Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

SSCG Local Plan Review Response



We are clearly pleased with the removal of site 13 from the local plan after a long campaign by local residents and SSCG



On the point of the current plan for SMBC to give only six weeks for local residents to respond seems unfair given the fact that you're asking for responses to be put against individual items within the plan.



Coupled with fact that there are ten thousand pages plus with support documents, a large percentage of the documents were uploaded after the consultation went live, with some changes in supporting evidence happening as late as in the final week of the consultation.

None of these were publicised



A disproportionate amount of supporting evidence was uploaded in October (around

30-40% in terms of page numbers), when the consultation went live so it’s less than the six weeks in real terms to submit responses.



We would question the plans soundness and legality to whether the plan has been positively prepared and justified (being an appropriate strategy based on

proportionate evidence),

Is effective (deliverable over the plan period), and is consistent with national policy.



Distribution



The spread of housing is disproportionate, 31% in Balsall Common and 39% in the Shirley Blythe area. This is 70% of the total plan in two small areas.





Sustainability



The environmental impacts are not sustainable



Green Belt land is essential for sustainability, both in terms of maintaining land

availability for future generations, but also for CO2 sequestration (absorbing carbon

from the atmosphere)

Whilst some Green Belt use for housing is unavoidable, the disproportionate amount

is unsustainable



Alternatives



Rather than “urban extension”, which the plan is focussed on, “verticalisation” in

built up areas should have been prioritised to maximise land efficiency for housing.



This is essential for preserving Green Belt, but also to ensure the necessary densities

that make sustainable travel alternatives viable.





Process



No drop-in sessions were arranged due to Covid

instead YouTube briefings were put online but some people reported that their questions were not answered here as they were not interactive in the same way that either a live Zoom/webinar would have been, or a

face-to-face drop-in would have been

SSCG Local Plan Review Response



We are clearly pleased with the removal of site 13 from the local plan after a long campaign by local residents and SSCG



On the point of the current plan for SMBC to give only six weeks for local residents to respond seems unfair given the fact that you're asking for responses to be put against individual items within the plan.



Coupled with fact that there are ten thousand pages plus with support documents, a large percentage of the documents were uploaded after the consultation went live, with some changes in supporting evidence happening as late as in the final week of the consultation.

None of these were publicised



A disproportionate amount of supporting evidence was uploaded in October (around

30-40% in terms of page numbers), when the consultation went live so it’s less than the six weeks in real terms to submit responses.



We would question the plans soundness and legality to whether the plan has been positively prepared and justified (being an appropriate strategy based on

proportionate evidence),

Is effective (deliverable over the plan period), and is consistent with national policy.



Distribution



The spread of housing is disproportionate, 31% in Balsall Common and 39% in the Shirley Blythe area. This is 70% of the total plan in two small areas.





Sustainability



The environmental impacts are not sustainable



Green Belt land is essential for sustainability, both in terms of maintaining land

availability for future generations, but also for CO2 sequestration (absorbing carbon

from the atmosphere)

Whilst some Green Belt use for housing is unavoidable, the disproportionate amount

is unsustainable



Alternatives



Rather than “urban extension”, which the plan is focussed on, “verticalisation” in

built up areas should have been prioritised to maximise land efficiency for housing.



This is essential for preserving Green Belt, but also to ensure the necessary densities

that make sustainable travel alternatives viable.





Process



No drop-in sessions were arranged due to Covid

instead YouTube briefings were put online but some people reported that their questions were not answered here as they were not interactive in the same way that either a live Zoom/webinar would have been, or a

face-to-face drop-in would have been

SSCG Local Plan Review Response



We are clearly pleased with the removal of site 13 from the local plan after a long campaign by local residents and SSCG



On the point of the current plan for SMBC to give only six weeks for local residents to respond seems unfair given the fact that you're asking for responses to be put against individual items within the plan.



Coupled with fact that there are ten thousand pages plus with support documents, a large percentage of the documents were uploaded after the consultation went live, with some changes in supporting evidence happening as late as in the final week of the consultation.

None of these were publicised



A disproportionate amount of supporting evidence was uploaded in October (around

30-40% in terms of page numbers), when the consultation went live so it’s less than the six weeks in real terms to submit responses.



We would question the plans soundness and legality to whether the plan has been positively prepared and justified (being an appropriate strategy based on

proportionate evidence),

Is effective (deliverable over the plan period), and is consistent with national policy.



Distribution



The spread of housing is disproportionate, 31% in Balsall Common and 39% in the Shirley Blythe area. This is 70% of the total plan in two small areas.





Sustainability



The environmental impacts are not sustainable



Green Belt land is essential for sustainability, both in terms of maintaining land

availability for future generations, but also for CO2 sequestration (absorbing carbon

from the atmosphere)

Whilst some Green Belt use for housing is unavoidable, the disproportionate amount

is unsustainable



Alternatives



Rather than “urban extension”, which the plan is focussed on, “verticalisation” in

built up areas should have been prioritised to maximise land efficiency for housing.



This is essential for preserving Green Belt, but also to ensure the necessary densities

that make sustainable travel alternatives viable.





Process



No drop-in sessions were arranged due to Covid

instead YouTube briefings were put online but some people reported that their questions were not answered here as they were not interactive in the same way that either a live Zoom/webinar would have been, or a

face-to-face drop-in would have been