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

Showing comments and forms 61 to 90 of 96

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2549

Received: 14/02/2017

Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

Agree with the inclusion of nature conservation and green infrastructure within this policy.

Full text:

see attached response

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2611

Received: 14/02/2017

Respondent: Extra MSA

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

Policy P20 - Provision of open space not always safe or feasible for commercial schemes, e.g. Motorway Service Area. Policy should be caveated to state 'where appropriate'.

Full text:

see attached response by agent on behalf of Extra MSA group

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2699

Received: 08/02/2017

Respondent: Robert Verrion

Representation Summary:

SMBC formally minuted in 2013 its policy with regard to the use of sport grounds and that it would not sell the freehold land at Sharmans Cross Road. A previous application for the proposed site has been refused and another withdrawn. It is clear, therefore, that the development of the site is unsuitable and should not be included in the LDP.

Full text:

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I am writing to lodge my objections to the proposed development of 100 houses on the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road. There are a number of points to my objections, as follows:
1. Population density: According to the property website, 'Zoopla' there are 131 houses in Sharmans Cross Road. If a further 100 houses are constructed on the rugby ground (that it a 76.3% increase), the following unpleasant characteristics of the area will become unacceptable for the existing residents:
1.1 An already bad traffic situation: the junction at Sharmans Cross Road and Streetsbrook Road is already gridlocked between 7.45am and 9.00am, due to the (very slow) traffic flow along Streetsbrook Road into Solihull and the build up of traffic waiting to exit Sharmans Cross Road. I have lived on the corner of this junction for the last 20 years and have seen the volume of traffic increase significantly over this period. Furthermore the traffic situation at the roundabout of the junctions of Prospect Lane, Danford Lane and Sharmans Cross Road is already highly congested between the times mentioned above and will only be exacerbated by the proposed development. Finally the junction of Solihull Road and the A34 is congested for most of the day, particularly during the times mentioned....again the proposed development will only worsen this.
1.2 The local environment: increased traffic congestion will mean a further deterioration in the local environment; an increase in danger for pedestrians and an increase in danger for cyclists on what is a designated cycle route.
1.3 Congestion and safety issues associated with Sharmans Cross Junior School: at peak school 'dropping off' and 'collection' times Sharmans Cross Road is highly congested, and quite frankly a dangerous place for young children, despite the presence of a traffic warden ('lollipop man/lady'). Additional traffic turning out of/into the proposed development will increase the safety risk to young children....and their young parents who in my experience often appear distracted by their conversations with other parents.
1.4 Flooding in periods of heavy rain: Sharmans Cross Road is already subject to flooding during heavy rain. As noted, I live on the corner of Sharmans Cross Road and Streetsbrook Road. A few years ago the drains were moved, when the corner was 'filled out' to try to slow down the cars from Solihull that speed round the corner, but NOT to the lowest point of the road. The consequence of this civil engineering error is that heavy rain produces flooding in the road outside my front drive....which creates a hazard to traffic. I should add that there are other sites in Sharmans Cross Road which also flood during heavy rain. An additional 100 houses and their associated roads/drains will further exacerbate the flooding position. I know for a fact that residents have complained to SMBC about the flooding...but nothing has been done.
2. Local schools and medical centres are already oversubscribed: an additional 100 houses will simply, again, exacerbate the position for local residents.
3. SMBC formally minuted in 2013 its policy with regard to the use of sport grounds and that it would not sell the freehold land. A previous application for the proposed site has been refused and another withdrawn. It is clear, therefore, that the development of the site is unsuitable and should not be included in the LDP.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2703

Received: 08/02/2017

Respondent: Robert Blond

Representation Summary:

The sports ground in Sharmans Cross Road should be used for sports and maybe, through the Woodland Trust, add to the already rich wildlife by planting a few more trees, rather than be developed.

Full text:

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I am writing to object to the proposed housing - LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18.

1) The proposed housing will destroy the character of the area. Packing this many property's onto a sports field is out of scale and out of character with the existing housing.

2) The increase In traffic will have a serious effect on Sharmans Cross road. Traffic wanting to right out of the proposed development early in the morning will add to the already jammed streets. This will add to the already polluted air as the traffic queues up. The road is also popular with children including ours who walk/bike to school. The proposed new development will obviously increase traffic pollution and safety concerns close the school.

3) Parking with regard to the Arden Club will cause big problems in the future when functions are being held. If you count the cars now when the club is busy you will comprehend how this will cause problems for the club and residents if the proposed development goes ahead.
4) The proposed development is on sports fields! With the increase in obesity we should be encouraging folks to play sport not building houses on sports fields.

5) I am concerned about the mature trees In the area such as the line of oaks and Pow Grove wood. My daughter and I currently delight in seeing a buzzard perched on the rugby post/fence most mornings as we walk to school. The birds, bats and wildlife will be lost if the development goes ahead. The trees will come under increased risk felling.

The area should be used for sports and maybe, through the Woodland Trust, add to the already rich wildlife by planting a few more trees.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2788

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Shirley Golf Club Ltd and IM Properties Ltd

Agent: Marrons Planning

Representation Summary:

the policy fails to recognise circumstances in which a site becomes economically unviable/unable to operate as privately maintained recreational facilities.
the policy should be amended as appropriate.

Full text:

see attached response on behalf of Shirley Golf Club Limited and IM Properties Limited in respect of land adjacent to Stratford Road.

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3064

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross Road) Ltd

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

the policies are generally supported as they seem to be in conformity with the NPPF

Full text:

see letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3076

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Transport for the West Midlands

Representation Summary:

Support principles in this chapter.
Policy P18 - Agree that transport is significant challenge to health, it is also opportunity for improvement e.g. walking and cycling.
WMCA have launched 'Thrive West Midlands': An Action Plan to drive better mental health and wellbeing together with establishing a Wellbeing Board. This would create the governance framework for the implementation of the Mental Health Commission work and we welcome reference to this.

Full text:

see letter
"Overall we are very supportive of the plan and its in alignment with our Movement for Growth and SEP. But we have raised some points concerning parking policy, and more promotion of walking and cycling. "

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3176

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Parish Council and Catherine-de-Barnes Residents' Association

Representation Summary:

Wish to see similar approach to that adopted for the Tame Valley for the enhancement of the River Blythe valley incorporating mitigation of the effects of HS2 and provision for a community and wildlife asset, which meets aspirations under policies P18 and P20.

Full text:

see attached letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3213

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Karl Peter Childs

Representation Summary:

Scale of development in South Shirley would adversely affect the local community as described above.
A large number of sports grounds will be lost.
These play an important role in both health and wellbeing as well as community interaction.
These also offer open space that breaks up the intensity of developments.
Would like to see more information on how these sites will be compensated for and alternative locations provided that will be of equivalent benefit to the area.

Full text:

see written response attached

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3254

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Society

Representation Summary:

Wish to see similar approach to that adopted for the Tame Valley for the enhancement of the River Blythe valley incorporating mitigation of the effects of HS2 and provision for a community and wildlife asset, which meets aspirations under policies P18 and P20.

Full text:

Please find attached the response to the review of the Draft Local Plan from the Hampton-in-Arden Society. Representatives of the Society have attended a number of briefing events together with members of the Parish Council and this is therefore a joint response.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3359

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Patrick Montague

Representation Summary:

There are sports grounds under threat in the Draft Local Plan. If they are included in site allocations, there will be fewer facilities in the wrong places and less participation in sport. That will lead to a less physically and mentally fit population.

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the application by CERDA on behalf of Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross) Ltd for the residential development of Rugby Ground/Tennis Club just off Sharmans Cross Road. I have involved in the potential development of this site over the last 9 years and have faced the same problem throughout, namely that Oakmoor submit an Application which is full of serious inaccuracies and when these are pointed out the statement is made that it is not our skill or responsibility to check the detail

I trust that in this instance the inaccuracies will be vetted, particularly since the inaccuracies appear to imply that different SMBC policies are being met when they are not.

CERDA/OAKMOOR LDP APPLICATION SEPT 2016.

1. The front page states that the application was made 'ON BEHALF OF OAKMOOR (SHARMANS CROSS) LTD AND ARDEN LAWN TENNIS CLUB LTD'. The Board at the Club were not even aware an application had been made until November/December.
Careless at the very least.

2. Picture on front page is at least 7 years old. Sloppy at the least.

3. Front page error regarding application repeated.

4. Para2.5 page 3. 'The site has been derelict'. A half truth - the pitches are in excellent condition, and could be used immediately after marking out. This is important because e.g. Solihull F.C need pitches from Next season for 8 teams.
The pavilion, changing rooms and nursery units were progressively vandalised because no security was provided for the empty buildings. They were demolished under pressure from local residents, the Tennis Club and the Council. Oakmoor never tried to seriously protect the buildings or to let them out at all.

5. TPOs apply to far more trees than the southern and western boundaries with e.g. all the trees down the Tennis Club Rugby Club. Boundary covered as well a few individual trees. These trees could easily be awkward in the. Development of the site with the Tennis Club moving within the site.
A Planning issue which will be made worse with all trees in the course of having TPOs on them.

6. Para 2.8. The station is not 700m away but 1000m to 1100m away depending on
the route you take. Solihull town centre is c1700m away and not 1000m
This is very much a Planning issue with regard to accessibility/sustainability and density. School, and surgeries are over full, and more than 800 m away (i.e. walking distance). .SX Road is not an accessible site.

7. Para 3.3 refers to support for support for a previous scheme involving a package of support for the Rugby Club. It states that Sport England supported the scheme. This is incorrect - they did not oppose it which is very different.
In addition they do not disclose why they withdrew at the last minute from the Appeal of the SMBC refusal. Is it possible that this related to the value of the Council owned freehold and the sport only covenant.

8. Paras.5.4/5.5 perpetuate the same false impression of the distances to the station and Solihull town centre. The distances and the supposed 10 minute walking times are complete fictions from the centre of the site.
This appears to be a deliberate attempt to portray the accessibility of the site in a way that simply is not correct.

9. Para5.7 'not fit for purpose in 2009' is stated without any context. The Rugby Club aspired to the 2nd tier in England which require facilities and ground capacities which simply did not exist at the Rugby Ground. For lower levels of soccer and rugby they were more than adequate.

10. Para 5.8. The loss of a rugby pitch.......but there is sufficient provision in the area to serve the needs of the local population.' There is provision for 2 pitches and absolutely no evidence to support the contention there are ample pitches to support the needs of the local population. To the contrary there a demand for pitches which is not being met. The council's obligation to have an up to date survey of provision and demand of pitches and sports amenities is not in place so statements like this simply cannot be made. The Bees had to leave the Borough to meet the demand that they had.

11. Paras5.11/5.12. The facilities that have been outlined have not been confirmed as agreed but appear to involve significantly more space than the current Tennis Club. With 2 covered courts an extra squash court,150 car parking spots additional other facilities, crèche, players Bar etc etc etc. this, contrary to the application means that there would be less space for the 100 houses than for the original.

12. Paras.13/5.145.15
From 11 just above it is very very clear there will be less space for 100 properties than for 87 in the previous application. Density will be greater. The applications suggestion to the contrary cannot be correct. Their estimate of the houses per hectare must be regarded with suspicion at the very least.
There is then the statement that "30-35 properties per hectare would be consistent with the form of development in the local area". Again their quoted level will not be the actual level. Their estimate of the space available for residential is exaggerate so their comparison base is false. The relative density of estates surrounding the site give a range of 2 to 5 times the space per property depending which area you take.
This whole estate will be totally out of keeping with the surrounding neighbouring residential properties.

13. The move of the Tennis Club would of necessity have to take place before Any residential development could take place. This means onto the Rugby Ground. Currently no defined plans are available and no discussion have taken place regarding the facilities to be offered with the Board or the membership. There is the question of leasehold land and freehold land. No one even knows if the Board or the members will agree with the move and swap of land. Is this site really immediately available ? I think not.

14. Para5.15. Talks about the sports and community facilities providing the focal point of the development with the residential development extending around them. This sound a very altruistic and optimistic view. Sports Clubs with social amenities are noisy places. Other clubs experience when residential development takes place near to their centre of activity is not good with complaints and difficulties.
This presentation is over optimistic about dense property base in close proximity to the Tennis Club.

15. Since the last application for this site there has been a major increase in traffic during peak hours and school pick-up times on Sharmans Cross Road,Streetsbrook Road and all surrounding roads. This application takes no account of this. As all the other objections have shown this is a major major problem particularly with the vehicular exit being nearer to the Streetsbrook Road junction. It took me 25 minutes recently at 7-50 am to get through Solihull from 23 Sharmans Cross.
This problem is quite incorrectly played down in this application , together with no reference to the walking/cycling route on SX Road, or the danger to all the children going to SX junior school.

16. Para5.22/5.23
Yet again the Application is out of touch. With less activity on the site there had been a significant increase in wild life bats are a regular feature of summer evenings and badgers and faxes are also regulars. there are TPOs on central trees on the site and far more than just the South and west side.

17. Flood risk and drainage.

This area is heavily based on marl. This put major pressure on the surface water systems and they regularly cannot cope. Flooding is prevalent on SX Road despite work by Severn Trent. Gardens are regularly flooded in all surrounding areas. the Rugby pitches have special drainage by En Tout Cas. It acts as a sponge but dry on the surface . Once this whole area of6 acres is largely covered there will be a very substantial extra pressure on all surface water drainage. Climate change in the last 8 years has already made things a lot worse. This development could make a bad situation a lot worse. I doubt Cerda have any understanding of the scale of this problem.



LOSS OF SPORTS FACILITIES .S

SX Road is only one of 5 sports grounds at risk in the LDP. In the Review document there is little reference to sport as such with a few platitudes about if there is no surplus of pitches other of like or better quality with suitable access will need to be found i.e. created. This is pie in the sky. What it means in blunt terms is driving sports grounds further and further away from the central areas of population. It does not appear that there is any advocate or funds to to truly encourage the growth of sporting participation in Solihull's.

All of this is evidence by our performance nationally in participation in sport 3 times a week in Evidence produced by Sport England. These show that in the 330Boroughs in England we are declining at twice the national rare and have dropped from being around
175 to over 200 in the last 3 years and declining fast. It is a disgrace. But what can you expect when virtually none of our public park pitches have changing rooms or dedicated. Toilets and no facilities for girls/women. What do visiting teams think of Solihull. Only the private sector provide the facilities of quality,

What then of the Rugby Ground. The freehold is owned by SMBC and has 74 years to run on the lease. It is Covenanted to only be used for sport. The freehold land owned by Oakmoor is covenanted to only be used for the ancillaries to sport i.e. car parking, bowls greens, pavilion, and changing rooms. The current SMBC policy is that the freehold will not be sold, and the covenant will not be lifted but those policies can be changed be political decision . If they are, and the land becomes part of the LDP it will be another nail in the coffin of sporting active in the Borough.
One further point - on why the ground has not been used for 6 years. Oakmoor have never promoted it as available for sport, have sort charge exorbitant rents and have evaded all approaches by sports clubs to use the ground. They appear to have been determined to prevent the ground being used despite signing an undertaking that it would be used for sport when they took over the lease.

The same principle applies to all of the Sports grounds under threat in the LDP. If they are included there will. Be fewer facilities in the wrong places and less participation in sport. That in turn means a less physically and mentally fit population.

I object to the application for the No18 site to be included in the LDP for all of the above reasons.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3396

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Sport England

Representation Summary:

Policy P18 - Support is offered for the principle that provides support for proposals which encourage healthy and active lifestyles. This is consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.

The use of Health Impact Assessments for larger developments is welcomed as these can help ensure that developments give appropriate consideration to how environments can be created which allow healthy and active lifestyles to take place.

Full text:

Solihull Local Plan Review - Sport England consultation response
Sport England would like to make the following comments:

Borough wide Challenges
Sport England support the identification of Challenges H, J and K. These Challenges are consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and are consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.

Policy P15: Securing Design Quality
Sport England, in conjunction with Public Health England, has produced 'Active Design' (October 2015), a guide to planning new developments that create the right environment to help people get more active, more often in the interests of health and wellbeing. The guidance sets out ten key principles for ensuring new developments incorporate opportunities for people to take part in sport and physical activity. The Active Design principles are aimed at contributing towards the Government's desire for the planning system to promote healthy communities through good urban design. Sport England would commend the use of the guidance in the master planning process for new residential developments. The document can be downloaded via the following link:
http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/active-design/

Through our statutory role, non-statutory role (major housing schemes) and our involvement with strategy development (evidence base Para 73 of NPPF) and our involvement through the local plan process we seek to ensure that Active design is utilised in the determination of planning applications and is embedded in Planning Policy P15 in order to influence the design and promote healthy communities and active lifestyles.

Policy P18: Health and Well Being
Support is offered for the principle that provides support for proposals which encourage healthy and active lifestyles. This is consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.

The use of Health Impact Assessments for larger developments is welcomed as these can help ensure that developments give appropriate consideration to how environments can be created which allow healthy and active lifestyles to take place.

Policy P20: Provision for Open Space, Childrens Play, Sport, Recreation and Leisure
The protection and provision of sports facilities is supported. However it is not clear whether or not the reference to the protection of existing facilities in Part A of the policy includes playing fields. It would be useful to provide clarity in this regard.

Sport England considers that Part A of the policy should be more specific as to the clear evidence required to demonstrate that sports facilities (particularly if these include playing fields) are surplus to requirements. Sport England would only accept a robust and up-to-date strategic assessment (e.g. a Playing Pitch Strategy or Built Facilities Strategy).

Sport England object to the section of Part A of the policy which allows the loss of playing fields and other sporting facilities where there is a substantial community benefit. This approach does not accord with the relevant national planning policy contained within para 74 of the NPPF and it is not clear what 'substantial community benefit' would involve. The NPPF requires that the proposed development is for alternative sports provision, the need for which clearly outweighs the loss.

Part B should also reference the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy as the evidence base to demonstrate the need for playing pitches associated with the additional demand created by new housing developments. The occupiers of new development, especially residential, will generate demand for sporting provision. The existing provision within an area may not be able to accommodate this increased demand without exacerbating existing and/or predicted future deficiencies. Therefore, Sport England considers that new developments should contribute towards meeting the demand that they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. The level and nature of any provision should be informed by Solihull's forthcoming Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) and any future Built Facilities Strategy (BFS). It is anticipated that the Solihull PPS will be completed before the publication of the revised Solihull Local Plan.

If this demand is not adequately met then it may place additional pressure on existing sports facilities, thereby creating deficiencies in facility provision. In accordance with the NPPF, Sport England seeks to ensure that the development meets any new sports facility needs arising as a result of the development. Solihull Local Plan should reflect this need in its local policies.

Site Allocations
Sport England would object to the allocation of any sites which would result in the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities unless evidenced by a robust and up-to-date evidence, as required by paragraph 73 NPPF.

Sport England are aware that work is currently underway on the completion of an up-to-date Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS). The PPS should be used to determine whether or not the playing field proposed for allocation is surplus to sporting requirements by demonstrating that there is an excess of playing fields in the catchment. If this cannot be demonstrated then the playing field or formal recreation land would need to be replaced with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality.

In the absence of an up-to-date PPS to justify the loss of playing field (and other sporting facilities) or confirmation of replacement with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality Sport England object to site allocations 4, 8, 15, 16 and 18; these site allocations would result in the loss of playing field land and other sporting facilities. Sport England will also object to any other site allocations which involve the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities without the necessary evidence or replacement facilities.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3399

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Sport England

Representation Summary:

Policy P20 -
Support protection and provision of sports facilities - does this include playing fields?
Should be more specific on evidence required to demonstrate any sports facilities/playing fields are surplus to requirements.
Would only accept a robust, up-to-date strategic assessment.
Object to loss of playing fields and other sporting facilities where there is a substantial community benefit. Does not accord with Para. 74. Unclear what this involves.
Part B should reference the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy as the evidence base.
Seek to ensure that new development meets any new sports facility needs arising as a result of the development.

Full text:

Solihull Local Plan Review - Sport England consultation response
Sport England would like to make the following comments:

Borough wide Challenges
Sport England support the identification of Challenges H, J and K. These Challenges are consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and are consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.

Policy P15: Securing Design Quality
Sport England, in conjunction with Public Health England, has produced 'Active Design' (October 2015), a guide to planning new developments that create the right environment to help people get more active, more often in the interests of health and wellbeing. The guidance sets out ten key principles for ensuring new developments incorporate opportunities for people to take part in sport and physical activity. The Active Design principles are aimed at contributing towards the Government's desire for the planning system to promote healthy communities through good urban design. Sport England would commend the use of the guidance in the master planning process for new residential developments. The document can be downloaded via the following link:
http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/active-design/

Through our statutory role, non-statutory role (major housing schemes) and our involvement with strategy development (evidence base Para 73 of NPPF) and our involvement through the local plan process we seek to ensure that Active design is utilised in the determination of planning applications and is embedded in Planning Policy P15 in order to influence the design and promote healthy communities and active lifestyles.

Policy P18: Health and Well Being
Support is offered for the principle that provides support for proposals which encourage healthy and active lifestyles. This is consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.

The use of Health Impact Assessments for larger developments is welcomed as these can help ensure that developments give appropriate consideration to how environments can be created which allow healthy and active lifestyles to take place.

Policy P20: Provision for Open Space, Childrens Play, Sport, Recreation and Leisure
The protection and provision of sports facilities is supported. However it is not clear whether or not the reference to the protection of existing facilities in Part A of the policy includes playing fields. It would be useful to provide clarity in this regard.

Sport England considers that Part A of the policy should be more specific as to the clear evidence required to demonstrate that sports facilities (particularly if these include playing fields) are surplus to requirements. Sport England would only accept a robust and up-to-date strategic assessment (e.g. a Playing Pitch Strategy or Built Facilities Strategy).

Sport England object to the section of Part A of the policy which allows the loss of playing fields and other sporting facilities where there is a substantial community benefit. This approach does not accord with the relevant national planning policy contained within para 74 of the NPPF and it is not clear what 'substantial community benefit' would involve. The NPPF requires that the proposed development is for alternative sports provision, the need for which clearly outweighs the loss.

Part B should also reference the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy as the evidence base to demonstrate the need for playing pitches associated with the additional demand created by new housing developments. The occupiers of new development, especially residential, will generate demand for sporting provision. The existing provision within an area may not be able to accommodate this increased demand without exacerbating existing and/or predicted future deficiencies. Therefore, Sport England considers that new developments should contribute towards meeting the demand that they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. The level and nature of any provision should be informed by Solihull's forthcoming Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) and any future Built Facilities Strategy (BFS). It is anticipated that the Solihull PPS will be completed before the publication of the revised Solihull Local Plan.

If this demand is not adequately met then it may place additional pressure on existing sports facilities, thereby creating deficiencies in facility provision. In accordance with the NPPF, Sport England seeks to ensure that the development meets any new sports facility needs arising as a result of the development. Solihull Local Plan should reflect this need in its local policies.

Site Allocations
Sport England would object to the allocation of any sites which would result in the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities unless evidenced by a robust and up-to-date evidence, as required by paragraph 73 NPPF.

Sport England are aware that work is currently underway on the completion of an up-to-date Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS). The PPS should be used to determine whether or not the playing field proposed for allocation is surplus to sporting requirements by demonstrating that there is an excess of playing fields in the catchment. If this cannot be demonstrated then the playing field or formal recreation land would need to be replaced with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality.

In the absence of an up-to-date PPS to justify the loss of playing field (and other sporting facilities) or confirmation of replacement with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality Sport England object to site allocations 4, 8, 15, 16 and 18; these site allocations would result in the loss of playing field land and other sporting facilities. Sport England will also object to any other site allocations which involve the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities without the necessary evidence or replacement facilities.

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3475

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

Representation Summary:

Welcome references in the Plan which identifies canals as Green Infrastructure (Policy P20) acknowledging the role they can play in providing open space and contributing to green networks, providing healthy places with
opportunities including cycling and walking.

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3703

Received: 14/02/2017

Respondent: Peter Bray

Representation Summary:

Health is important thus I support this policy but not at the expense of sustaining or increasing poverty.

Full text:

see attached written rep

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3718

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Hunter Page Planning

Representation Summary:

Policy P18 - Health Impact Assessments should only be required for development proposals over 300 dwellings and are strategic in their nature given the limited opportunities to deliver such benefits through small scale housing sites.

Full text:

see detailed response to policies and 4 supporting documents supporting proposed sites

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3736

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Silhill Football Club

Representation Summary:

On behalf of Silhill football club members, aware of the significant demand for better quality small size sports pitches in Solihull from own and other clubs, and object to the relaxation of the planning guidelines with regard to the protection of sports pitches within the current Local Plan and the concerted, damaging proposals to identify sports pitches throughout the Borough for development.

Full text:

I have tried and failed to access the online response facility for responses to the Draft local Plan despite having registered for the purpose and am using this route which is indicated as a simpler method of contact to make the following
points:

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I am writing on behalf of Silhill Football Club members, most of who live in Solihull, to comment on the Draft Local Plan which has recently been the subject of consultation. We own the freehold of the club premises and two full sized football pitches at Sharmans Cross Road and have been at this location since the mid-1920s. We also lease a full-size pitch at Hockley Heath Pavilion on a seasonal basis and a small-size pitch at Bentley Heath CofE School for two younger teams. In all we have 5 adult teams and 5 youth teams. Solihull Moors Girls u15s also use one of our adult pitches for their home fixtures. We are well aware of the significant demand for better quality small-size sports pitches in Solihull, not just from our own club.

We were concerned to learn of the relaxation of the planning guidelines with regard to the protection of sports pitches within the current Local Plan and objected to that. Our concerns are heightened by the concerted, damaging proposals to identify sports pitches throughout the borough for development. In the case of the former Solihull Rugby Club pitches and associated land, adjoining Solihull Arden Club at one side and our own club at the other, we are doubly concerned. This site is in an area of residential development where the few sports pitches that remain are a key aspect of the health and well-being of all the population and once lost will be gone forever. This is an unnecessary policy move and is counter to other policies for the area which seek to promote healthy activity and personal responsibility.

Flooding already is a major concern in the area and the proposed development is likely to worsen that. The drainage for the sports fields is often inadequate and developments are very likely to cause further problems of extreme water-logging.

We have noted that no real attempt has been made to keep the rugby pitches in use or to involve other sports and that contact to the organisations involved in the land has been ignored. We understand that Sport England may not be able to lodge an objection on current use grounds given the time which has elapsed since the land was used for rugby and believe that these two factors are clearly connected.

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3814

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Colchurch Properties Ltd

Agent: Richard Brown Planning

Representation Summary:

We are in agreement with the proposed policies

Full text:

Please find attached a response to the Solihull Local Plan Review consultation on behalf of Colchurch Properties Limited who are promoting land to the south of Station Road, Balsall Common.

This response comprises a 'Vision Document' which includes the following sections,

Foreword (inset)
1. Introduction
2. The Vision
3. Planning Background
4. Draft Local Plan 2016 Consultation Response
5. The Concept Masterplan (not including figures which are within the hard copy and CD issued separately)
6. Transport and Access

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3842

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: John Parker

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

* Policy P18. Health and Well Being - Agree in principle
* Policy P19. Range and Quality of Local Services - Agree in principle.
* Policy P20. Provision for Open Space, Children's Play, Sport, Recreation and
Leisure. - Agree in principle.

Full text:

see attached

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3873

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Ron Shiels

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

* Policy P18. Health and Well Being - Agree in principle
* Policy P19. Range and Quality of Local Services - Agree in principle.
* Policy P20. Provision for Open Space, Children's Play, Sport, Recreation and
Leisure. - Agree in principle.

Full text:

see attached

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3965

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Representation Summary:

Policy P18 - Question whether HIAs are required for each application for significant development.
Unclear in text what defines 'significant development'.

Full text:

In accordance with the consultation deadline for the Draft Local Plan Review, please find attached the following sent on behalf of our clients Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd:

* Letter addressing our representations on behalf of our client Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
* Appendix 1 Proposed Allocation Plan Layout
* Appendix 2 Grove Road, Knowle Promotional Document

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3983

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

* Policy P18. Health and Well Being - Agree in principle
* Policy P19. Range and Quality of Local Services - Agree in principle.
* Policy P20. Provision for Open Space, Children's Play, Sport, Recreation and
Leisure. - Agree in principle.

Full text:

see response and supporting documents

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4020

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

* Policy P18. Health and Well Being - Agree in principle
* Policy P19. Range and Quality of Local Services - Agree in principle.
* Policy P20. Provision for Open Space, Children's Play, Sport, Recreation and
Leisure. - Agree in principle.

Full text:

see attached response and supporting documents

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4066

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Stonewater

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

* Policy P18. Health and Well Being - Agree in principle
* Policy P19. Range and Quality of Local Services - Agree in principle.
* Policy P20. Provision for Open Space, Children's Play, Sport, Recreation and
Leisure. - Agree in principle.

Full text:

see attached

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4164

Received: 21/02/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Representation Summary:

Agree with the policies on health and supporting communities. Please that they recognise the benefits of green infrastructure and the environment as a health benefit and towards supporting local communities.

Full text:

additional letter to supplement reps made online

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4243

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Richard Lloyd

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.
**********************************************

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4428

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Arden Academy & Mr V Goswami

Representation Summary:

fully supportive of the policies as currently drafted.

Full text:

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

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4850

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Kler Group - Gentleshaw Lane

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

Generally support the policies as they are consistent with the NPPF.

Full text:

see attached documents

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4902

Received: 17/03/2017

Respondent: Persons with an interest Site 9

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

The policies as they are consistent with the NPPF.

Full text:

see attached documents

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4960

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Representation Summary:

Do not consider that it is necessary to prepare an independent Health Impact Assessment where an ES is prepared as this will cover all of the key relevant issues.

Full text:

see attached - site 12 land south Dog Kennel Lane