Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

It is recognised that some of the matters raised in this objection may be suggested by the Council to be included in the proposed Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) but the policy context must be properly established in the Local Plan. Accordingly, the changes sought to make Policy P4D more effective are:
a) A more refined approach to the location of self and custom build plots across the Borough, reduce reliance on allocated housing sites delivering plot and specific self and custom build plots across the Borough.
b) The trigger for self and custom build plots being based upon the number of market dwellings not all dwellings on a site
c) Submission of a ‘sales strategy’ for self and custom build plots. This would apply to all sites where such housing is provided. The content of what might be in a strategy can be included in the SPD.
d) Deletion of any valuation requirement in favour of the ‘sales strategy’. If the valuation requirement is maintained then the purchaser must pay.

1. Richborough Estates Limited supports the principle of the Council meeting its statutory duty to provide plots for self-build and custom homes on the register. However, the approach being adopted is crude and lacks any real thought about what types of sites people on the register may wish to build upon. Accordingly, an objection is made to Policy P4D which requires amendment to make it more effective.

2. The supply of plots for self-builders and those wishing to erect custom homes is fundamentally based upon a requirement for developers of allocated sites (of over 100 dwellings) to make the plots available based upon 5% of open market dwellings. The policy does include some criteria which may result in a different provision being made. However, there are 5 matters which justify further consideration being given to the supply of self and custom build plots.

3. Firstly, although a Borough wide figure is provided, there is no analysis of where the greatest demand for such plots exist. Someone living at Tidbury Green may not want a plot a Meriden and visa versa. A refinement is required whereby the provision of plots, up-to a maximum of 5% on allocations if this remains the approach to delivery, reflects demand based upon the register.

4. Second, consideration will need to be given to the cumulative number of market dwellings being provided within a particular locality. For example, is there sufficient demand for self and custom build plots to be provided on all the allocated sites at Balsall Common or within Blythe Ward?

5. Thirdly, an important factor is that will those people included on the register who want to build their own homes be happy erecting their property in the middle of a large housing allocation? Will there be the demand for such plots and where is the evidence to demonstrate this will be the case when drafting Policy P4D? As already noted, such allocations are the only source of supply of self and custom build plots under Policy P4D.

6. Fourthly, it can reasonably be expected that a Design and Access Statement and potentially a Design Code will be required for any large allocation. Such documents will establish the design and architectural approach to the development of a housing site. Will the parameters and constraints associated with a Design Code be conducive and attractive to those on the register wanting a self or custom build plot? The architectural freedom of the prospective self-builders will be curtailed.

7. A related point will be that the self-builders would be the subject of the same implementation conditions and planning obligations as the housebuilder. The Council will need to consider how this interaction would work if a self-builder failed to satisfy a condition of the outline consent or meet an obligation. Purchasers of market dwellings do not have to be concerned about such matters because they are generally the responsibility of the housebuilder to satisfy.

8. Finally, the requirement for self and custom build plots is based upon 5% of the market dwellings being provided on a site. It would, therefore, be more appropriate if the policy referred to the size threshold triggering the requirement being based upon 100 market dwelling rather than all dwellings. This would ensure a consistent approach otherwise there should be provision for 5% of the affordable homes being self-build.

9. In Richborough Estates’ view, it would be more appropriate for the Council to give consideration to the diversification of supply by the specific allocation of a range of smaller sites across the Borough for self and custom builders. These sites can be targeted to where there is a known demand based upon the register. The provision of dedicated sites is the approach adopted by Stratford on Avon District Council in its emerging Sites Allocations Plan (it has reached Regulation 18 stage).

10. The drafting of Policy P4D also needs to be revisited, specifically Criterion 2. As part of a larger allocation it may not be possible to offer such plots into the market fully serviced to the boundary and with unconstrained access to the highway. The development of the plots would need to follow the phasing of a scheme which may mean that the plots have to be sold in advance of these requirements being met. Further, it is also the case that what happens if plots are left vacant for 12 months because there is no interest and how would a traditional housebuilder be able to come back and erect their own houses?

11. It would be more appropriate, by a condition, for a ‘sales strategy’ to be submitted and approved as part of the first reserved and for the self and custom build plots to be brought forward in accordance with the approved details.

12. There is no justification as to why the value of the plots will need to be the subject of an independent valuation by a Registered Surveyor. If the plots are offered to the market in an agreed form via the ‘sales strategy’ (e.g. via approaching people on the register, posting details on a specialist website, asking a local agent to market the plots or placing plots in a specialist Auction) then the market will determine what price is paid. Incidentally, who will pay for the independent valuation the seller or the purchaser? It will need to be the purchaser.

13. Although unlikely to be a significant issue for the majority of allocations, sight should not be lost of viability considerations because, if it is necessary, at application stage an assumption would need to be made about the likely revenue from the sale of self and custom build plots.

The modifications required are:
1) The settlement of Cheswick Green should be inset from the Green Belt.
2) Additional land should be removed form the Green Belt to meet any potential shortfall in the provision of housing land during the plan period. This should include an omission site at Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green.
3) Additional land should be removed from the Green Belt and identified as safeguarded land.

1. Richborough Estates Limited supports the principle of land being excluded from the Green Belt for housing purposes. However, objection is made to Policy P17 the Local Plan because (a) consideration should be given to the exclusion of the settlement of Cheswick Green from the Green Belt; (b) additional housing allocations are required and insufficient land is proposed to be excluded from the Green Belt and (b) no safeguarded land has been excluded from the Green Belt. Policy P17 is not effective and inconsistent with national planning policy. For these reasons, additional land should be excluded from the Green Belt including Richborough Estates’ interest at Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green.

2. Once established, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies of plans should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they can endure beyond the plan period (Paragraph 136).

Principle of Insetting Cheswick Green from the Green Belt

3. Paragraph 140 of the Framework recognises that if it is necessary to restrict development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt. However, if the character of the village needs to be protected for other reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management policies, and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt.

4. As identified on the Proposed Policies Map the vast majority of the settlement of Cheswick green is washed over by the Green Belt. The exception is a previous housing allocation at Mount Diary Farm (Cheswick Place) which was excluded from the Green Belt, which is located to the south ofRichborough Estate’s site off Tanworth Lane Paragraph 423 justifies the retention of Cheswick Green, and other settlements in the Green Belt because this reflects the character of these settlements, the limited impact that small infill developments would have on the wider Green Belt, including by way of openness, and the limited, small scale opportunities that exist within their settlement envelope. This justification might apply to some of the other settlement but not Cheswick Green.

5. Analysis of Cheswick Green’s settlement pattern, or even a cursory review of the aerial photographs, identifies that the only significant open element of the settlement is associated with the watercourse and its floodplain. Other than this linear green feature, and as acknowledged at Paragraph 578 of the Local Plan, Cheswick Green is a predominantly a planned village dating from the 1970s and consists almost entirely of post-war development characterised by cul-de-sac, open plan layouts. It has an urban character associated with a 1970s housing scheme and not an open character that makes a positive contribution to the openness of the Green Belt.

6. Cheswick Green also has population of 2,197 residents in 891 households which are increasing because of recent housing development. There are a range of facilities, including shops and a primary school. It is, somewhat unusual for a settlement of this size to remain within the Green Belt, especially when comparing Cheswick Green to other villages such as Hockley Heath which has a similar sized population and number of households.

7. As a matter of principle, reflecting the national policy in the Framework, Cheswick Green should be inset from the Green Belt together with any land required to meet short or longer term housing needs.

Principle of a Housing Allocation at Cheswick Green

8. Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, taking in to account whether the strategy makes as much use as possible of previously developed and underutilised land; optimises the density of development to make efficient use of land including higher densities in town centres and other locations well served by public transport; and informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development (Paragraph 137).

9. When reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account and where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land, plans should give first priority towards land which has been previously developed and/or is well served by public transport, and plans should set out ways in which the impact can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land (Paragraph 138).

10. Although there is no definition in policy or guidance of what comprise exceptional circumstances as envisaged in the Framework, Case Law has confirmed that any alteration to the Green Belt must be justified by exceptional circumstances rather than general planning concepts (Carpets of Worth Ltd v Wyre Forest DC (1991) 62 PCR 334). It is a matter for the Council to reach a sound planning judgment on whether exceptionality exists in the circumstances of an individual case (Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin)). The application of the exceptional circumstances test was also recently considered in the decision of Ouseley J. in Compton PC & Others v Guildford BC & Others [2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin) (Compton). Although this case related to the 2012 version of the Framework the commentary for this Case concerning exceptional circumstance remains relevant.

11. There is a recognised two-stage approach to which can be followed to provide the necessary evidence and justification to identify that exceptional circumstances exist to alter the Green Belt boundary through the preparation of a Local Plan. The first stage is the evidence gathering and assessment that leads to an in-principle decision that alterations of the Green Belt boundary may be justified to help meet development needs in a sustainable way. Such a need may relate to the significant benefits which would be associated with a specific development proposal (e.g. in the Compton case was found to have significant benefits in terms of affordability and delivery of affordable housing notwithstanding the objectively assessed housing need was being materially exceeded).

12. Stage 1 concerns the evidence gathering and assessment that leads to an in-principle decision that a review of the Green Belt boundary may be justified to help meet development needs in a sustainable way. It is set out at paragraph 137 of the Framework and requires the Council to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. .

13. There is evidence that there have been discussions throughout the preparation of the Local Plan with neighbouring authorities, under the Duty to Co-operate, to consider whether there is the opportunity for these areas to accommodate some of Solihull Borough’s housing need on non-Green Belt land. However, the authorities boarding Solihull Borough have a lack of land within their urban areas, the same Green Belt considerations and issues about accommodating the growth needs of an adjoining large urban area, whether Birmingham or Coventry.

14. The Overall Approach Topic Paper records the issues related to accommodating the unmet housing needs of Birmingham across the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (HMA). As at April 2019, there was still a shortfall of some 2,597 dwellings to be accommodated across the HMA even after Solihull agreeing to accommodate some 2,000 dwellings. However, it is also recognised in the Topic Paper that the final details of any contribution must be tested through a Local Plan process in accordance with national guidance. This is primarily associated with the need to release land from the Green Belt to support any contributions it makes. Equally, there is a question whether Solihull Borough might be able to accommodate further unmet housing needs to address the ongoing HMA shortfall.

15. Although Richborough Estates does have concerns about the assessed housing requirement, principally associated with the HMA shortfall, it is clear from the Local Plan’s evidence base that to accommodate the level of housing proposed does require land to be removed from the Green Belt. There have been extensive studies concerning what land might be suitable and available for housing development within the urban areas of Solihull Borough. Indeed, the Local Plan has sought to making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land within both the urban area and, in sustainable locations, the Green Belt. A significant number of the potential housing sites in the Site Assessments document are within the urban area.

16. Within the urban areas there is evidence the Council is seeking to optimise density compatible with local character. The justification for Policy P15 refers to “The appropriate density of residential development will be informed by the need to make efficient use of land together with the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting. Where it can be demonstrated that a higher density would improve the character and quality of an area, this will be supported.”

17. As a matter of principle, Richborough Estates concur with the Council that the necessary Stage 1 exceptional circumstances exist to alterations to the Green Belt boundary to accommodate the housing needs during the plan period. There is a separate point whether it is necessary to identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period. (Framework paragraph 139).

18. Stage 2 of the exceptional circumstances approach then determines which sites would best meet the identified need having regard to Green Belt harm and other relevant considerations, including whether they are suitably located and developable. Stage 2 considers matters such as previously developed land or land well served by public transport together with ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be off-set through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. In the case of this Local Plan, Policy P17A allows for such enhancements to be secured through off-setting which is a pragmatic approach to adopt and is supported by Richborough Estates.

19. The Site Selection Process Topic Paper usefully explains the approach of combining the various studies which were undertaken and form part of the Local Plan’s evidence base, including the Green Belt Study, the Sustainability Appraisal the Accessibility Study and the Landscape Character Assessment. Unfortunately, some of the potential sites, such as Richborough Estates’ interest at Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green have not been fully tested. Such sites form part of a much larger parcel and, as such, the merits of these smaller sites have not been fully considered.

20. Cheswick Green is a settlement where no allocations are currently proposed notwithstanding the settlement possessing “a number of key local facilities, including a one-form entry primary school, GP surgery, village hall, pub and local shops. Public transport is via the bus service which runs to Shirley and Solihull.” (Local Plan paragraph 578). It is also proposed that the primary school will be enlarged to 2-form entry to accommodate pupils from new housing development at Blythe Valley Park and Mount Dairy Farm. The accessibility and sustainability credentials of Cheswick Green were recognised by the allocation and subsequent housing development at Mount Diary Farm (Cheswick Place).

21. These same accessibility and locational credentials, alongside the opportunity to inset Cheswick Green within the Green Belt in accordance with paragraph 140 of the Framework, provide a demonstrable basis for the identification of a further housing allocation at Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green to meet any shortfall in the housing requirement during the plan period.

22. Richborough Estates land interest fronts Tanworth Lane and lies between the recent housing development at Mount Diary Farm and Highleys Farm. The land is referred to as Site 99 in the Borough Council’s Site Assessment document and a location plan accompanies this objection. Other documents assessments forming part of the evidence base do not consider this site individually.

23. The omission site could come forward for housing development for a minimum of 130 dwellings. Based upon a consideration of the wider Local Plan evidence based published by the Council, an up-date assessment of this site has been undertaken upon the Site Assessment’s criteria and this is attached to this objection. Also attached to this representation is an illustrative concept masterplan which shows how the site could come forward for development. This reflects the approach in the Council’s Concept Masterplan document (October 2020).

24. A landscape-led approach to the master planning of the site has been adopted as a key principle with the existing boundary vegetation being retained and creation of a physical and defensible Green Belt boundary. Areas of open space are identified which provide the opportunity for biodiversity benefits of the type of compensatory improvements to environmental quality and accessibility sought by the Framework when land is released from the Green Belt.

25. Other than Green Belt, there are no policy or insurmountable physical constraints to the development of the omission site. If excluded from the Green Belt and formally allocated for residential use, the site could come forward for development as part of the first tranche of housing allocations.

26. There would be the opportunity to provide for a range of dwelling types and sizes at a density that respects the adjacent pattern of development and the site’s location on the edge of Cheswick Green. Housing on the site would not be visually intrusive within the wider landscape setting of Cheswick Green when viewed from the surrounding countryside, nor would it pose issues of wider coalescence.

27. For the Local Plan to be effective, the land at Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green should be allocated for housing, especially if the settlement is to be an inset from the Green Belt.

 
Safeguarded Land

28. Paragraph 139 of the Framework refers to, where necessary, identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period. This approach is to be able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period. Such safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time and planning permission for the permanent development should only be granted following an update to a plan which proposes its development. However, the safeguarded land policy could include a criterion whereby such sites could come forward for development in the event that the Local plan is not delivering housing as expected (e.g. the Council fails the Housing Delivery Test). Such an approach would remove the necessity of a formal review to maintain housing land supply.

29. Although UK Central will deliver some housing and employment land beyond the end of the plan period, there are no safeguarded being proposed despite the Green belt boundary being redrawn. The Local Plan is inconsistent with national policy.

30. As an alternative to a housing allocation, Richborough Estates proposed that safeguarded land should be identified at Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green, especially if the settlement is to be an inset from the Green Belt.

Policy BC2 need to be amended to ensure the Local Plan being positively prepared, effective and justified:
Criterion 1 should be amended to be “approximately” 110 dwellings.
Criteria 2(ii) and (iii) are capable of being combined. A single criterion saying “Subject to other masterplanning considerations, the western field is not proposed for housing but shall be retained and used for biodiversity improvements”
Criterion 2(iv) should be deleted.
Criterion 2(v) should be deleted
Criterion 2(vi) should be deleted
Criterion 2(vii) should be deleted
Criterion 3(iii) should be deleted. If a criterion is required then it should state “As part of any application a SuDS scheme shall be submitted”.
Criterion 4(i) - Justification of Policy BC2 it should be made clear that this off-setting approach is acceptable because the recreation ground is designated as Local Greenspace in the Neighbourhood Development Plan.
Concept Masterplan is broadly acceptable to Richborough Estates. However, Richborough Estates has an alternative access option to the one shown on the Concept Masterplan which cannot be included in this representation for commercial reasons. To avoid any future concerns associated with a “significant departure” then there should be recognition that the access location might change and some flexibility on this specific matter is required.
At Page 22 of the Council’s Concept Masterplan document a modification to text is required to state “Predominantly 2-storey medium density housing is appropriate in this semi-rural location. Approximately of 110 units can be accommodated on the site.”

1. Richborough Estates Limited supports the principle of the housing allocation at Frog Lane, Balsall Common (Policy BC2) and the timing of its delivery. It is an available, suitable and deliverable site for housing at one of the larger settlements within Solihull Brough which sits on a public transport corridor and has a range of facilities.

2. Although Richborough Estates has worked with the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council to assist the framing of the potential housing scheme indicated on the Concept Masterplan, objections are made to Policy BC2 related to the detailed requirements for the proposal. Alternative wording is proposed to provide some flexibility to ensure the policy is positively prepared, effective and justified.

Formal Objection to Policy BC2

3. The idea of Concept Masterplan for the proposed Frog Lane housing allocation is supported. However, the production of Concept Masterplan does create a strong expectation about how an allocation might come forward for development, especially with the local community.

4. It is recognised that Concept Masterplans are acknowledged by the Council to be the subject of change as further infrastructure survey work is carried out at the application stage. However, Policy BC2 is clear that any significant departure from the principles outlined in the Concept Masterplan will need to be justified and it will be necessary to demonstrate that the overall objectives for the site and its wider context are not compromised. The overall objectives associated for any of the Concept Masterplans are not specifically identified in either the relevant policy or the supporting document. Further, there is a lack of clarity about what significant departure might be defined.

5. Accordingly, although not seeking to materially dilute the drafting of the policy and the Concept Masterplan document to such a degree that it has limited value, there is a need to ensure some flexibility in how an allocation might come forward for development.

6. At Frog Lane the specific requirements of Policy BC2 need to be amended to ensure the Local Plan being positively prepared, effective and justified:

a) Criterion 1 should be amended to be “approximately” 110 dwellings. An absolute figure of the type drafted is too prescriptive, especially where the final capacity should emerge through a more detailed design process at application stage.

b) Criteria 2(ii) and (iii) are capable of being combined. Richborough Estates have no proposals to erect housing in the western field proposed to be removed from the Green Belt. Instead, the field has some biodiversity value at the moment and there is the opportunity to improve this value as part of the housing development. A single criterion saying “Subject to other masterplanning considerations, the western field is not proposed for housing but shall be retained and used for biodiversity improvements” would be appropriate and would provide some flexibility to improve the masterplanning process, for example there might be a need for an item of infrastructure such as SuDS or the access road to cross the field (i.e. as shown on the Council’s Concept Masterplan).

c) The detailed design of a SuDS system is a matter for a planning application taking into account the ground conditions and topography of the site. It is also worthy of note that there are underground features, such as soakaways or subbases, which are part of a typical SuDS scheme. To seek to restrict a potential optimum design of a SuDS system should not be included in a policy but flexibility should be retained. Accordingly, criterion 2(iv) should be deleted. This deletion can also be justified because there is an element of duplication with criterion 3(iii). However, if a criterion is required then it should state “As part of any application a SuDS scheme shall be submitted”.

d) Deletion of reference to “Retention of existing playing fields and allotments” because these facilities (i) do not form part of the housing allocation (nor the Concept Masterplan) and (b) they are Local Greenspaces as identified in the Balsall Common Neighbourhood Development Plan (Policy NE.3). Criterion 2(v) should be deleted.

e) The principle of facilitating easy access by walking and cycling to the rail station and other facilities is supported by Richborough Estates but it is unclear what this actually means for the purposes of masterplanning the allocation. It is assumed that this matter is already addressed in the infrastructure requirements under Criterion 3(iv). Accordingly Criterion 2(vi) should be deleted.

f) Richborough Estates have submitted an objection to Policy P4D. In respect of Frog Lane, Richborough Estates question is whether it is appropriate to provide 5% of the market dwellings as self and custom build plots on this site. Some 1,600 new homes are proposed at Balsall Common with the policies for each allocation seeking 5% self and custom build plots. Is there sufficient evidence of demand for these plots? Richborough Estates propose that the 5% requirement is deleted from Policy BC2 and the self and custom build plots are provided at the larger sites of Barratt’s Farm (Policy BC1), Trevallion Stud (Policy BC5) and Pheasant Oak Farm (Policy BC4).

g) The detailed design of a SuDS system is a matter for a planning application taking into account the ground conditions and topography of the site. To seek to restrict a potential optimum design of a SuDS system should not be included in a policy but flexibility should be retained. Accordingly, criterion 3(iii) should be deleted. If a criterion is required then it should state “As part of any application a SuDS scheme shall be submitted”.

h) Criterion 4(i) refers to the “Provision of improvements to Holly Lane recreation ground as part of the enhancements to mitigate the removal of the allocation from the Green Belt.” In the Justification of Policy BC2 it should be made clear that this off-setting approach is acceptable because the recreation ground is designated as Local Greenspace in the Neighbourhood Development Plan.

7. Subject to the suggested modifications to Policy BC2, the Concept Masterplan is broadly acceptable to Richborough Estates. However, Richborough Estates has an alternative access option to the one shown on the Concept Masterplan which cannot be included in this representation for commercial reasons. To avoid any future concerns associated with a “significant departure” then there should be recognition that the access location might change and some flexibility on this specific matter is required.

8. As has been identified to the Council previously, the majority of the houses are likely to be 2-storey. However, whether apartments or to assist with legibility, there should be the option to have buildings of up-to 3-storeys in height at selected locations, including towards the centre of the proposed housing allocation to allow design variation where appropriate. At Page 22 of the Council’s document a modification to text is required to state “Predominantly 2-storey medium density housing is appropriate in this semi-rural location. Approximately of 110 units can be accommodated on the site.”

Principle of the Allocation

9. Once established, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies of plans should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they can endure beyond the plan period (Paragraph 136).

10. Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, taking in to account whether the strategy makes as much use as possible of previously developed and underutilised land; optimises the density of development to make efficient use of land including higher densities in town centres and other locations well served by public transport; and informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development (Paragraph 137).

11. When reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account and where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land, plans should give first priority towards land which has been previously developed and/or is well served by public transport, and plans should set out ways in which the impact can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land (Paragraph 138).

12. Although there is no definition in policy or guidance of what comprise exceptional circumstances as envisaged in the Framework, Case Law has confirmed that any alteration to the Green Belt must be justified by exceptional circumstances rather than general planning concepts (Carpets of Worth Ltd v Wyre Forest DC (1991) 62 PCR 334). It is a matter for the Council to reach a sound planning judgment on whether exceptionality exists in the circumstances of an individual case (Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin)). The application of the exceptional circumstances test was also recently considered in the decision of Ouseley J. in Compton PC & Others v Guildford BC & Others [2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin) (Compton). Although this case related to the 2012 version of the Framework the commentary for this Case concerning exceptional circumstance remains relevant.

13. There is a recognised two-stage approach to which can be followed to provide the necessary evidence and justification to identify that exceptional circumstances exist to alter the Green Belt boundary through the preparation of a Local Plan. The first stage is the evidence gathering and assessment that leads to an in-principle decision that alterations of the Green Belt boundary may be justified to help meet development needs in a sustainable way. Such a need may relate to the significant benefits which would be associated with a specific development proposal (e.g. in the Compton case was found to have significant benefits in terms of affordability and delivery of affordable housing notwithstanding the objectively assessed housing need was being materially exceeded).

14. Stage 1 concerns the evidence gathering and assessment that leads to an in-principle decision that a review of the Green Belt boundary may be justified to help meet development needs in a sustainable way. It is set out at paragraph 137 of the Framework and requires the Council to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. .

15. There is evidence that there have been discussions throughout the preparation of the Local Plan with neighbouring authorities, under the Duty to Co-operate, to consider whether there is the opportunity for these areas to accommodate some of Solihull Borough’s housing need on non-Green Belt land. However, the authorities boarding Solihull Borough have a lack of land within their urban areas, the same Green Belt considerations and issues about accommodating the growth needs of an adjoining large urban area, whether Birmingham or Coventry.

16. The Overall Approach Topic Paper records the issues related to accommodating the unmet housing needs of Birmingham across the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (HMA). As at April 2019, there was still a shortfall of some 2,597 dwellings to be accommodated across the HMA even after Solihull agreeing to accommodate some 2,000 dwellings. However, it is also recognised in the Topic Paper that the final details of any contribution must be tested through a Local Plan process in accordance with national guidance. This is primarily associated with the need to release land from the Green Belt to support any contributions it makes. Equally, there is a question whether Solihull Borough might be able to accommodate further unmet housing needs to address the ongoing HMA shortfall.

17. Although Richborough Estates does have concerns about the assessed housing requirement, principally associated with the HMA shortfall, it is clear from the Local Plan’s evidence base that to accommodate the level of housing proposed does require land to be removed from the Green Belt. There have been extensive studies concerning what land might be suitable and available for housing development within the urban areas of Solihull Borough. Indeed, the Local Plan has sought to making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land within both the urban area and, in sustainable locations, the Green Belt. A significant number of the potential housing sites in the Site Assessments document are within the urban area.

18. Within the urban areas there is evidence the Council is seeking to optimise density compatible with local character. The justification for Policy P15 refers to “The appropriate density of residential development will be informed by the need to make efficient use of land together with the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting. Where it can be demonstrated that a higher density would improve the character and quality of an area, this will be supported.” Richborough Estates consider there is a legitimate question to be raised whether, in some cases, the development density of land released for housing from the Green Belt has been optimised, especially a locations well served by public transport. A specific objection to the assumed capacity of the land west of Dickens Heath (Policy BL1) has been raised in this context and refences has been made to Policy BC2 (and other similar allocation policies) having a minimum provision.

19. As a matter of principle, Richborough Estates concur with the Council that the necessary Stage 1 exceptional circumstances exist for alterations to the Green Belt boundary to accommodate the housing needs during the plan period.

20. Stage 2 of the exceptional circumstances approach then determines which sites would best meet the identified need having regard to Green Belt harm and other relevant considerations, including whether they are suitably located and developable. Stage 2 considers such as previously developed land or land well served by public transport together with ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be off-set through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. In the case of this Local Plan, Policy P17A allows for such enhancements to be secured through off-setting which is a pragmatic approach to adopt and supported by Richborough Estates.

21. The Site Selection Process Topic Paper usefully explains the approach of combining the various studies which were undertaken and form part of the Local Plan’s evidence base, including the Green Belt Study, the Sustainability Appraisal the Accessibility Study and the Landscape Character Assessment.

22. Balsall Common is amongst the most sustainable settlements outside the urban area of Solihull. The Overall Approach Topic Paper states that “The area around the settlement presents an opportunity for significant growth”. It also goes onto to say “The low to moderate impact on the Green Belt and the medium to high accessibility indicate that this settlement is suitable for consideration for growth. Development to the east of the settlement would be within walking distance of the rail station and could assist infrastructure provision, and development to the south and southeast would, although be less accessible, be on land that either preforms least well in Green Belt terms or provides strong defensible boundaries.”

23. Balsall Common has a range of local facilities, including secondary school, primary schools, shops, services, community buildings and employment opportunities. The settlement sits on a public transport corridor principally comprising the rail link between Coventry, the NEC/Birmingham Airport and Birmingham. However, there are also bus services to Coventry and Solihull.

24. The Solihull Strategic Green Belt Assessment identifies that the proposed allocation at Frog Lane as one of the lowest scores (or performs least well) in terms of the purposes of the Green Belt. There is a strong and obvious Green Belt boundary created by Frog Lane and Holly Lane which are well defined physical features. For recreation and biodiversity reasons all the land removed from the Green Belt is not proposed to be developed for housing. For Policy BC2, there would be some merit in considering enhancements to what would be non-Green Belt land contributing to the wider aim of compensating for the loss of Green Belt.

25. An element of caution is required in the interpretation of the Site Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal of the proposed allocation prepared by the Council. The reason being is that the Site Assessment (Ref 75) considered both the housing development area and the retained field rather than just the implications of the residential development site. This wider appraisal also appears to have been adopted in the Sustainability Appraisal (Ref AECOM ID 98) which may well have skewed the scoring.

26. The area proposed for housing is (apart from the boundary trees) devoid of any significant biodiversity interest, is located away from the setting of designated heritage assets, is outside any floodplain and is physically separated from the wider agricultural landscape to the south of Balsall Common by Frog Lane. The site is visually contained by the trees along the southern boundary with Frog Lane. The technical work undertaken by Richborough Estates demonstrates that access and utilities can be provided and a SuDS strategy implemented to comply with the current requirements for surface water drainage.

27. The Frog Lane housing allocation is well placed in terms of access to the facilities at Balsall Common, especially the education provision which is one of the highest trip generators at morning peak. Other facilities within the settlement are accessible on foot or cycle. There are public transport connections available to Birmingham, Coventry, Solihull and the area around the NEC/Birmingham Airport/UK Central. These locations have extensive employment opportunities and higher order facilities.

Criterion 1 should be amended to be a “approximately” 610 dwellings.
Criterion 2(ii) should refer to “An enhancement to pedestrian connectivity along Tythe Barn Lane is proposed in order to provide a safer route to Whitlocks End Station.” Reference to the link across the canal can be retained.
Criterion 2(ii) should be deleted
Criterion 2(iii) increased to around 3.57 hectares based on 610 dwellings
Criterion 2(iv) should refer to “The potential for sports pitches to be provided on land to the north of Tythe Barn Lane.”
Criterion 2(v) should be amended to “Subject to other masterplanning considerations, the retention of Local Wildlife Sites, with potential for enhancement and an appropriate buffer to Tythe Barn Coppice ancient woodland provided.”
Criterion 2(vi) should be amended to state “As far as reasonably possible the retention of trees and hedgerows within the site and along Tythe Barn Lane to conserve the character of this approach into Dickens Heath”
Criterion 2(viiI) a 2½% target for self and custom build plots.
Criterion 3(v) should be deleted. If a criterion is required then it should state “As part of any application a SuDS scheme shall be submitted”.
Under Criterion 6, the Concept Masterplan is objected to by Richborough Estates because it fails to identify the full housing capacity of the land proposed to be excluded from the Green Belt, including because the floodplain is incorrectly identified on the Council’s Concept Master Plan Document. The capacity is approximately 610 dwellings with 470 dwellings on land south of Tyhe Barn Lane and some 40 dwellings on the Akamba site.
The Akamba should be removed form the Green Belt to recognise its future potential to be redeveloped for housing. There would be clear Green Belt boundaries, similar to those proposed for the land to the east, utilising the strong hedgerow which defines the western boundary of Akamba and the Stratford upon Avon Canal to the north.

1. Richborough Estates Limited supports the principle of allocating land to the west of Dickens Heath (Policy BL1) and the timing of its delivery. It is an available, suitable and deliverable site for housing and is well located relative to the public transport corridor between Birmingham and Stratford upon Avon and the existing settlement of Dickens Heath.

2. For clarity, Richborough Estates controls the land bounded by Tythe Barn Lane, Tilehouse Lane and Birch Leasowes Lane which, themselves, would provide robust and readily recognisable Green Belt boundaries.

3. Although Richborough Estates has worked with the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council to assist the framing of the potential housing scheme indicated on the Concept Masterplan, objections are made to Policy BL1 related to the detailed requirements for the proposal. Alternative wording is proposed to provide some flexibility to ensure the policy is positively prepared, effective and justified and a revised Concept Masterplan presented, including to identify another potential access location.

Objection to Policy BL1

4. The idea of Concept Masterplan for the proposed Dickens Heath housing allocation is supported. However, the production of Concept Masterplan does create a strong expectation about how an allocation might come forward for development, especially with the local community.

5. It is recognised that Concept Masterplans are acknowledged by the Council to be the subject of change as further infrastructure survey work is carried out at the application stage. However, Policy BL1 is clear that any significant departure from the principles outlined in the Concept Masterplan will need to be justified and it will be necessary to demonstrate that the overall objectives for the site and its wider context are not compromised. The overall objectives associated for any of the Concept Masterplans are not specifically identified in either the relevant policy or the supporting document. Further, there is a lack of clarity about how a significant departure is defined.

6. Accordingly, although not seeking to materially dilute the drafting of the policy and the Concept Masterplan document to such a degree that it has limited content, there is a need to ensure some flexibility in how an allocation might come forward for development.

7. At Dickens Heath the specific requirement of Policy BL1 needs to be amended to ensure the Local Plan is positively prepared, effective and justified:

a) For the reasons explained in more detail below, the capacity of the proposed allocation as a whole should be increased to about 610 dwellings. As such, Criterion 1 should be amended to be a “approximately” 610 dwellings. Notwithstanding the upwards capacity adjustment, an absolute figure of the type drafted is too prescriptive, especially where the final capacity should emerge through a more detailed design process at application stage.

b) Criterion 2(ii) should have greater flexibility concerning the potential improvement to the footway connectivity along Tythe Barn Lane. There are different approaches available. The criterion should refer to “An enhancement to pedestrian connectivity along Tythe Barn Lane is proposed in order to provide a safer route to Whitlocks End Station.” Reference to the link across the canal can be retained.

c) The principle of facilitating the connection of Dickens Heath to Solihull town centre via a cycle route is supported but it is unclear what this actually means for the purposes of masterplanning the allocation. Criterion 2(ii) should be deleted because it is part of the infrastructure requirement associated with criterion 3(vi).

d) Subject to the acceptance of the increased capacity, the public open space provision should be increased to around 3.57 hectares in Criterion 2(iii).

e) As drafted, the relocation of the sports pitches is addressed in Criteria 5 and 3(iii) and is not required in Criterion 2(iv). However, as a masterplanning matter, there should be the ability to consider the potential for relocation of the sports clubs to the land north of Tythe Barn Lane. This is within land also controlled by Richborough Estates and was originally proposed as a Sports Hub. Accordingly, Criterion 2(iv) should refer to “The potential for sports pitches to be provided on land to the north of Tythe Barn Lane.”

f) There should be flexibility to enable to possible justified partial loss of the Local Wildlife Sites and this being off-set elsewhere. This is not intended to suggest that any or all of the Local Wildlife Sites should or would be lost but to enable some flexibility to improve the masterplanning process. For example, there might be a need for an item of infrastructure, or even a sports pitch, to be located on a Local Wildlife Site. Criterion 2(v) should be amended to “Subject to other masterplanning considerations, the retention of Local Wildlife Sites, with potential for enhancement and an appropriate buffer to Tythe Barn Coppice ancient woodland provided.”

g) A similar point applies to the trees and hedgerows along Tythe Barn Lane under Criterion 2(vi) because there may be examples where some vegetation removal might be required for accesses of whatever type, highway improvements (see Criterion 3(iv)) or the improved pedestrian link along Tythe Barn Lane. The criterion should be amended to state “As far as reasonably possible the retention of trees and hedgerows within the site and along Tythe Barn Lane to conserve the character of this approach into Dickens Heath”

h) Richborough Estates have submitted an objection to Policy 4D. In respect of Dickens Heath, Richborough Estates question is whether it is appropriate to provide 5% of the market dwellings as self and custom build plots on this site. Some 1,650 new homes are proposed within the Local Plan to be constructed in the Blythe Ward with the policies for each allocation seeking 5% self and custom build plots. Is there sufficient evidence of demand for these plots? Richborough Estates propose that a 2½% target is included in Policy BL1 for self and custom build plots.

i) The detailed design of a SuDS system is a matter for a planning application taking into account the ground conditions and topography of the site. It is also worthy of note that there are underground features, such as soakaways or subbases, which are part of a typical SuDS scheme. To seek to restrict a potential optimum design of a SuDS system should not be included in a policy but flexibility should be retained. Accordingly, criterion 3(v) should be deleted. If a criterion is required then it should state “As part of any application a SuDS scheme shall be submitted”.

j) Alongside Policy P20, the principle of Criterion 5 is recognised by Richborough Estates as being appropriate to ensure the future of the relocated sports clubs. Richborough Estates is actively engaged with the Council in the identification of suitable land within Blythe Ward for the relocation of the Sports Clubs. For commercial reasons, it is not possible as part of these representations to provide details of these discussions at this stage. However, it is worthy to record that on 13 August 2020 the Council confirmed the potential use of compulsory purchase powers to acquire land for sports hubs within Solihull.

k) It is noted that the land north of Birchy Leasows Lane is not used for sports pitches and, as such, it would be possible to bring this part of the allocation forward for housing development at an early stage. Such an approach would enable appropriate financial contributions to be generated from land sales to facilitate the relocation of the sports clubs as sought by Criterion 5 and Policy P20.

8. Under Criterion 6, the Concept Masterplan is objected to by Richborough Estates because it fails to identify the full housing capacity of the land proposed to be excluded from the Green Belt.

9. The first matter is that the extent of the floodplain is incorrectly identified on the Council’s Concept Master Plan Document. The floodplain is not as extensive as is suggested and does not preclude the potential development of 2 fields as currently indicated. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment plans which had then been used to inform the Concept Master Plan for Dickens Heath have now been reviewed in further detail by BWB and it is common ground with the Council (and its consultants) that they do not accurately depict the extent of flooding constraints. A Preliminary Flood Risk Technical Note prepared by BWB and agreed with the Council and its consultants concerning the correct floodplain is included as part of these representations. The consequence of this is that the area of land within the allocation area affected by flood constraints has been reduced and the developable area significantly increased. Accordingly, this results in more land being with Flood Zone 1 and, as such, there is greater dwelling capacity across the site which is more in line with the development quantum suggested by the Council at the earlier (Regulation 18) plan making stage.

10. Secondly, reflecting the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), Dickens Heath is an allocation which is well related to a public transport corridor and is within easy walking distance of Whitlocks End railway station which provides a direct service to Birmingham (paragraph 137). There is also a bus service which provides a link to Solihull town centre. This is a case where, under paragraphs 106 and 123(a) of the Framework, there is the opportunity to optimise the density of development in a location well served by public transport. Further, an appropriate uplift in the average density of residential development at locations well served by public transport should be sought unless it can be shown that there are strong reasons why this would be inappropriate. No such strong reasons exist.

11. Thirdly, reflecting the Framework, where land is proposed to be released from the Green Belt then it would be appropriate for the optimum use of such sites to minimise the need for further Green Belt land releases.

12. Richborough Estates has undertaken a critique of the Concept Masterplan for the land west of Dickens Heath and have identified that the capacity of the allocation (as a whole including Akamba) at approximately 610 dwellings inclusive of the accommodation for older people, meeting the open space requirements and respecting the Local Wildlife Sites in line with the Council’s existing masterplan.

13. A copy of the updated Concept Masterplan for the land contained by Tythe Barn Lane, Tilehouse Lane and Birchy Leasowes Lane is included with these representations and also reflects the objections of Richborough Estates to the specific criteria of Policy BL1. This part of the allocation has the capacity to accommodate some 470 dwellings.

Green Belt Boundary

14. Tythe Barn Lane, Tilehouse Lane and Birch Leasowes Lane would provide robust and readily recognisable Green Belt boundaries. However, in seeking to redefine the Green Belt it would be appropriate to exclude the Akamba Garden Centre as part of the land proposed to be removed from the Green Belt to the north of Tythe Barn Lane.

15. The Akamba is an existing and extensive area of previously developed land. It is in commercial use at the current time but the Concept Masterplan Document recognises the potential for this site to be redeveloped at a later date. Although it is recognised redevelopment previously developed land in the Green Belt is not inappropriate development, this is a case where the exclusion of the land from the Green Belt would provide greater flexibility concerning how the redevelopment could be undertaken at a later date. The capacity of this parcel of land is circa 40 dwellings and has been included within the approximate 610 dwellings for the allocation as a whole.

16. There would be clear Green Belt boundaries, similar to those proposed for the land to the east, utilising the strong hedgerow which defines the western boundary of Akamba and the Stratford upon Avon Canal to the north.

Principle of the Allocation

17. Once established, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies of plans should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they can endure beyond the plan period (Paragraph 136).

18. Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, taking in to account whether the strategy makes as much use as possible of previously developed and underutilised land; optimises the density of development to make efficient use of land including higher densities in town centres and other locations well served by public transport; and informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development (Paragraph 137).

19. When reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account and where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land, plans should give first priority towards land which has been previously developed and/or is well served by public transport, and plans should set out ways in which the impact can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land (Paragraph 138).

20. Although there is no definition in policy or guidance of what comprise exceptional circumstances as envisaged in the Framework, Case Law has confirmed that any alteration to the Green Belt must be justified by exceptional circumstances rather than general planning concepts (Carpets of Worth Ltd v Wyre Forest DC (1991) 62 PCR 334). It is a matter for the Council to reach a sound planning judgment on whether exceptionality exists in the circumstances of an individual case (Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin)). The application of the exceptional circumstances test was also recently considered in the decision of Ouseley J. in Compton PC & Others v Guildford BC & Others [2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin) (Compton). Although this case related to the 2012 version of the Framework the commentary for this Case concerning exceptional circumstance remains relevant.

21. There is a recognised two-stage approach to which can be followed to provide the necessary evidence and justification to identify that exceptional circumstances exist to alter the Green Belt boundary through the preparation of a Local Plan. The first stage is the evidence gathering and assessment that leads to an in principle decision that alterations of the Green Belt boundary may be justified to help meet development needs in a sustainable way. Such a need may relate to the significant benefits which would be associated with a specific development proposal (e.g. in the Compton case was found to have significant benefits in terms of affordability and delivery of affordable housing notwithstanding the objectively assessed housing need was being materially exceeded).

22. Stage 1 concerns the evidence gathering and assessment that leads to an in principle decision that a review of the Green Belt boundary may be justified to help meet development needs in a sustainable way. It is set out at paragraph 137 of the Framework and requires the Council to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development.

23. There is evidence that there have been discussions throughout the preparation of the Local Plan with neighbouring authorities, under the Duty to Co-operate, to consider whether there is the opportunity for these areas to accommodate some of Solihull Borough’s housing need on non-Green Belt land. However, the authorities boarding Solihull Borough have a lack of land within their urban areas, the same Green Belt considerations and issues about accommodating the growth needs of an adjoining large urban area, whether Birmingham or Coventry.

24. The Overall Approach Topic Paper records the issues related to accommodating the unmet housing needs of Birmingham across the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (HMA). As at April 2019, there was still a shortfall of some 2,597 dwellings to be accommodated across the HMA even after Solihull agreeing to accommodate some 2,000 dwellings. However, it is also recognised in the Topic Paper that the final details of any contribution must be tested through a Local Plan process in accordance with national guidance. This is primarily associated with the need to release land from the Green Belt to support any contributions it makes. Equally, there is a question whether Solihull Borough might be able to accommodate further unmet housing needs to address the ongoing HMA shortfall.

25. Although Richborough Estates does have concerns about the assessed housing requirement, principally associated with the HMA shortfall, it is clear from the Local Plan’s evidence base that to accommodate the level of housing proposed does require land to be removed from the Green Belt. There have been extensive studies concerning what land might be suitable and available for housing development within the urban areas of Solihull Borough. Indeed, the Local Plan has sought to making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land within both the urban area and, in sustainable locations, the Green Belt. A significant number of the potential housing sites in the Site Assessments document are within the urban area.

26. Within the urban areas there is evidence the Council is seeking to optimise density compatible with local character. The justification for Policy P15 refers to “The appropriate density of residential development will be informed by the need to make efficient use of land together with the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting. Where it can be demonstrated that a higher density would improve the character and quality of an area, this will be supported.”

27. As a matter of principle, Richborough Estates concur with the Council that the necessary Stage 1 exceptional circumstances exist for alterations to the Green Belt boundary to accommodate the housing needs during the plan period. There is a separate point whether it is necessary to identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period. (Framework paragraph 139)? Richborough Estates have proposed such a site at Cheswick Green if it is not needed for housing purposes during the Local Plan period.

28. Stage 2 of the exceptional circumstances approach then determines which sites would best meet the identified need having regard to Green Belt harm and other relevant considerations, including whether they are suitably located and developable. Stage 2 considers such as previously developed land or land well served by public transport together with ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be off-set through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. In the case of this Local Plan, Policy P17A allows for such enhancements to also be secured through off-setting which is a pragmatic approach to adopt and supported by Richborough Estates.

29. For the land west of Dickens Heath, the allocation as a whole was not formally assessed in the Site Assessments document prepared by the Council. Instead, the eastern (Ref 176) and western (Ref 126) parts of the allocation have been assessed separately. However, Site Ref 176 also included land north of Tythe Barn Lane (not proposed for housing) which skewed the scoring concerning impact on the Green Belt. The Site Assessments recognised for both parts of the allocation that “Dickens Heath is identified as suitable for significant growth, although ensuring key gaps are protected and within walking distance to rail station.” This is what the allocation does by retaining a clear physical and visual gap between any proposed development and Majors Green in a similar manner to the current gap.

30. The Overall Approach Topic Paper states that “The moderate impact on the Green Belt and the medium to high accessibility indicate that this settlement is suitable for consideration for growth, although any development would need to take account of the higher performing Green Belt to the northwest and ensure that key gaps to adjacent settlements and the urban area are protected. Development to the west of the settlement would be within walking distance of the rail station, avoid the key gaps, and maintain separation to the settlement of Major’s Green in Bromsgrove District”. The proposed allocation accords with these principles.

31. An element of caution is required in the interpretation of the Sustainability Appraisal of the proposed allocation prepared by the Council. The reason being is that Sustainability Appraisal includes land north of Tythe Barn Lane (AECOM 87) not proposed for housing. Hence, the assessment about the allocation having a “Landscape with high sensitivity to change” needs to be reads within the context of the wider site and not just the allocation south of Tythe Barn Lane.

32. The area proposed for housing , apart from the boundary trees, only has local biodiversity interest, is located away from the setting of designated heritage assets, can accommodate development outside the confirmed floodplain and is physically separated from the wider agricultural landscape. The site is physically and visually well contained by trees, hedgerows and roads. The technical work undertaken by Richborough Estates demonstrates that access and utilities can be provided and a SuDS strategy implemented to comply with the current requirements for surface water drainage.

33. The west of Dickens Heath allocation is on a public transport corridor and is well placed in terms of access to the facilities at Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green, including the education provision which is one of the highest trip generators at morning peak. Other facilities within Dickens Heath are capable of being accessible on foot or cycle via Tythe Barn Lane or Birchy Leasowes Lane. There are public transport connections available to Birmingham and Solihull and these locations have extensive employment opportunities and higher order facilities.

Reference to a future SPD to calculate the commuted sum.

Richborough Estates Limited is supportive of Policy P17A as a matter of principle. The objection relates to the absence of further details about how a commuted sum might be calculated in accordance with Criterion 4. Richborough Estates proposed that this needs to be set out in a future Supplementary Planning Document referenced in Policy P17A.

Specific reference in Policy P17 to sports hubs in the Green Belt not being inappropriate development.

Objection is made to Policy P17 because it should make specific reference to proposals to allow for the development of sports hubs within the Green Belt. Sports hubs are referred to in other policies in the Local Plan, including as specific requirements related to some of the allocations.

Although the National Planning Policy Framework does regard the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of land or a change of use) for outdoor sport as not inappropriate development, an explicit reference to sports hubs in Policy P17 would avoid any doubt that very special circumstances would need to be demonstrated.

Include specific reference to the provision of sports hubs in the Green Belt.

As a minor drafting point, the text at No. 13 should explicitly refer to ”new or improved indoor sports and leisure facilities”

Richborough Estates Limited is supportive of Policy P20 as a matter of principle. The policy should, however, include specific reference to the provision of sports hubs in the Green Belt of the type referred to in the individual sites requirements elsewhere in the Local Plan.