Q22. Do you agree with the Policy P21? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

on the whole agreed. BUT "pooling" of contributions is important. Balsall Common will remain an attractive place provided it gets its fair share - not more, not less. in the past funds from land sales have been spent elsewhere, as have commuted sums which should be spent in the village - at this rate it will become a small town and should be treated as such.

The objectives are commendable but we need to ensure that each site produces infrastructure for the settlement. Schools,all weather pitches, better parking and where possible roads that bypass the centre and moves the traffic past.

S106 does not work, affordable housing that has been developed under s106 is often re-sold or rented at full market value

I agree with the policy but am not optimistic that it will be enforced.

But must be enforced

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.

The wording is too vague and must be strengthened to be meaningful.
The first sentence reads 'Developers will be expected to...',and this should be strengthened to read 'Developers must...'
Furthermore, providing infrastructure and mitigation measures in a 'timely' manner, is too nebulous and open to interpretation and abuse. This must be strengthened.
We question the effectiveness of this policy, and ask how it will be monitored and enforced?

I agree that tree are many areas to address such as schools, healthcare provision, shops, parking. I hope by now these areas have been acts upon and draft plans made. Solihull hospital should be offering 24hr A&E. A town growing in such a capacity needs better care and policing.

I don't believe measures to mitigate impact will materialise - and if they do are likely not to benefit Balsall Common. The physical, social and green infrastructure to the south east of Balsall Common is being built over with little idea of any "infrastructure and mitigation measures" - let alone in a timely manner - i.e included in the Local Plan! I don't believe the cumulative impact of developments has been accounted for - particularly he works site proposed for HS2 in Balsall Common.West
Contributions secured through planning obligations may be pooled to address need or cumulative impacts arising from more than one development proposal.

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.

Any money received for homes built in Balsall Common must be spent for the benefit of the residents of Balsall Common.

All money received for developments in Balsall Common should be spent for the direct benefit of Balsall Common residents

All CIL payments, new homes bonuses and profits from council land sales should directly benefit the area where the houses are built only

I consider that the policy is inadequate.

P21 does not specifically state that all CIL payments, new homes bonus, or profit on the sale of Council land for housing be spent in the areas where the housing is to be built.

This is quite WRONG, and the policy should be AMENDED.

The wording is not string enough. The first sentence reads 'will be expected to'. This is too 'woolly' and should be enforceable by replacing these words with one simple but mandatory word 'MUST'
I agree with the statement regarding infrastructure and mitigation measures being provided in a 'timely manner' but the interpretation of this is open to debate. How eill thus be monitored and enforced?

The wording is not strong enough. The first sentence reads '...will be expected to'. This needs to be replaced by one simple mandatory word 'MUST'! I agree with the statement re infrastructure and mitigation measures but question the meaning of 'timely' in its current context. This expression is open to debate as to its meaning. How will this be monitored AND enforced?

You do not state that CIL payments, new homes bonus or profit from sale of Counsil land for homes should be spent on the areas you are building houses. This should be the case, as these are the areas that are being affected.

As stated previously - the delivery of HS2, bypass and 800 homes on the Barrats lane site in Balsall Common will be a logistical and phasing nightmare, submitting existing residents to many years, if not decades of continuous development on their doorsteps

Planning decisions have to take into account other factors rather in addition to policies in this plan, including but not limited to emerging issues, socio-economic factors, value for money considerations and prioritisation among different needs, impact of any decision on other areas and ensuring that all implications of proposed developments are fully understood and can be properly addressed.

Any CIL monies arising from developers in a local area should be spent on that local area. An attempt by Solihull Council to retain monies and spend elsewhere is in effect taxing one area to support another. It is effectively compensation for where the damage to the environment has been caused and where the payments can have best effect to offset the negative impacts of those developments. The money must stay in the community where it has been generated.

Policy should be amended to require developers to contribute to overall infrastructure requirement of the community in which they are developing - if the scale of development proposed drives a need for additional road / bypass infrastructure as well as additional school places, then full cost of all additional infrastructure should be levied across all of the proposed sites in the Local Plan for that locality. CIP should be assessed based on the future development value of the sites, not that at the date of planning application. SMBC should establish an entitlement to CIL based on actual site values achieved.

Under this section there is a recognition that to deliver the Local Plan there is a need to work in partnership with Voluntary sector organisations such as ourselves; we are hopeful that this can happen by understanding the positive impact of our Horticulture, Conservation and Sports project and works with us to maintain the service.

Given the major impact on local infrastructure, all monies received by SMBC from the development should be reserved solely for use in the locality impacted by the development.
When designing the infrastructure plan, it should be acknowledged that Balsall Common will already be extensively impacted by HS2 construction works in the period 2018 to 2026.
This needs to be considered when designing infrastructure plans and phasing of development build.
As a minimum there should be no commencement of any Barratts Farm development work until such time as the HS2 works are completed

Given the major impact on local infrastructure, all monies received by SMBC from the development should be reserved solely for use in the locality impacted by the development. When designing the infrastructure plan, it should be acknowledged that Balsall Common will already be extensively impacted by HS2 construction works in the period 2018 to 2026. This needs to be considered when designing infrastructure plans and phasing of development build. As a minimum there should be no commencement of any Barratts Farm development work until such time as the HS2 works are completed

There is much to support here but is could be much stronger. Also there should be an analysis of the use of this policy to mitigate the plans that are being approved. Will the unintended consequences of development out weigh the mitigations proposed and if so should the development not be allowed in the first place.

Development funds accumulated from the sale of land should be ring-fenced so that Balsall Common and not other areas under development, benefits from its own environment restructure.

the policy does not specifically state that all CIL payments will be spent in the areas where the housing is built. I think the council should categorically state that the CIL payments received will DIRECTLY benefit the areas where the housing is built.

SMBC should ensure that all or most of the CIL payments, new homes bonus, profit on sale of land etc is spent in the settlements where the homes are built.
There has to be rigorous oversight of developers as they will minimise their outlay on infrastructure and walk away.