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

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I would like to register my objection to the proposed housing allocation 18 and planning application fro the following reasons.

The traffic in Sharmans Cross rd at school times does not exceed 5MPH, With excess of 12 single and double decker buses per hour using Sharmans Cross rd, the majority being diesel engined, I would be concerned that any further traffic increase would expose the school children to dangerous levels of diesel fumes.

The traffic grid lock at peak hours causes drivers to use the pavement to continue there journey, any increase in traffic will again increase the safety concerns for pedestrians.

The extra housing would put even more pressure on the currently oversubscribed schools and medical centres with the in Solihull.

The intensity of the development is out of keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.

There are less public amenities and parkland now in central Solihull than there were in 60's, yet the population has more than doubled, this development will only add to the imbalance. Maybe you should change the town motto.

There are badgers, foxes and bats living within the area and these will all lose valuable habitat should if this development is accepted. Maybe you should change the town motto now.

I would like to know if Solihull Council still intend to honour their agreement in 2013 to uphold the covenant that the grounds should only be used for sport and they would not sell the freehold.

Dear Sir,

I wish to register my strong objection to the Council's Plan and support the detailed response to the Plan, which I have attached to this email.

Yours faithfully,

Dear Sir,

I wish to register my strong objection to the Council's Plan and support the detailed response to the Plan, which I have attached to this email.

Yours faithfully,

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"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 scale of development proposed in Balsall Common and any potential future development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common).

The reasons for my objection are below.
1) 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".
2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.
I live in Dengate Drive which joins onto the Kenilworth Road in the north of Balsall Common. I frequently struggle to get out onto this road at peak times and in the morning and evening especially there is a crawling line of cars coming into the village from down past the roundabout where the George in the Tree restaurant is all the way into the village. This would only be made worse with increased cars on the roads due to increased housing in this area.
The development of more sites on top of the one already being developed on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase.
3) There is already inadequate parking in the village centre and even driving through the existing parade of shops is an accident waiting to happen as cars pull in and pull out suddenly. Further development in Balsall Common is only going to add to the existing congestion and parking difficulties.
4) 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 that:
1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

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

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


Yours faithfully

Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan

We are instructed to submit representations on behalf of clients to the consultation on the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review

GL Hearn acts on behalf of Severn Trent Water (STW) and is instructed to submit representations to the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Draft Local Plan Review Consultation in respect of its landholding at Illshaw Heath.
These representations follow previous representation to the Scope, Issues and Options Consultation in January 2016.

As we set out within our latest reps, it is unclear whether our Jan 2106 reps have been considered in the preparation of this Reg 18 stage of the Local Plan Review. For the avoidance of doubt therefore we also attached a copy of our previous representation alongside this submission.
Our Jan 2016 representation includes a plan with the STW site shown edged red.

I trust that these representations will be taken into full consideration in the preparation of the next stage of the Local Plan Review

My comments are below are specifically related to the housing proposals in Balsall Common:-

Strategy

In the 21st century it is entirely inappropriate to use parish (council) boundaries as arbitrary measures for building proposals. Few of these boundaries directly relate to building developments in the last 50/75 years. In the case of Balsall Common, the parish boundary runs directly through the centre of Balsall Common (BC) which places much of the village in Berkswell parish albeit no one in full command of their faculties would recognise that much of Station Rd., Hallmeadow Rd and even the railway station are in Berkswell. Nor is the proposed Barretts Farm development. In fact, I can see NO proposal to build houses in the village of Berkswell! Why has there been no development in or directly adjacent to Berkswell village in over 30 years?

Similarly, Hampton in Arden proposal is for 100 houses and Meriden is for only 50. So why, is Balsall Common targeted for > 1,000?

This is nothing more than SMBC expediency which culminates in an unfair and disproportionate burden on Balsall Common. I was advised by a SMBC rep. at the BC "roadshow" on 7 January that the land proposed for development had been "offered" to SMBC for inclusion in the plan. Is this really the best SMBC planners can do? It is clear that this approach has been favoured by landowners with a clear vested interest and greedy developers who wish to build on green field sites all around the borough and as the easy & expedient option for the council. SMBC will reply by saying - "What alternative sites are there?" Well, of course, the truth of the matter is for them to know and/or find out. It is not the job of local residents to locate suitable sites for housing development and then have to object when SMBC produce some kind of hare brained plan. I cannot recall this approach being adopted for the route of HS2. Local and national government didn't accept "offered up" sites for this!

There seems little evidence of brown field sites being considered or targeted. There are 14 PDL sites in BC.

Specifically

The housing developments in BC in the past few years (Kenilworth Rd.x 2, Riddings Hill, Kelsey Lane) have already overloaded the existing infrastructure.

BC Primary school operates with > 700 pupils on a site designed for 300+. This expansion has already blighted the lives of local residents because of traffic and parking problems. There is little enforcement of restrictions by SMBC CEOs. Traffic also causes concern & chaos for residents in the vicinity of Heart of England school which "imports" children from outside the catchment area.

The rail service is overloaded and run by one of the worst franchises in the UK. Trains are late or often cancelled, dirty and overcrowded. The station car park is full and cars are parking in nearby roads causing obstructions.

The bus service is haphazard. Again, services are late, cancelled and staffed by drivers who don't know the routes. History shows that operators can and will withdraw services with little notice.

The main A452 is a continual queue of slow moving vehicles during peak times in both morning and evening. The road itself is an "escape route" for traffic delays on the M40, M42 &M6 with side roads becoming "rat runs".

BC is poorly served by public transport and is gradually choking by virtue of traffic on the A452.

There is virtually no employment within BC hence most people will commute by car adding to the pollution and congestion.

There is already inadequate car parking in the village centre for both long and short stay motorists.

Financial institutions are increasingly closing their branches in BC.

The proposed development at site 2 (Frog Lane) will completely spoil one of the finest landscape views in the village looking south west.. It covers an area of allotments which have only been open in the past few years and a sports field which is the only available sports field on the west side of the A452. This is currently used by village football teams, joggers, walkers, dog walkers and is one of the few "quiet" environments left in BC away from traffic noise and pollution.

In SMBCs rush to add to an already over-developed BC, there appears to have little or no consideration given to historical sites such as the Windmill. The undoubted mess and confusion due to be by HS2 will be a further burden.

The effect of building 1000+ houses with (say) 4000+ inhabitants will virtually double the size of BC. The whole character and heritage of the existing community will change out all recognition. What other community within SMBC area will suffer the same expansion?

Conclusion

There can be no justifiable reason to foist this level of development on BC when taking a view on the minimal levels proposed for neighbouring villages. It is neither fair nor proportionate.

SMBC need to reconsider use of brownfield sites where suitable.

BC is already at breaking point with much of its infrastructure. Where are plans to improve this?

Protection needs to be established for the heritage and history of BC. It is not acceptable to double the population and lose its essential character.

Remove site 2 from the DLP as a prime piece of community used land offering a totally rural & tranquil environment away from traffic & pollution enjoyed by residents of all ages.

I write in response to the draft housing plan with specific reference to Balsall Common

1) Traffic - The proposed 1350 new homes for Balsall Common will generate approximately 9,500 additional vehicle movements each day, most of which will discharge onto the A452 Kenilworth Road. This road is a through route for cars and heavy goods vehicles from the south to the M42 and M6 motorways, and is gridlocked at certain times of the day even now. How are these vehicles to be accommodated on the existing road network?

Does the Council intend to construct a by-pass, and if so, will it be on the line of the previously proposed route utilising Hall meadow Road?

Why did the Council revoke this improvement line only a year or so ago, knowing that it would have to meet future housing needs?

2) Infrastructure - What proposals does the the Council have for improving the infrastructure for Balsall Common to cater for the people living in these new homes in terms of schools, medical centres, shops and other basic infrastructure requirements?

3) Parking - Parking in the centre of Balsall Common is presently chaotic and insufficient, and exacerbated by the lack of provision for delivery vehicles to the shops in the centre, particularly the recently opened Tesco store, where articulated vehicles arrive frequently and totally block traffic.

Hall Meadow Road (originally considered to be the northern section of a possible By-pass) regularly has upto 40 vehicles parked between Station Road and Riddings Hill and beyond. Some of these vehicles belong to train commuters (parking at the station is inadequate) and some to visitors to the new medical centre, where parking provision appears to be insufficient. Did the planning experts assume that people seeking medical attention would walk, ride their bike or catch a bus to the centre?

Some of this parking takes place on the grass verges, and with a solid line of 40 vehicles parked on one side of the road, when larger vehicles travelling in opposing directions meet in the middle, one vehicle is forced onto the grass verge opposite.

The proposed new homes for Balsall Common will only exacerbate the existing parking problems in the area generally, and specifically at the station and in the centre around the shops.

How are these issues to be addressed in your plan?

I would like to object to the proposed building on Allocation 13.

I strongly object to building on green belt land and believe this should only be used to build on as a last resort.
I urge the council to find alternative land.
I appreciate that more houses are needed but why doesn't the council use land in Solihull or Birmingham, where space has become available through factories etc being demolished. Also, there are infill sites elsewhere, i.e. Dorridge.
It seems that the council propose to build an awful lot of homes into a very small area in Shirley.

My husband and I live on Woodloes Road, right opposite the proposed site.
The land is used by dog walkers and people enjoying the tranquil, open space that we so often need in today's stressful world.
Apart from the loss of such a beautiful and tranquil area,I also have many concerns around the use of this land for houses.
My concerns are with building 600 houses comes all the changes that are needed to service this estate.
There would need to be access into the estate and if Woodloes RD was chosen as an access road it would have a massive impact on the traffic and cause long delays, especially at peak times, when trying to get in or out of our homes.
Our local services, such as doctors surgeries and schools will not stretch to accommodate the extra numbers of residents.
The land already has a lake on it and where would the excess water drain to, would it become a flood risk to us in the future?
When looking at the plan to build, if it goes ahead, will the council do all they can to make it asthetically pleasing as an estate?
I would like to think that the proposal is to leave enough space between Woodloes Rd and the new houses, so that we don't feel on top of each other and that we will not be staring at a brick wall of flats or similar tall buildings.
I hope the plan involves some greenery in the form of hedges bordering the proposed estate, similar to that on Monkspath estate.

I sincerely hope our objections and fears are taken seriously as Solihull Council rate payers and urge you to think again before building on Allocation 13.

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

see attached letter

see attached letter

see letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

Arden Academy Questionnaire

Arden Academy Questionnaire

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment