Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

1. Do you believe that there are exceptional circumstances that would justify the Council using an alternative approach, if so what are the exceptional circumstances and what should the alternative approach be?

The method used by the Council to determine the housing requirement for the Plan is not suitable. It uses a national methodology and outdated household projections. It is based on the assumption that there is no constraint to meeting the full projected requirement (now called 'Local Housing Need' in NPPF 2018).
The NPPF 2018 sets out at para 11 the principle for Plan-making:
Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
For Plan-making this means that:
a) plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change;
b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas (footnote 5), unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area (footnote 6); or
ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
Footnote 5 As established through statements of common ground (see paragraph 27).
Footnote 6 The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 176) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 63); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.

Solihull Borough, outside its built-up areas, is all land designated as Green Belt. The Green Belt is of greater than usual strategic (geographic) significance because it separates two cities, Birmingham and Coventry, by the area known as the Meriden Gap, which is only 6 miles wide and risks becoming narrower. It has been established policy in successive development plans and in regional strategies to retain the Green Belt between the two cities and to maintain very strong planning policies to prevent urbanisation of the land between them. This policy dates from the 1950s and has been supported by successive Solihull development plans - the UDPs adopted in 2000 and 2006, and the Solihull Local Plan adopted 2013. The Green Belt in Solihull provides a very strong reason for restricting the overall scale of development in the Plan area. The 'objectively assessed need' or 'local housing need' identified by the standard method cannot be met without undermining the Green Belt, listed as a policy in Footnote 6 of the NPPF..
A second policy to protect an area and asset of particular importance is that for the Knowle Village Conservation Area. Knowle is the most important Conservation Area is the Borough, and the designation aims to preserve its village character. Proposals to surround Knowle village with extensive housing to its north and southeast would undermine the Conservation Area's character and setting because Knowle would become a town in terms of population size and urban extent. Conservation Areas are listed in the NPPF's Glossary as Designated Heritage Assets. Designated Heritage Assets, like land designated as Green Belt, are included in NPPF Footnote 6 as one of the grounds for restricting development below the 'objectively assessed need'.
A further exceptional circumstance which makes Solihull unusual and justifies an alternative approach is the degree to which the Borough is the location for a large number of jobs taken by people who do not live there, and who commute in.
Solihull has a population of 210,400 (2015). The Draft Local Plan states at para 30 that the number of jobs in the Borough is 100,000, and that 50% of them are taken by people who do not live there. Thus 50,000 people commute into the Borough daily. There is also substantial commuting out of the Borough to Birmingham. The extent of commuting in and out of Solihull makes estimating 'local housing need' under the NPPF 2018 and PPG difficult and contentious. Solihull's employment growth has never been dependent on provision of housing and has not been held back by limitations on housing or on its price. The long-standing policy of the Council to encourage employment growth has been in the full knowledge that many of the jobs are filled by people living outside the Borough.
The conclusion to draw from para 30-31 of the Plan is that Solihull's housing requirement should not include provision for more than 50% of those who work in the Borough, perhaps less; but should include some provision for the needs of Birmingham. While this may appear paradoxical, it reflects the reality of the employment pattern and the interrelationship of Solihull and Birmingham.

The alternative approach to the standard method specified in the NPPF and PPG should therefore be capacity-led. The level of new housing in the Plan period should in principle be limited to the urban capacity on land which is not Green Belt, or whose development would not undermine the specific village character and conservation status of Knowle village and its setting.

There is scope for some changes to the Green Belt boundary in locations which do not affect the openness and rural character of the Meriden Gap, and do not undermine the village character and rural setting on the north, east and southeast of Knowle village. However these should be limited. The Solihull Green Belt Study gives some guidance on which areas of the Green Belt make the most and least contribution to its purposes; its status is however limited by the fact that it is a consultants' report and not a planning document that has been subject to public consultation or involvement in its preparation.

Housing Market Area

In the section 'Housing Market Area' (para 49-52), it is stated (para 49):
The Draft Local Plan included a commitment to accommodate 2,000 dwellings from the shortfall that is occurring in the wider Housing Market Area. Using the same contribution, the overall housing requirement to be addressed in the Local Plan Review would, using the standard methodology outlined above, be 15,039 dwellings over the period 2018 to 2035, or 885 dwellings per year.

There is no justification for this commitment to take 2,000 dwellings from the wider HMA, because that conflicts with the principles set out in NPPF para 11 and the Green Belt and Knowle Conservation Area constraints.

We are not aware that the Council has reached an agreement with adjoining Councils regarding its contribution to the HMA shortfall.

The rate of housing delivery suggested in the Consultation text, 885 dwellings/year for 17 years 2018-2035, is far above the highest number of completions in the Borough in any one year except in one year, 2005. It is double the rate of house completions that have been recorded over the last 10 years (2008-2018). It is also above the 'cap' that would apply if the standard method were to be used to calculate Solihull's own local housing need.

The proposed housing policy and projected housing requirement of 15,000 over 17 years is not sound, because it is not deliverable from past evidence. Such a high rate of delivery over the life of the Local Plan could never be achieved - it is double the past rate, the housebuilding industry does not have the resources to built at such a rate, it takes no account of economic cycles or the projected economic downturn of the next few years.

The Council can instead use the 2016-based household projections, which are independently published by the ONS and indicate the most likely household growth in the Borough given the many constraints. This is an annual growth of 550 households, or 9,350 over 17 years 2018-2035.

That level of housing provision is largely achievable within the constraints of the Green Belt and the Designated Heritage Asset of Knowle Village Conservation Area. The Solihull Housing Land Supply table (page 13) shows that housing supply excluding 'Allocated Sites' (6,310 dwellings) and UK Central Hub (2,500 dw) is 7,355. (The 'minus 400' or 10% reduction applied to sites with planning permission and SLP 2013 allocated sites is not justified. Experience in the Borough in recent decades is that generally the number of houses given planning permission at detailed application stage is above the Local Plan number, not below it.) Therefore there is capacity for 13 years of the Plan period, up to 2031, without needing new allocated sites which are now Green Belt, if the most recent household projections for the Borough are used.

Housing Land Supply: Small Sites

The Consultation document at para 56-57 addresses the issue of 'Small Sites' but there is no consultation question attached. In the previous consultation (Dec 2016-Feb 2017) there was significant comment that the Local Plan is relying on large housing allocations and contains very few small sites, despite national policy to encourage small sites which can be developed with short lead-time and quickly, compared to the slow rate at which large sites reach detailed permission stage and then are built out. NPPF 2018 para 68 says: 'Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly'.

Para 56-57 seek to justify the Local Plan's preference for large sites by asserting that national policy is complied with if only 1500 houses are proposed on small sites below 1 ha. It says that since windfall sites (2250 dw) and brownfield-register sites (400 dw) would be small sites, 'these sources will comfortably exceed the 10% requirement for small sites'.

NPPF 2018 para 68(a) in fact states that planning authorities should identify land to accommodate 'at least 10%' on sites no larger than 1 ha. But this does not mean that the remainder can therefore be proposed on large site allocations. There are many sites between 1 ha and 5 ha which are 'small or medium' and would not be large allocated sites. Many were advanced by developer or property interests at the call-for-sites stage but have not been accepted.

There are good reasons to maximise the number of small and medium sites:

* They are usually sustainable locations within the existing urban areas
* They are accessible - served by existing public transport
* They are near existing services - schools, shops, community facilities
* Small and medium sites in the urban areas reduce or remove the need to change Green Belt boundaries and remove land from the Green Belt.
* The large sites proposed in the Local Plan can only be 'greenfield' as there are no more old industrial areas to redevelop; hence cause loss of Green Belt.

The Plan's bias in favour of large, greenfield, housing sites remains. It needs to be changed and the focus changed to (a) sites below 1 ha and (b) sites between 1 ha and 5 ha (small-to-medium).

2. Do you agree with the methodology of the site selection process; if not, why not and what alternative/ amendment would you suggest?

No, because there are significant inconsistencies in the application of the methodology which undermine the integrity of the whole site selection process. The analysis of sustainability does not meet the standards as set out in the NPPF2 Para. 3.32.
The Council should consider reviewing their Sustainability Appraisal in line with the criteria as set out in the Government's sustainability scorecard, see:- www.thescorecard.org.uk For example, when this analysis was applied to Site 4 at Dickens Heath, this site only scored a 30% sustainability rating which outs that proposed housing site in the 'red' not 'green' category. Just looking beyond that example, there are other sites that are inconsistent with Option G of the Spatial Strategy.
It is not possible to understand how some of the sites fall into the green category. The criteria for 'green'status is that "they have no or relatively low impact on relevant considerations; or that severe impacts can be mitigated". But some clearly have a high impact. Again, if an updated sustainability scoring was produced in line with recent Government Policy, the results on site selection would be different. Without this, the credibility and robustness of the process is undermined.
It is also noted that the assessment excludes a number of smaller sites from the Sustainability Appraisal. As noted in the response to Question 1, regarding the 'Small Sites' section of the Consultation document (para 56-57), the Plan's strategy continues to focus only on large scale Green Belt releases. This is not consistent with government advice in the NPPF that a mix of sites should be encouraged. Many of the small sites advanced by owners or prospective developers which have not been accepted as allocations in the Plan need to be reassessed to see if they could contribute to housing growth in a more sensitive way which has less overall impact on the Green Belt and on local character, and whether they are more readily deliverable.

Question 4:
Do you believe that Site 1 Barratt's Farm should be included as an allocated site, if not why not? Do you have any comments on the draft concept masterplan for the site?

Barratt's Farm should NOT be included as an allocated site. The land is an extensive area of farmed countryside which performs a key role in the Meriden Gap. Development of Barratt's Farm would reduce the separation between Balsall Common and the edge of the Coventry built-up area, which is Burton Green, from 2 km to just over 1km. The remaining open land is degraded to an extent by the National Grid switching station, and the row of houses on Waste Lane, whilst nominally within Green Belt, bridges a significant proportion of the Green Gap not occupied by the National Grid site. HS2 if built will then effectively remove the remaining open landscape between Balsall Common and Burton Green.

It is likely that Barratt's Farm on average performs better than site RP51. This is a large tract of land having a Green Belt score of 7.

Draft Concept Plan:
Detailed comments on the Concept Plan for Site 1 have been submitted by local people and Parish Councils. We support the general points that they are making.

6. Do you believe that Site 3 Windmill Lane, Balsall Common, should be included as allocated site, if not why not? Do you have any comments on the draft concept masterplan for the site?

No. We wish to object to the Council's proposal to allocate Site 3, in Balsall Common, as part of the Local Plan. Although there are many reasons why the site is unsustainable, we are particularly concerned about the ecological impact the development of this site would have. The Green Infrastructure map Habitat Distinctiveness 2016 shows that this is an area of High Habitat distinctiveness, where development should be avoided (see p4 of the Ecological Assessment). However, these have not been fully respected when cross referenced to p23 of the master plans, particularly with regards to the 30m buffer around woodland.

Although there is no doubt as to the high impact the site would have on biodiversity (Draft Concept Plans, p24), Solihull Council's proposed solution would appear to be focussed around offsetting rather than preserving these precious habitats. There are other smaller sites that have a higher sustainability scoring and a lesser ecological value than Site 3.

Other Green Belt Changes

10. Do you have any comments to make on potential changes to the Green Belt boundary east of the settlement (Balsall Common) that would result in the removal of the 'washed over' Green Belt from those areas not covered by a formal allocation?

We oppose removal of 'washed over' designation because it is useful in restricting the scale and density of redevelopment in Green Belt areas surrounding large towns and cities. near large populations. . In low-density settlement areas, or dispersed settlement, the 'washed-over' designation ensure that Green Belt policy is maintained. This provides for limited infilling in a developed frontage, where new houses are permitted of a size and height of the existing development. But elsewhere new houses should not be significantly larger than those they replace.

In the area east of Balsall Common, removal of Green Belt status proposed for land south of Old Waste Lane and Waste Lane will remove the current level of control over development. This would result in unstructured, random development as individual sites are promoted for development.

The majority of the land in this parcel is broad area 4 and is scored at 12 in the Atkins Strategic Green Belt Area Assessment (2016). Only a very small area RP56 is found to make a limited contribution to the Green Belt. Therefore proposing to remove this land from the Green Belt goes against the AGBR that broad area 4 which states " The area covers a large part of Birmingham and Solihull to the West and Coventry to the East......The area performs highly against all 4 purposes and makes an equal contribution to the preservation of the Meriden Strategic Gap and the setting and character of the Berkswell Conservation Area".

see attached letter of response

see attached letter of response

see attached letter of response

see attached letter of response

see attached letter of response