16 Solihull - East of Solihull

The plan mentions 650 houses on the fields above Hampton lane and Pinfold Road. Taking the space available this would mean any houses built would be small, tightly crammed in and right up the rear gardens of existing houses. Given the established high quality housing on Hampton Road and Pinfold Road this would seem to be an wholly inappropriate development and would have a very detrimental visual, noise and environmental effect on owners of the existing houses as the current field is overlooked and provides a lovely view.

Also there is plenty of wildlife using the land!

16 - East of Solihull (between Lugtrout Lane and Hampton Lane). As a Solihull resident and as someone who works in Solihull, I totally object the proposal of 650 new homes. This number is far too large for the supporting roads into and around Solihull. I am more than willing to take time to show the necessary decision makers how the roads already struggle to cope during peak hours. Also I think it is a terrible decision to build on one of the few green belt sites in the heart of the town.

RESPONSE TO SCHEDULE OF ALLOCATED HOUSING SITES : LPR ref SITE 16
I am writing to outline my concerns about the recent plans for development on this site.

As a long term resident of Lugtrout Lane, upgrading Lugtrout Lane and Field Lane has the potential of completely changing the character of the rural local area - a feature which SMBC continually state as a reason why Solihull is such a great place to live. The field in question is within the Meriden Gap, an area that you have recognised is under considerable development threat and should be protected where possible. It is possible to meet your own commitment by not promoting this site for development. By allocating this site for development you are breaching one of your own objectives shown on page 21 Challenge E Protecting key gaps between urban areas and rural settlements. The field you have selected is 1 of 2 that separate the settlement of Catherine de Barnes from Solihull. By allocating this site the distance between Solihull and CdeB is eroded by 50% . This would be detrimental to the local residents.


I understand that you need to provide a solution to the identified housing shortage but feel this site is wholly unsuitable due but not limited to the reasons stated above.

I do hope you consider an alternative plot for this proposed development as it will ruin the character of this small section of Solihull.

see attached letter received via email

response to schedule of Allocated Housing : LPR ref SITE 16
I have grave concerns over the building of 650 houses at SITE 16.
My concerns being :
1. Building on this site will erode the distance between Catherine-de-Barnes and Solihull.
The rural site will be 50% less than at present.
2. The area is within the Meriden Gap and has always been designated a Green Belt. And should remain so.
3. The proposed up-grading of the roads is totally illogical. And will only increase traffic. Lugtrout Lane is already a RAT RUN for Land Rover workers. The road speed of 30 MPH is NOT adhered to and causes problems with noise, pollution and inconsideration to house owners. Plus the increasing volume of traffic on Damson Parkway cause long queues up to the traffic lights on Solihull By-Pass.
Especially at peak times of 8:10am to 9:00am then again from 4:00pm to 5:30pm PLUS lunchtimes when Land Rover workers carry-out their lunchtime shift change.
4. Certain facilities such as schools, public transport, health services, shops, loss of sports facilities are of grave concern.
The requirement for these facilities has not been addressed.
5. The plan for 650 houses will result in over 2,000 people plus over 1,000 additional vehicles. Those numbers will completely change the character of the rural local area.
6. There will be potential loss of agricultural land and listed buildings.
7. As a homeowner in Lugtrout Lane we have been refused Planning Permission to build on our land. Reasons given being it a designated
GREEN BELT area. So how can the council over-ride this reason and do whatever they want.
IF the Plan for site 16 is approved, does that now mean we can build on the land we own ?

We realise the need to provide houses, due the shortage, however the plan for SITE 16 is not the area to meet these needs.

see attached letter

see attached letter

see letter

see attached letter re: site 16

see attached letter

Solihull LPR Site 16

As a resident of Lugtrout Lane, I wish to voice my concerns over the possible building of 650 new homes according to the LPR ref. Site 16. I recognize that SMBC have to provide a solution to the identified housing shortage, but I ask you to review your intention to include this particular site in the plan on the grounds listed below.

1) Building on Green field land.

2) Potential loss of prime agricultural land

3) Loss of accessible recreational sports facilities which seems contradictory to Challenge J Improving health and wellbeing for everyone (page22 Draft Local Plan)

4) The field is within the Meriden Gap an area that you have recognized is under considerable development threat and should be protected where possible. It is possible to meet your own commitment by not promoting this site for development.

5) Whilst you recognize that most of the bordering roads will need upgrading I do not believe this will go anywhere to resolving the ongoing traffic issues that this area is constantly subjected to: widening roads does not reduce traffic. Promoting a site of 650 dwellings will ultimately result in potentially 6000 + traffic movements per day. The continual expansion of JLR facilities will result in increase in traffic particularly on Damson Parkway and Lugtrout Lane, which will be exacerbated by the movements to and from dwellings. Policy P8 suggests that the Council is unlikely to support developments where the increased delay to vehicles is severe.

6) Upgrading two of the roads mentioned namely Lugtrout Lane and Field Lane has the potential of completely changing the character of the rural local area, a feature which SMBC continually promote as a reason why the Borough is so popular.

7) The plan also recognizes that certain facilities need increasing, namely schools, public transport and local health services. The plan seems to contain no guarantees that the increased provision will be provided. Schools and local surgeries are already over -subscribed. At present bus services in the area do not meet "Policy P7 Accessibility and Ease of Access " requirements for new developments in terms of frequency. Currently operators have shown little interest in improving them.

8) Policy P19 Range and quality of Local Services promotes developments will need to be sensitive to local character and enhance public realm and suggest that a development of this size in this locality fails to meet this criteria.

9) By allocating this site for development SMBC are breaching one of its own objectives namely that shown on page 21 Challenge E Protecting key gaps between urban areas and rural settlements. The field you have selected is 1 of 2 that separate the settlement of Catherine-De Barnes from Solihull. By allocating this site the distance between Solihull and Catherine-De-Barnes is eroded by 50%.

I do hope you will consider the points raised when you discuss the proposed plan.

see attached letter

We are writing to express our serious concerns about the proposal to allow a large housing development on site 16 as it is Green Belt land and its green belt status was defended by your own reports in2012. If these fields were built on the Meriden Gap would be seriously eroded
Hampton Lane, Damson Parkway and Lugtrout Lane suffer from severe daily congestion at peak times. Even if nearby roads are improved, these junctions could not cope with the additional traffic created by this number of houses .
We urge you to exclude this site from the Final Local Plan.

I am surprised and disappointed to see that in the current incarnation of the Draft Local Plan an area adjacent to Damson Parkway, Pinfold Road, Hampton Lane and Lugtrout Lane has been identified for housing development.

At a councillors' workshop a few months ago I pointed out that the staggered junctions of Yew Tree Lane, Hampton Lane, Marsh Lane and the Solihull Bypass cause significant traffic congestion (with concomitant noise and air pollution and delays to journeys) particularly back along Hampton Lane towards Catherine de Barnes, and not only at peak times. Traffic congestion along Damson Parkway/Yew Tree Lane will inevitably be exacerbated by the opening of the JLR logistics operation and traffic flow through Hampton Lane is likely to increase with the eventual development of UK Central. A housing development opening out on to any of the adjoining roads/lanes could only make matters much worse. Some of the land is used for children's sports and the football pitches, the need for which would increase with the influx of new families, would be lost.

I suggested the alternative proposal of developing instead land to the south of Catherine de Barnes, along and between Henwood Lane, Berry Hall Lane and Ravenshaw Lane. Catherine de Barnes, which already has some community infrastructure in the shape of a village hall, pub, shop, restaurant and some small businesses, could then be enlarged into a sustainable settlement with the addition of a school and health centre if there were sufficient new homes. Upgrading Ravenshaw Lane to provide direct access on to the A41 Solihull Bypass near Junction 5 of the M42 would not only serve the new development but actually alleviate some of the existing congestion along Hampton Lane. This proposal has the added advantage of preserving the green space between Damson Parkway, Lugtrout Lane, Field Lane and Hampton Lane as a buffer against urban sprawl.

This alternative proposal, which seemed the obvious solution when the local maps were scrutinised, was well received at the workshop by my fellow Councillors. I would like to know why it has not been incorporated into the current version of the draft Local Plan and I advance it again.

I am writing to express my concerns about proposals to develop Site 16 with 650 dwellings. I have the following reservations which I would like the Council to consider. I understand you have to address the housing shortage but I would strongly urge you to review the inclusion of this area in your plan.

1. The proposals breach your own objectives (Challenge E) namely maintaining key gaps between urban and rural areas as the development would join Solihull & Catherine de Barnes. It is also within the Meriden gap which you have identified needs protection. I would remind the Council of its motto Urbs in Rure. It seems to me we are having more urbs than rure and I would urge you to maintain the rure part as much as possible.

2. The area specified is home to both sporting and agricultural land both of which are needed to maintain the health of both children and adults given the obesity crisis we are facing and school sports facilities are in decline. This I believe contradicts Challenge J Improving Health and Wellbeing for Everyone. I get personal enjoyment from walking in the area with my grandaughter seeing animals grazing and meeting others doing the same which would be more difficult with the increased settlement and associated traffic. The loss of local agricultural land means increased transport costs to bring food from further afield at a cost to the environment.

3. I am also concerned about the increased traffic flow which could lead to even more traffic jams and subsequent delays particularly at peak times such as rush hour and shift changes at Jaguar Land Rover.
Currently a small hold up on the M42 sees long delays down Damson Parkway, Hampton Lane and Lugtrout Lane. If the plans to expand JLR go ahead this will increase traffic flow without the added pressure from
650 dwellings. It could lead to severe delays. As an example it recently took a friend half an hour just to drive off a local car park let alone get home due to severe congestion.

4. The upgrading of Field Lane and Lugtrout Lane will have the effect of completely changing the character of the rural oasis which is promoted by the Council as a desirable quality in the local area and makes it a popular area for visitors and residents alike. Along Field lane there is a listed building which could potentially be lost further eroding our heritage.

5. Do we have sufficient school, medical facilities and leisure options to support a development? The local hospital is continually losing aspects of work such as downgrading A&E, Birthing Unit etc. GP surgeries are under pressure and schools would face increasing class sizes which devalues the education process. Would new facilities be added at the same time as the housing or develop later? There is no guarantee in the plan that there would be an increased provision of these facilities.
Transport facilities are also limited at the moment so how would they cope with the additional pressure?

6. My final point is that the development would not be sensitive to or enhance the local character of the area.

Thank you for considering the above concerns.

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

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.

Re - Planning application plot 16 - east of Solihull between Lugtrout Lane and Hampton lane.
We appreciate that adequate Housing is required to meet the needs of our local community and understand why the proposed site would accommodate this need. As a resident at Pinfold Road, we wanted to share our views regarding the proposed development site.
The land behind our property is currently a wooded area backing onto farmland. This does contain large trees which acts as an area of privacy for our property and also security which is a concern due to a number of recent burglaries to properties on our cul-de-sac. The wooded area also has a population of birds, foxes and badgers and it would be nice to ensure that some of their habitat is protected. We would appreciate consideration for this small amount of land at the back of properties on Pinfold Road to remain and request that this information is taken into account during this planning stage.
Another concern that we have is the degree of traffic that we experience trying to get in and out of Pinfold road to join Yew Tree lane. We find this particularly difficult around times of shift changes for Jaguar Land Rover workers. With such a large amount of increased housing proposed at this site, we are concerned that this would significantly increase the current traffic situation.
We would if possible like to be kept up-to-date during the planning stages and welcome consultation with planners alongside other residents in this area.

see attached response

I am a resident on Pinfold Road which back directly and surround the fields that have been highlighted for development under this proposal- Solihull Local Plan

I have read the plan and have the following concerns:-

One of the reasons we purchased our property 5 years ago was for the tranquil settings it offered such as the views- greenery /fields which will disappear if this proposal was to go ahead.

I also feel that this will also have a detrimental effect on the value of our property. Would we be compensated for this? Would you purchase our property if we were not happy ?

We already have long queues of traffic around Damson Parkway/Hampton Lane/Yew tree Lane any additional traffic will cause grid lock and extremely long delays for all commuters.

Pinfold Road is a cul-de-sac a majority of the residents have young children who play outside as it is considered to be a safe area, very little cars travel down this road. These plans will effect this and in turn place our children's safety at risk.

Whilst there is a proposal to open a new school to accommodate the additional residents/children there is a already a shortage of faith schools with long waiting lists. How do you plan to overcome this without effecting/ penalising those existing residents who have siblings in these schools but may not receive a place as a result of the increased demand?

Currently we have a lot of wildlife that visit us regularly such as deers,rabbits,foxes what will happen to this ?

These are all serious concerns felt by myself and echoed by ALL the residents on Pinfold Road.

I would be grateful if you and your team would take these matters into consideration and respond to these points raised above.

The Local Plan incorporates land bordered by Damson Parkway, Lugtrout Lane and Hampton Lane part of which is in Silhill Ward.
Some years ago when ex Councillor Geoffrey Gibbons was Chairman of the Planning Committee, a similar situation arose where land had to be designated for the purpose of providing homes. This was around the time of the Hillfield development. The Land Rover sports ground was considered with the intention of offering Land Rover the ground between Damson Parkway, Lugtrout Lane and Field Lane because this land, as far as I am aware, has a deed/covenant on it stating it is designated SPORTS land. Apparently this dates back at least to when Solihull came under Warwickshire.
Should, therefore, this land be deleted from the plan? I would hope so.

letter to support online representations

This is submitted to reinforce the precis points we have submitted via the consultation portal, Refs 1461 and 1462

Site 16

once again we find our selves having to fight to save our precious green belt. Field lane and lugtrout lane are both unique in the borough of solihull in that they are surrounded by hedges and trees that have been unaltered for many centuries. Devastating both lanes by widening them will not improve the traffic issues, in fact it will make it a lot worse. Surely the most practical access to the site would be from a island directly off parkway which would not interfere with any existing structures. As our local schools and surgeries are already well over subscribed, how are they going to cope with the increased population. I appreciate that solihull is under pressure to supply land for new houses but i feel that a development of this size is not suitable in this location .

see attached documents

Site 16

I write to add my thoughts to the possible inclusion of land between Lugtrout Lane, Damson Parkway, Hampton Lane and Field Lane (site l6) ib the proposed Draft Local Plan.

Apart from the obvious that this site is within the Green Belt which I thought the Government were intending to preserve, I do not believe that if this plan if implemented, the surrounding roads will prove to be absolutely unable to cope and unfit for the increase in traffic which
will ensue. Lugtrout Lane now is a "Race Track" for traffic to and
from Land Rover and, at week-ends during the football season, is regulrly blocked with cars parked due to insufficient car parking
facilities provided at the various sports facilities in the Lane.
Furthermore the land is used as an "overflow" car park for the Spire hospital on Damson Parkway.

The upgrading of Lugtrout Lane and Field Lane will completely change the character of the area - a character which I thought SMBC usually promotes as a reason why the Borough is so popular.

Prime agricultural land will be lost and the building in Field Lane is "listed" what will happen to this?

Meriden Gap: this land is within the Meriden Gap which I thought SMBC were intending to secure.

I appreciate that SMBC has to find space for further development but I do not think that this is appropriate for this development and would ask that reconsideration of this Site could be undertaken.

see attached letter

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.

Solihull and in particular, "Site 16" is renowned for its rural feel (as acknowledged by the Places Directorate - reference above) should it really be destroyed and the critically important greenbelt encroached upon even further ?

Although appreciating the need for housing I fear the settlement of Catherine De Barnes will be no longer as it is swallowed up into Solihull and in doing so becomes another "faceless" suburb.
The current plans are a stark contradiction of the 2012 SHELAA report which rejected the development of this site. The reasons for rejection are as valid today( if not more so ) than 5 years ago.I note the report fails to guarantee the provision of extra schooling, transport and health services - why is this is when it is obvious to all that these services would be a necessity not a maybe ?
This plan appears to contradict, indeed contravene the Councils own objectives on so many fronts that I would suggest it be rejected in whole. The recently published government White paper would support this with its directive that Greenbelt land should not be built on except in exceptional circumstance.
I would suggest the Borough will lose far more than it would gain from the approval of "Site 16".