Q23. Are there any other comments you wish to make on the Draft Local Plan?

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the site at former Pinfold Nurseries (incl. no 67 Hampton Lane), north of Hampton Lane.

The submission comprises the letter of representations (9263 HRW LPA2 PN) 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 West of Meriden (Housing Allocation 10).

The submission comprises the letter of representations (6074 LPA2 GC) and a site plan (ref.no. 6074 Site Plan) with the site edged red

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Land.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Land.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Land.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Land.

I object to the description and vision for Hockley Heath. The current description in the borough portrait is inaccurate (there is 1 school, not schools) and the wording does little to highlight Hockley Heath as an important stepping stone between town and country and as a gateway into Solihull.

I also strongly object to the wording in the vision, "that Hockley Heath will have affordable homes to meet the borough needs". At our consultation event we identified a need for a small number of new homes but the consensus was for a mix of property types to address all pockets particularly the elderly. We already have 19 affordable homes being built in the village and there are other groups that have equally important needs who are not being addressed. We would like the wording changed so that Hockley Heath is not earmarked for solely affordable homes.

Please find attached the Response of The Knowle Society to your Consultation of the draft Local Plan 2017 Review.

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Housing :-

"Do you believe we are planning to build 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?"

I wish to object to the development of ALL Greenbelt land where there are alternative PDL sites available; especially those in Balsall Common known as Barratt's Farm and Windmill Lane. The latter is an historical site in which no development should be allowed to encroach into and ruin.
The reasons for my objection are below.

The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated. If Balsall Common must be subjected to yet more development, it seems ridiculous that greenbelt can be released when there are so many other brownfield sites available.

Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

Buses to and from the village are infrequent (1 an hour) and there is such heavy demand for the train service from Berkswell station that trains are often full to capacity. The inadequate parking at the train station results in neighbouring roads being used as car parks for the full day and over night having a negative impact on movement around the edge of the village.

Within Balsall Common itself and its surrounding hamlets is often grid locked, particularly at rush hours and school run times or when a nearby major road has issues and traffic diverts through the village. Parking in the village and surrounding area of Berkswell is extremely limited and it is difficult to actually get to the amenities due to volume of traffic.

The local primary schools are already oversubscribed and bursting at their seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing. Traffic around the schools is a huge danger to the young children.

These sites are all considerable distance from the schools and amenities, and there would undoubtedly be a huge increase in volume of traffic as it would be considered too far to walk.
Balsall Common is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car.

Windmill Lane and Meeting House Lane will become even more of a "rat run". The volume of traffic already using Windmill Lane and Meeting House Lane as a cut through is high and the speed of this traffic is also already dangerous.

These sites scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) These sites removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

SOLIHULL COUNCIL'S DRAFT HOUSING PLAN
Dear Sir
We wish to make the following comments concerning the above for you to consider.
GREEN BELT
At a time when government are announcing through many avenues of media that GREEN BELT land must be preserved at all costs it seems that SMBC have totally ignored this announcement and in doing so will close the ever decreasing gap between Balsall Common and Coventry and given the continuation of this policy along with the proposals Coventry have suggested, it appears that the GREEN BELT gap will be obliterated completely, which is totally unacceptable.
BALSALL COMMON CENTRE
While your plan intends to increase the dwellings in Balsall Common by well in excess of 30% there is absolutely no mention of your intention of increasing the facilities of the centre of Balsall Common. It is a fact that while the number of dwellings in Balsall Common has drastically increased over the last twenty years there has been no attempt by SMBC to increase the facilities. In fact most recently yet another bank has announced it intends to close its branch. The parking situation even with the increased parking facility behind the shops is still not enough and there are times now when it is very dangerous to try and get out of a parking position onto Station Road.
There are nowhere near enough variety of shops to service the existing residents of Balsall Common let alone an increase of the magnitude you intend and there are no public toilets, which one would think is a necessity with the increase of people your plan will attract.
TYPE OF HOUSING
We understand that you aim to make 50% of the new homes "affordable" even though one of the new sites under construction in Balsall Common has already found great difficulty in selling the "affordable" housing on the site because of the price. Surely it is common sense to position "affordable housing" in an area with in the borough where the surrounding properties and therefore the new properties fall into a price range that make the price affordable, rather in an area like Balsall Common where the prices are not conducive the "affordable" market
TRAFFIC
The largest site for Balsall Common is obviously the Barretts Lane Farm development but at this time no mention of how the site would be accessed is available. We would ask you to consider that Meeting House Lane must not be used in any form either directly or via Oxhayes Close or Sunnyside Lane or Barretts Lane, because it is already used as a bypass to the A452 even though you have had a number of speed bumps installed. Meeting House lane does not have pavements on either side of it other than a very small section of approximately 100metres and in fact it only has one pavement on one side of the Road from Station Road down to Sunnyside Lane which makes it a very dangerous road on which to encourage a very large percentage increase in foot traffic, a very large amount of which would be school children, if your if your plan comes to fruition.
If permission for the Barretts Lane site is given please consider the access to the new site to be a feeder Road off the current island positioned at the junction of Station Road and Hall Meadow Drive and taking it through to at least Kelsey Lane. This would not only eradicate any further problems along Meeting House Lane but also complete the extension to Hall Meadow Drive which would provide a complete bypass to Balsall Common Centre if it were extended to the island at the junction with the A452 and A4177.

I object. Please note, the question asked is "Please specify if you support or object", and the answers available to give are "Yes/No". I object to development site 5 in Chelmsley Wood. Building here will likely cause air pollution and congestion.

see letter
I would like to state for the record, my strong objection to the proposal for 700 new dwellings on Site Allocation 4 (west of Dickens Heath) in the Solihull Local Plan Review.

Representations on behalf of Schools of King Edward VI in Birmingham

GVA is instructed to submit representations to the Local Plan Review 'Draft Local Plan' consultation process.
Please therefore find attached a Representations document (which includes appendices), that provides our client's comments on the Draft Local Plan.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Properties and IM Land.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Properties and IM Land.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Properties and IM Land.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Properties and IM Land.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Properties and IM Land.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Properties and IM Land.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Properties and IM Land.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Properties and IM Land.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Properties and IM Land.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Properties and IM Land.

Please find attached the detailed report compiled by the BARRAGE action group in response to the Draft Local Plan.

I believe you will have received many letters of objection already which make reference to this report.

Please note that the focus of the report responds to Q15 in the DLP in that we do not believe that sites 2 and 3 should be included in the plan and would propose that serious consideration should be given to the inclusion of site 240 instead.

see attached letter and report from BC BARRAGE action group

see attached letter and supporting statement

see attached letter and supporting statement

see attached documents
LPR Draft - Representations IM Land Meriden - this is the overarching document
LVA & Green Belt Review Feb 2017
Access and transport Appraisal 161208
Land North of Main Road, Meriden - The Vision

DRAFT LOCAL PLAN DECEMBER 2016
My understanding is that the SMBC Draft Local Plan dated December 2016 is a "non-statutory document" and hence residents will have the opportunity comment on the Final Local Plan when published, and at the Public Enquiry.
It's accepted that there is a growing need for the Borough Council to agree to the development of more residential properties in the area and this will, regrettably, mean building on Green Belt land. However, the prospect of using 85% green belt land, including an existing amenities area, is difficult to accept.
When you consider the existing construction sites, together with what's proposed by SMBC and Bromsgrove District Council (BDC), we are looking at just under 3800 new properties that border Wythall Parish, hence the already busy arterial route through the Majors Green and Tidbury Green will become even more heavily congested. Add the extension to the Whitlocks End Railway Station car park and the proposed new sports hub along Tilehouse Lane/Tythe Barn Lane and it's obvious that serious consideration must be given to the highways infrastructure.
You may not be aware that we've had 30 traffic accidents on a 300 metre stretch of Haslucks Green Road/Tilehouse Lane in Majors Green during the past 18 months, including one pedestrian badly injured as she walked along the pavement. Worcestershire County Council has made a number of improvements but long term a more practical solution must be found in order to negate the potential for a fatality.
During the next year, I am confident that SMBC will be addressing residents' concerns and undertaking many assessments in and around the proposed development sites including health care provisions, primary and secondary school capacity checks, ecological assessments, recreational considerations, road transport management, etc.
It is pleasing that SMBC intend constructing cycle/walking lanes in and around the construction sites, in particular, those leading to Whitlocks End Railway Station.
Consideration should be given to carrying out road traffic flow measurements and analyses of all roads affected and come up with a solution that will link the proposed development sites with the A435 and A3400 roads, therefore preventing excessive traffic congestion in the Dickens Heath, Tidbury Green and Wythall Parish areas. Looking at the roads in and around Dickens Heath, I urge SMBC to come up with a road system that will be an improvement on what can only be described as "shameful".
In addition to your Draft Local Plan, a further report, dated 16th Dec, has been issued by The Planning Inspectorate (Government) which looks at the pro and cons of housing development in the BDC area up to 2030. It refers to an additional 7000 properties for which they have land for 4700 only. The remainder may be built on Green Belt land. It does mention Wythall amongst other neighbouring areas (in Section 66 (Policy BDP5B) citing "large scale" settlements"
In summary, I trust that you will:
* Consider spreading the development sites more equally around the whole of the Borough rather than concentrate on Shirley and Dickens Heath areas.

* Seriously consider the impact on of constructing on Green Belt land

* Carry out a traffic flow survey in the Dickens Heath, Majors Green and Tidbury Green areas and undertake an analysis of the increase in traffic resulting from the ongoing and new developments

* Make it a condition that the development companies agree to fund the necessary improvements to existing highways, pavement lighting, and construction of new highways as required by your Final Plan

* Consider retaining the Amenities Area behind Badgers Estate

* Encourage Centro to extend the Whitlocks End Railway Station Car Park as soon as possible.

* Consider charging a parking fee at the existing and new Whitlocks End Railway Station to limit commuters from outlying areas using the facility

* Co-ordinate SMBC and BDC development plans

* Ensure Richborough proposed plan for the Sports Hub has adequate parking spaces for those who will use the facilities

* Consider constructing a Park and Ride facility in a strategic location in order to limit the traffic flow through urban areas