Q21. Do you agree with the policies health and supporting communities? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

the drive for more houses should not be at the expense of open space. all major developments should provide "parkland" space for people to enjoy

The Inland Waterways Association (Warks branch) is pleased to see that the canal system within the borough has been noted as a possible transport route as well as an excellent tourist route and a extensive green space in a very built up area. We would like to see better signage for passing canal users to access the town's facilities.

These are good policies but the test will come when developer's plans are submitted and the degree to which SMBC are able to ensure promises are met. The release of green space land at the current Windmill Lane development in Balsall Common suggests they will not

With reference to P18, and supporting mental and physical welbeing: Solihull Mind Horticultural Area behind Station Road, Knowle- the FULL field site and its moderate buildings should be completely protected in any proposed new development. It enhances and SAVES lives. It reduces the State's social and medical bills for the care of its users. The Government supports the need for better mental and physical health. Solihull's facilities for mental health are below parr. Do not fail this project for the monetary value of the land to a developer. It is a VITAL commodity, literally.

Agree with the policies. SMBC must ensure that developers are not allowed to dilute these aims when actual construction starts. Green space is essential

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.

Under these policies Balsall Common&Berkswell needs major investment in its public transport system,both road and rail, together with increased parking at the station in order to accomodate the demand from the proposed population growth, and past experience show this is not forthcoming. When the new medical centre was planned residents were promised a bus service to it, but that service no longer exists.
The policy recognises the importance of promoting healthy communities, yet despite recent large housing development the community still has no centralised sports facilities or all weather pitch, and these must be in any development plans.

There is no clear mention of primary care provision. Our surgery is very small and has a 1.5 full time doctor equivalent. Our practice area covers much of the proposed sites. We have 3000 patients between the 1.5 doctors, which is already above the national average. Any significant increase on this would seriously undermine our ability to provide safe and timely healthcare to the new residents unless we could procure funding to increase the staff ( both medical and administrative) at the surgery to cope with the huge increase in demand for appointments and care.

Delivering new and improved health services and facilities in areas accessed by sustainable transport modes (facilities for primary medical care should be identified and planned for); - there is nothing in the plan to advise how this will be addressed and other parties involved - surprised by this due to the moving to working together of local council and CCG

No, the locations for Allocated Housing Sites identify the loss of too many existing Football Clubs/Pitches (with an apparent bias against Association Football and in favour of Cricket, Hockey and Golf), contrary to Policies P18/P20, without identifying any compensatory arrangements for their replacement (i.e. Sites 4, 8, 13, 16, 20).

Policies P18/P20 need to be stronger, clearer and cross-referenced against Policy P5, in terms of supporting the retention of existing outdoor sports facilities (and in particular existing Football Clubs/Pitches) and, where necessary, identify how any future loss of facilities will be compensated for or improved upon.

The rising levels of obesity and associated health problems such as diabetes are putting an enormous strain on the National Health Service and Solihull Social Services.
Evidence of the huge health benefit of exercise - even small amounts - is increasing every year.
The national and local cost of poor health due to a sedentary lifestyle is rising exponentially and yet this issue seems to have been largely ignored in the draft local plan (December 2016).
Indeed, it is even suggested that the Arden Sports Club in Sharmans Cross Road, that currently provides keep fit classes, squash courts, a gym and tennis courts, should be pulled down to build houses.
It is also proposed that the playing fields in Sharmans Cross Road are destroyed. These playing fields are not being used at the moment and the Council should buy the lease back from Oakmoor so that proper use of this scarce resource, so important for the health of future generations, can be planned.
We need to drastically increase the number of playing fields and sports facilities and the Council, in conjunction with the NHS, should be proactively seeking ways to address the ticking time bomb of obesity.
The plan to remove sports facilities, at a time when we should be increasing such provision, is totally irresponsible.
Everyone recognises the need for extra housing in the West Midlands but it is reckless to remove playing fields and sports facilities when there are large areas of brown field sites in Birmingham that are not designated by Birmingham Council for housing.

Overall, the Theatres Trust is disappointing by the general lack of cultural content within this draft local plan. Culture plays a key role in developing vibrant town and village centres which are the economic and social heart of sustainable communities. Culture and cultural activity helps develop a sense of place and is what makes communities and places unique and special.

Cultural and community facilities support the day to day needs of local communities and help promote well-being and improve quality of life. While Policy P19, does mention the loss of community and social infrastructure will not be supported, the wording needs strengthening as it focuses on local services rather than cultural facilities, and a definition for social infrastructure is needed to avoid ambiguity and to properly reflect guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

As you would be aware, the NPPF provides clear directions about the importance of safeguarding and promoting culture activities and venues.
* One of the 12 core planning principles (paragraph 17) is the need to plan for culture to support social wellbeing and sustainable communities.
* Paragraph 23 recognises the important role town centres play in supporting communities and notes that cultural venues make a valuable contribution to the vibrancy and success of these centres.
* Paragraph 70 states that in 'promoting healthy communities', planning decisions should 'plan positively for cultural buildings' and 'guard against the loss of cultural facilities and services.'
* Paragraph 156 directs local planning authorities to ensure their local plan includes cultural policies that reflect the NPPF.

Recommended changes:

1) The policy is renamed 'Local Services and Community and Social Facilities' or similar to reflect the full purpose of the policy.

2) The accompanying text and the Glossary should contain an explanation for the term 'community and social facilities'. We recommend this succinct all inclusive description which would obviate the need to provide examples: community and social facilities provide for the health and wellbeing, social, educational, spiritual, recreational, leisure and cultural needs of the community.

3) The policy be enhanced with the following criteria:

Development of new community and social facilities will be supported and should enhance the well-being of the local community, and the vitality and viability of centres.

Major developments are required to incorporate, where practicable, opportunities for cultural activities, including providing public realm capable of hosting events and performances to widen public access to art and culture, including through the interpretation of the heritage of the site and area.

The loss or change of use of existing community and social facilities will be resisted unless
* replacement facilities are provided on site or within the vicinity which meet the need of the local population, or necessary services can be delivered from other facilities without leading to, or increasing, any shortfall in provision; or
* it has been demonstrated that there is no longer a community need for the facility or demand for another community use on site.

The temporary and meanwhile use of vacant buildings and sites by creative, cultural and community organisations will also be supported, particularly where they help activate and revitalise town centre locations and the public realm.

Council will apply the 'agent of change' principle, whereby if a development would potentially result in conflict between a cultural activity and another use, especially in terms of noise, then the development responsible for the change must secure the implementation of appropriate mitigation.

4) Alternatively, some of these standards could be used to enhance Policy P2 Maintain Strong, Competitive Town Centres

I do in principal agree with the policy but the draft plan shows that football pitches i Tythebarn are to built on in therefore denying access to outdoor physical activity and the canal side will be built on. Green belt is to be built on denying people countryside walking and cycling in the immediate vicinity and building leisures centres cannot replace the health benefits of the outdoors. They are expensive and not accessible to all.

I doooooo agree with your policies for healthy and supported communities but your actions indicate that you don't. If you do then you wouldn't build on the football pitches, parkland and allotments. And before you say it I don't believe that the developers will replace it leaving no public recreational area to the south east of Balsall Common. This hasn't happened in the development between Kenilworth Road and Hob Lane - where I am told it was promised but never materialised.

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

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.

the proposed sites seem to remove sports grounds and open space and increase pressure on existing health services
if there are plans to re provide facilities that will only take more green belt
if site 20 is developed it will cut damsonwood residents off from Elmdon park as the access road to the church and park lies between the JLR entrance and the football club . that will deny me and other resident access to our valued park and church

Although agreeing, under these policies Balsall Common will need investment in the public transport system, better parking in village centre; increased parking at the rail station plus improved train & bus services to meet the anticipated population growth. Currently the village has no centralised COMMUNITY sports facilities, a sports centre ( an all weather pitch is needed in particular) There are private clubs but these are not open to all

support

Developments must include green spaces, trees and landscaping. New residents must feel its a place worth coming to. Developments that take large portions of green belt should retain many of the trees, paths and hedgerows to promote the rural nature of the overall area. The provision of green areas between existing and new developments retain the established nature of the existing residential area and enhances new developments through easy access to green space for informal and formal recreation so it benefits all. A good example is the Ridding Hill development on the Balsall Common/Berswell parish boundary

Important to promote and provide facilities for healthy leaving, exercise, local food production and children play. Should significantly improve pedestrian and cycling routes between all borough areas.
Need increased focus on improving air quality and reducing congestion and pollution.

Allocation 13 , As the only green space with public access in the south of Shirley, This land is very widely used by the local residents and is extremely important for the health and welfare of the local residents of all ages. I walk over these fields every morning on well-worn footpaths, along with many other local residents making it a very enjoyable social activity.

SMBC policy should be extended to require developers of sites greater than 100 units to work with and consult with existing sports bodies and clubs in the immediate locality to identify opportunities to enhance existing facilities. Developers are very keen to promote their houses as being in vibrant communities with lots of sports clubs without ever actually engaging with them in a meaningful manner.
I have added some specific thoughts with regard to the Barratts Farm site in Balsall Common in the comments on individual sites (rep. 1142)

The current use of the land included in the Arden triangle development area contributes under most areas in this section - in particular 373,374,380,396-99; Policy 18 and SMBC Green Spaces strategy. These together advocate access to open spaces for exercise, physical activities, recreation, and 'opportunities for growing local produce and encouraging people to make positive healthy food choices'; all of which are currently provided through our project. The Green Spaces Strategy promotes'strong protection of open space, sports and recreational facilities'; and the Health Impact Assessments for the new development will demonstrate negative impacts on the mental health of the population.

There are a number of very useful and progressive policies and proposals here. However if all of the development that the plan encourages elsewhere are allowed much of the vision here will be undermined. Equally how will these policies be promoted when planning application are submitted which undermine them?

South Shirley allocations will remove several sports and recreational facilities which impacts on heath and wellbeing of local people especial the younger generation who engage in football or similar
What will they do if they no where to go ??
How will all these be replaced?

Local plan involves the abolition of too many community football pitches. Each football club is used by AT LEAST 150 youths every weekend. There is already a shortage of playing fields, the evidence of this is shown if new teams form, it's almost impossible to hire a pitch. The long term effect of eliminating this community will be an increase in anti social behaviour, increasing obesity in our youth and loss of a huge voluntary community spirit

see letter

How can you think that the recreation will be improved. When the loss of so many football and rugby clubs will be closed and access to fields will be removed,from the youth and adults of this area.