would be an ideal opportunity to rebuild a new, larger, fit for purpose school to cater for significantly higher numbers instead of trying to extend existing schools on their existing grounds.
There is a triangle of land near to proposed housing allocation 4, bounded by Houndsfield Lane, Tilehouse Lane and the railway line. This does not appear to have been included in plans, even though RP72 only has a green belt grading of 4 and there is already a proposed development near there, and it is significantly more convenient to access Whitlocks End railway station than proposed allocations 12 and 13. It may be that some housing could be put on here, or it may be that there's a plan to extend station car parking here.
There is also a number of green belt sites in the north of the borough within already built up areas around Kingshurst, Fordbridge etc. These are all poorly performing green belt areas, and the green belt strategic review has even highlighted some that do not perform their green belt functions at all. It would be preferable if these areas could be used. As they are amidst built up areas anyway, it would be possible to build at a higher density here, without the development being out of character for the area. (RPs 01, 02, 03, 79, 06, 08).
An area where a lot of space that has already been removed from the green belt which could be more efficiently used and should be considered before any new green belt building, is the huge car parking areas around the NEC, airport and station. Were some of these to be turned into multi-storey car parks, then a number could be released to build housing on, and these would provide significant brown-field sites and save removing further land from the green belt. These would also provide good access to the proposed new employment site north east of Land Rover.
In addition the density of housing being proposed seems to be very low. Both proposed allocations 12 and 13 seem to only be around 20 dwellings per hectare. To reduce the impact on the green belt, build higher density developments in fewer areas (particularly if one of the drivers for new housing is single person households). This was highlighted in the Government's Planning Policy Guidance note 3 suggesting a net density of 30-50 dwellings. If your intended figure of 36 dwellings per hectare is net (which I assume it must be), then it would be in keeping with the same to reduce the space used and build higher density developments, rather than only 20 dwellings per hectare. Look at alternatives for putting parking under houses to use less space. Consider terraces rather than semi-detached, or consider low rise flats. Higher density developments can be significantly more environmentally efficient than lower density developments, and can also allow residents of the new and existing developments to enjoy green belt countryside that hasn't been destroyed.
With regard specifically to proposed allocation 13 (south of Shirley), if this site were to be used (but I would prefer it if it wasn't), it would be preferable to build higher density further away from Stretton Road to provide a full field's gap (not just the narrow strip of bridleway and amenity land) between the estates to still allow for a significant band of open space. This land provides enormous intrinsic benefit to local residents and it would be a huge blow to the area for it to be built upon. It is possible to walk for over an hour on a circular route without having to go on more than a few metres of road. This provides good health and stress-relieving benefits for local people. This would be lost by developing this area. The fresh air would be replaced by polluted air from thousands of extra cars sitting in traffic jams, and would be detrimental to all impacted.
In addition, this area of grassland is important for drainage in the area. Building more tarmac and impermeable surfaces on this area is likely to have knock-on impacts for existing and future residents.
It is also an area that provides a large open space for wildlife and significant numbers of trees.

16. Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure35 required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are they?

Schools local to proposed allocations 11, 12 and 13 already have two or three form entries at primary school level where they used to be single form entry. It is difficult to envisage how much additional capacity these schools can really withstand before it has a detrimental impact on their ability to provide the outstanding education that they are renowned for.
This would exacerbate congestion of the significant numbers of cars dropping or collecting pupils from Lighthall School, and Woodlands School (and all of the other schools in the borough) and the knock on impact on local residents who live around these schools.
At school start and finish times there are already severe issues with driving round the estate surrounding Stretton Road, parking, school delivery lorries. I have personally nearly been killed on my bicycle trying to get to the station by parents turning their cars in our road without looking, and also run off the road by a school food delivery lorry on the roundabout on Shakespeare Drive.
Roads around proposed allocations 11, 12 and 13 are already overcrowded, and they are not convenient for train travel without using a car to get to the station, or an extended walk. Parking already became a problem at Shirley station with the growth of Dickens Heath. Several years ago it became impossible to find a parking space at Shirley station unless you arrived before 7.30am. This led to the expansion of Whitlocks End station parking and the extension of the line to Whitlocks End instead of Shirley, but with the scale of housing being proposed, again I can't see how the train infrastructure on this line could stand the scale of the proposed housing. Perhaps extra buses may be proposed but they won't be able to get through the gridlocked traffic, and it will then take up to an additional hour from Shirley to get into Birmingham by bus.
Tanworth Lane, Stretton Road, Stratford Road, Dog Kennel Lane are all already severely congested due to Dickens Heath traffic, leading to extra pollution in the area. To extend further would cause even more congestion and pollution. It is unfair to existing residents to prevent them from being able to get to places due to additional congestion. It is already the case that it can take longer to drive from Withybrook Road to the TRW site than it does to walk on the occasions my husband needs to take his car to work. It can take 20 minutes to drive that mile, purely due to the Dickens Heath traffic. By adding further housing developments in this area, this will become impossible. The residents of Shirley won't be able to get onto the M42 in the morning, or return home in the evening as the Stratford Road and adjoining roads will be gridlocked.
Regarding pollution, in the 25 years we've lived here and run a local Scout troop, we've seen the number of children with asthma increase dramatically, which appears to be due to pollution from the Stratford Road, and the Council should feel responsible for the impact of their decisions on local residents.
We have seen nothing in the plan about nursery provision. This needs to be addressed as it is difficult to find nursery places in the area. On a personal level, we have enrolled our daughter at Active Angels nursery for when I return to work, and a very significant factor in choosing this nursery was that it backed on to open fields, so she wouldn't be inhaling the fumes of the Stratford Road every day. However, if proposed allocation 13 is built, not only in due course will there be lots of houses and cars, but in the meantime, she'll be attending nursery on a building site with heavy lorries and heavy plant in operation rather than the fields and open spaces that was a major factor in choosing this site. We're now uncertain whether the nursery will even exist in the future. We've also missed our opportunity to book into our other nursery choices now, because it is necessary to obtain places so far in advance.
For the number of houses you're proposing, it will be required to have additional secondary schools. It is not feasible to extend existing ones as you will not be able to get any more cars there or back in the mornings and afternoons. The new schools will need space and access roads. Several primary schools as a minimum must be considered in these plans.
Good quality, well lit cycle paths separate from traffic (but not slower to use than the road) should be drawn into any of these planned developments and linking to major sites. With the increase in traffic on the roads, Solihull's roads will become even more dangerous for cyclists (and pedestrians). The poor design of Dickens Heath leading to significant levels of on-street parking has made it dangerous to cycle through here as drivers are impatient to wait to pass. Similar problems could easily happen with any of these new sites if not well designed.
I think it is likely that there is a significant flooding risk by building allocations 12 and 13. Certainly the fields around allocation 13 are always boggy and muddy in winter. The drains at the top of Hathaway Road at the junction with Shakespeare Drive overflow in any heavy rain. I would envisage this getting significantly worse if allocation 13 is built on, and this large area of grass/marshland is removed. The drainage system of the whole area would need to be significantly improved.
End of response

On behalf of our client, the Arden Cross Consortium, please find attached a copy of representations submitted to the public consultation on the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review (November 2016) and Interim Sustainability Appraisal Report (January 2017).

see attached letter

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for land at and to the rear of 146- 152 Tilehouse Lane, Whitlock's End, B90 1PW.

The submission comprises the
* letter of representations (10463 HRW LPR APP);
* a site plan (ref.no. 10463-01A) with the site edged red;
* an Illustrative layout (10463(10)M-101 prepared by Tyler-Parkes Partnership
* a Transport Statement prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering Ltd
* An updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey prepared by Cotswold Wildlife Surveys
* Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy prepared by BWB

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the site at Tidbury Green Golf Club, Tidbury Green.

The submission comprises
* The letter of representations (10171 LPA3 LPR APP)
* An existing site plan (ref.no. 10509(EX)01) with the site edged red.
* Schedule of accommodation (10509(SC)01)
* Illustrative Site Layout (10509(MP)01)
* Ecological Appraisal prepared by Crossman Associates
* Environmental Noise Report prepared by Sharps Redmore
* Flood Risk Assessment prepared by THDA
* Tree Survey prepared by Abbey Forestry
* Transport Statement and Travel Plan prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering
* Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Landscape Matters
* Site Investigation Report prepared by Georisk UK

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for land at the rear of Bakehouse Lane and Wheeler Close, Chadwick End

The submission comprises the letter of representations (6439.LPA1.HMG LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 6439 site plan) with the site edged red.

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review on behalf of the landowners at the sites at Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common.

The submission comprises
* the letter of representations (10607 LPA2 JD LPR APP);
* Site plan (10607(OS)01) with the site edged red;
* Illustrative layout (10607(MP)01);
* Transport Assessment prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering; and
* Landscape character assessment response prepared by Landscape Matters

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land south of Hampton Lane, and west of Ravenshaw Lane/ South of Hampton Lane, Solihull.

The submission comprises the letter of representations (9263 SHL LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 9263 Site Plan) with the site edged red.

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land at Barston Lane/ Oak Lane, Barston B92 0JR

The submission comprises the letter of representations (10445 LA3 GC LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 10445-01A) with the site edged red.

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter