Longbridge AAP Pre Submission Consultation Statement 20 03 2008

Transcription

Longbridge
Area Action Plan
Consultation Statement
Incorporating Regulation 28 Statement of Compliance
Birmingham City Council and Bromsgrove District Council
Local Development Frameworks
January 2008
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
1.1
Background
1.2
Overall approach
2.0 Evidence gathering (Reg 25)
2.1
Introduction
2.2
Preparation for consultation
2.3
Consultation methods
2.4
Outcomes for the AAP
3.0 Issues and Options consultation (Reg 25)
3.1
Introduction
3.2
3.3
4.0 Preferred Option(s) consultation (Reg 26)
4.1
Introduction
4.2
4.3
Outcomes for AAP (Reg 27)
5.0 Pre-submission Consultation (Reg 28)
5.1
Introduction
5.2
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix 1 List of Organisations
Consulted on issues and options
Appendix 2 summary of priorities and
issues emerging from the evidence
gathering stage
Appendix 3- Summary of responses and
how responses were reflected in the
Issues and Options Consultation
Document
Appendix 4- list of organisations consulted
at Preferred options stage
Appendix 5 Summary of Main comments
on Preferred Option and submission of
AAP response
A separate Appendix is also available with
further details of consultation methods and
responses.
•
•
Appendix A: Baseline Telephone Survey
Report
Appendix B Future 4 Longbridge
Newsletter (edition 1)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix C Newsletter Postcard Survey
Form
Appendix D: Future Forum Report (July
2006)
Appendix E Future 4 Longbridge Website
Appendix F Issues and Options
Responses to Comments forms (also
contains newsletter edition 2)
Appendix G Longbridge Future Forum
Report (Oct 2006)
Appendix H Newsletter (edition 3)
Appendix I: Longbridge Future Forum
Report (Feb 2007)
Appendix J Preferred Options
Representations form
Appendix K: Newspaper Adverts
Appendix L: Letters sent to consultees
Appendix M: Proposals Matters
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
1.1.1 A key driver in the preparation of an Area
Action Plans (AAP’s), such as the Longbridge AAP is
the involvement of communities throughout the
process.
1.1.2 The Longbridge AAP is an exciting opportunity
to secure sustainable regeneration and create new
jobs following the collapse of MG Rover in 2005. The
site represents one of the largest regeneration
"Community involvement is an essential
element in delivering sustainable development
and creating sustainable and safe communities."
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (Jan
2005)
opportunities in England, and future of this site is of
interest to local residents, former car workers and
many other stakeholders over a wide area. The
former MG Rover factory also straddles the
boundary between Bromsgrove District and
Birmingham City Council, and covers the areas of
several Constituencies, Wards and Parish Councils.
When they started work on the AAP in 2006 the
Councils therefore wanted to ensure that the widest
possible consultation took place on the future of this
important site.
1.1.3 Independent consultants Vision Twentyone
with expertise in public consultation were appointed
by the Council’s in March 2006 to undertake an
extensive programme of consultation on the
Longbridge AAP. The aim was to give the local
community plenty of opportunity to be involved
throughout the planning process; from the
development of initial ideas and options, right
through to the detail of the final Area Action Plan
1.1.4 The consultation sought to go beyond
prescribed consultation requirements set out in the
Bromsgrove and Birmingham Statements of
Community Involvement and in the Regulations.1.1.5
This Statement of Consultation describes the
consultation undertaken at each stage in the
preparation of the AAP and provides a means by
which those organisations and individuals who
submitted comments on the Longbridge AAP can
see how they have been taken into account and
used to inform the various stages of the AAP. In
addition this document will be of benefit to those
organisations and individuals who did not submit
comments, but who are interested in the consultation
process.
Vision Twentyone
“Vision Twentyone is an award winning company, specialising in
innovative and cost-effective social research, consultation, and
involvement and communications projects.
Vision Twentyone’s ethos is grounded in effective community
engagement, stakeholder relations and facilitating neighbourhood renewal.
They have a proven track record of engaging the “hard to reach.” Vision
Twentyone prides itself on offering a bespoke programme for each
individual client, but always designing their approach using the benefits of
experience. They use a broad selection of innovative consultation
methods, ranging from representative telephone interviewing and street
surveys which can provide a snapshot or baseline of opinion, to
deliberative groups and people’s panels which develop ideas and concepts
in more detail.
Vision Twentyone has pioneered the use of citizen’s juries and people’s
panels, and has been awarded the Duke of Westminster award for “Most
Innovative Company in the North West”, as well as winning one of our
clients a Guardian/IPPR “Public Involvement Award” in 2000. In 2004,
one of our consultation projects was also shortlisted for the British Urban
Regeneration Awards.”
Quote provided by Vision Twentyone
Legal context
This statement has been prepared in the
context of the Birmingham draft Statement of
Community
Involvement,
the
adopted
Bromsgrove
Statement
of
Community
Involvement and other relevant documents.
This statement sets out how the Councils have
undertaken
consultation
under
the
requirements of Regulations 25 and 26 of the
Town
and
Country
Planning
(Local
Development) (England) Regulations 2004. It
also sets out how the comments received have
been taken into account as required by
Regulation 27.
This document has been prepared to meet the
requirement of Regulation 28 (1) (c) and (d) of
the Town and Country Planning (Local
Development) (England) Regulations 2004
1.2
Overall approach
1.2.1 The size of the regeneration opportunity and
the level of interest in the future of the site required a
unique approach to public consultation that was
tailored to the specific local area and communities.
1.2.3 Vision Twentyone based the consultation on
the following principles:
•
Community involvement over a wide area–
the consultation methods and process
recognised the wide interest in the future of
the former MG Rover site. A variety of
techniques were used to capture people’s
views over a wide area. For example the
telephone survey picked up people over the
three adjoining wards. All residents and
businesses within 1 km of the site (around
23,000 in total) were sent newsletters. Around
500
interest
groups
and
voluntary
organisations, schools, religious groups in the
wider South Birmingham and Bromsgrove
areas were sent personal letters and
newsletters. In addition material about the
Plan was made widely available in the local
press and in libraries and other local venues.
•
•
Variety of techniques – a variety of
techniques was used to gain views from as
wide an audience as possible. The methods
used included newsletters and letters,
exhibitions, workshops for young people and
telephone surveys. One element that was
particularly successful was the Future Forum.
This was a deliberate process drawn from the
concept of citizen’s juries to provide the
opportunity for in depth debate. This provided
an effective sounding board for public opinion
and was used throughout the consultation
process.
Independent expertise – the use of
consultants who are expert in the field of
consultation and who were independent from
both councils had a number of advantages:
- It helped overcome some public concerns
that the Area Action Plan was being driven
by Birmingham and the resulting
development
would
only
meet
Birmingham’s needs.
- A high level of staff resources and time
could be devoted to the consultation
activities. This enabled a lot of face-to-face
-
contact with time to respond to questions
and discuss issues with local people.
The consultants were highly experienced
in communicating with communities
Finally, and perhaps most importantly,
people felt that their views would be taken
seriously.
•
Inclusiveness – the type and range of
methods used sought to gain views from
people who wouldn’t otherwise get involved.
For example
- The telephone survey- this enabled views
to be obtained from people across a wide
area including those who wouldn’t
normally attend exhibitions and meetings.
- The Future Forum was made up of a cross
representative sample of people including
young, ethnic minority and elderly.
- The Youth Focus Group and Schools
Youth Forum were focussed on obtaining
views from young people.
•
Frontloading – the consultation sought to
involve the community and organisations
widely in the early stages of the AAP process.
At the evidence gathering stage a variety of
techniques were used to obtain information on
the issues that people wanted to be
addressed in the plan and their priorities for
the site. At the issues and options stage wide
participation and measures to encourage
responses were employed.
•
Continuous involvement and feedback –
the methods used have sought to continually
inform and involve people, for example, the
local community have been sent several
editions of the newsletter. In addition each
edition of the newsletter gives information on
the outcomes of previous consultation stages.
The Future Forum has met at each stage of
the process. Vision Twentyone also produced
a full reports of each key activity and these
have been made available on the website.
•
Plain language and user-friendly material, from the outset the consultation process was
designed so that no knowledge of planning
policy was required to get involved in the
process. All material published has aimed to
give out as much information in plain
language with clear graphics – The newsletter
is a good example of this.
1.2.4 In summary people living in the area as well as
those from the wider community, together with
interested stakeholders have had the opportunity to
participate in and shape the AAP as part of a wide
process of consultation – they did so in their
numbers.
EVIDENCE GATHERING AND PREPARATION
METHODOLOGY
Desk
Resear
ch
Commun
ity
Introduct
ory
Meetings
Inform
ation
Line
Telep
hone
surve
y
Formation
of
stakeholde
r database
Newsl
etter
Postcar
d
Survey
Future
Forum
Letter
s
Newsl
OUTCOMES FOR THE AREA ACTION PLAN
ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION
METHODOLOGY
Ne
wsl
ette
r
Ne
wsp
ape
r
Adv
Future
4
Longb
ridge
Websi
Informa
tion
Line
Young
people’s
worksho
p
Exhibit
ion
Exhibi
Post
card
Surv
ey
Reconven
e Future
Forum
Mee
ting
a
Lett
ers
IDENTIFICATION OF MAIN ISSUES
PREFERRED OPTION CONSULTATION
METHODOLOGY
Newsl
etter
News
paper
advert
s
Future
4
Longbr
idge
Websi
Inform
ation
Line
Exhibi
tion
Representat
ion
comment
forms
Reconven
e Future
Forum
Meetin
gs
Meeti
ngs
Letter
s
PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION
METHODOLOGY
Newsl
etter
Newspa
per
adverts
Future4
Longbri
dge
Websit
e
Represe
ntation
commen
t forms
Reconve
nue
Future
Forum
SUBMISSION
Letters
Section 2.0
EVIDENCE GATHERING
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Evidence gathering and preparation took place
between March and June 2006 and involved the
following;
•
•
•
Drawing up the consultation strategy. This
involved getting views on the best ways of
consulting local people including methods to
be used, venues for events etc.
Early evidence gathering. This involved
gathering information about issues, objectives
and priorities for the Area Action plan to
address
Consultation on issues, objectives and
priorities that emerged from the evidence
gathering exercise
2.2 Preparation for Consultation
2.2.1Several activities were undertaken to prepare
for consultation in March and April 2006 and firm up
details of the methods and approaches to be used.
These were:
•
Desk research
Vision Twentyone conducted background research
into relevant stakeholders and drew up a database
of contacts comprising community groups, statutory
and other stakeholders, residents associations,
voluntary organizations, schools, religious groups,
etc over a wide area of South Birmingham and North
Worcestershire.
The consultee database was
regularly updated throughout the programme as
requests
warranted
and
utilized
for
key
communications during the project.
•
Community introductory meetings
Vision Twentyone wrote to around 20 local
community groups and representatives within the
Longbridge area with a view to setting up meetings
(or telephone appointments) to discuss the proposed
consultation programme and strategy. Owing to the
level of interest, additional meetings had to be
accommodated.
Meetings were held with individuals and groups
including the local MPs, Ward Councilors, B:Cen
(Birmingham Community Empowerment Network),
Austin Sports and Social Club, the Chairs of the
Northfield District Committee, Worcestershire County
Council, the Longbridge Consultative Group and
Longbridge Methodist Church.
Telephone briefings and information exchanges
were also held with officers from Birmingham City
Council, who work locally, as well as from Centro,
Colmers Farm School and the Federation of Small
Business.
•
Telephone survey
The telephone survey took place during April 2006.
A total of 1,115 local residents were interviewed
across Longbridge, Northfield and Hillside wards.
Interviews were conducted during the daytime,
evenings and weekends to ensure a response from
a diverse sample of residents, including some hardto-reach groups. A third of the sample worked, or
had a close relative who previously worked at MG
Rover. The sample reached a high proportion of
people who would not usually be described as
community activists. People were asked how they
would like to be consulted. The survey also asked
people to identify what issues and priorities AAP
should address. The results are summarised in the
separate Appendix A
2.2.2 The findings of the desk research, meetings
and discussions and the telephone survey were
used to inform the development of the consultation
strategy and programme. They revealed a high level
of interest in the Future forum, a preference to utilise
newsletters as the main means of communication. It
also obtained information on suggested venues for
local consultation events, venues for placing
newsletters, names of stakeholders and groups to be
added to the consultee database.
2.2.3 All of this informed the methods and
approaches used throughout the consultation
process.
2.3
2.3.1 This stage ran from May to September 2006
although the main consultation events took place
during May and June. The following methods were
used to gather further information on objectives and
issues for the plan, and to identify the options that
people would like to see considered.
Newsletter
2.3.2 The first edition of the ‘Future 4 Longbridge’
newsletter (entitled Moving Forward) was distributed
to over 23,000 properties in the Longbridge area
(within 1km of the AAP boundary) in June 2006.
Copies were placed in local information centres
including Northfield Library, Bromsgrove Library,
Bristol Road Job Centre, Longbridge Methodist
Church, Longbridge Health and Community Centre,
Cofton Medical Centre, Austin Sports and Social
Club and Lickey Hills Golf Course. A copy was also
posted on the Future 4 Longbridge website.
2.3.3 The newsletter suggested objectives for the
AAP and summarized the key priorities that had
been identified by the telephone survey. It asked
people whether they agreed with these priorities and
objectives and a postcard survey was attached to
the newsletter –see below. The newsletter also gave
details of the AAP consultation process and told
people where to find out more information. A copy of
the newsletter can be seen in the separate Appendix
B.
Letters
2.3.4 Letters were sent to all those on the mailing list
(approx 500 in total) in early June enclosing copies
of the newsletter and inviting comments. The letter
also asked stakeholders to put forward options for
consideration by the Area Action Plan process.
Postcard survey
2.3.5 A freepost postcard was attached to edition
one of the newsletter. The postcard asked whether
people agreed with the suggested AAP objectives
and priorities. It also asked for people to put their
name forward for the Future Forum. A total of 276
postcards were returned. The findings of postcard
survey are set out in the separate Appendix C.
Longbridge Information Line
2.3.6 The Longbridge Information Line went live
during May 2006. It was publicised via edition one of
the newsletter, website, press and other
communications materials. The line was charged at
local rate. The Longbridge Information Line ran until
the end of the Preferred Options consultation in
March 2007.
2.3.7 The line took approximately 89 calls between
its launch and December 2006. Enquires related to a
number of issues including:
⇒ Membership of the Future Forum
⇒ Details about the consultation process in
general
⇒ Progress updates about demolition and
construction works on the site
⇒ Further information about individual aspects
of the AAP proposals e.g. transport
considerations.
Websites
2.3.8 Vision Twenyone set up a website for the AAP.
www.future4longbridge. The website went live at the
end of May 2006 and remained operational
throughout the preparation period of the AAP. It has
been widely publicized in consultation materials
including the newsletters. Links to the site are
available from Birmingham and Bromsgrove
Council’s own websites
2.3.9 The website contains information on the AAP
process, and is updated on a regular basis. Copies
of AAP documents and newsletters are available to
download from this site. Also reports of consultation
activities including the results of the telephone
survey and Future Forum have been placed on the
website as they became available. The site has an
inbuilt enquiry function that allows visitors to leave
comments and ask questions.
2.3.10 The site has been widely used. For example
there were 812 unique visitors between May and
September 2006. A typical extract from the website
can be seen in the separate Appendix E.
The findings of the Future Forum are set out in the
separate Appendix D
2.3.11 Both Birmingham and Bromsgrove Councils
also set up their own websites containing the
relevant
AAP
documents.
www.birmingham.gov.uk/longrbridgeaap, and
www.bromsgrove.gov.uk.
Other Public Meetings
Future Forum
2.3.12 The Longbridge Future Forum involved a
group of local residents, recruited to represent a
broad section of interests from the local community.
Members were recruited from a variety of sources,
including the telephone survey, the newsletter
postcard returns, the Future 4 Longbridge website
and the Longbridge Information Line.
2.3.13 Of the many who expressed an interest, 18
people were selected (two people subsequently
failed to attend). The people selected included a
mixture of ages, genders, geographical locations and
social backgrounds. People who were not selected
to attend were informed by letter and invited to other
consultation events.
2.3.14 The main Forum meetings took place on 5th
and 6th July 2006. At all meetings Forum members
had time to deliberate the issues in closed groups.
2.3.15 The AAP was discussed at a number of other
meetings including the following:
• Cofton Hackett Parish Council -A meeting
between Vision Twentyone and members of
Cofton Hackett Parish Council was held on 5
June 2006. Details of the consultation process
and
initial
views
were
sought
from
representatives of the Parish Council. Further
meetings with the Parish Council were attended
by members of the AAP team during July and
November 2006.
• Longbridge
Regeneration
Consultative
Committee (a group of local residents
representatives and Councilors). A meeting of
this Consultative Committee was held on 29th
June to provide members with details of the
forthcoming issues and options consultation and
a further meeting on 17 August 2006, to provide
members with an update on the comments made
during the consultation process.
2.4
2.4.1 In summary, a wide range of methods were
used during this stage of the AAP preparation to
collect and record the thoughts of stakeholders,
including the local community.
2.4.2 The main outcomes were as follows:
•
•
•
A number of objectives were identified following
the telephone survey and were endorsed by
around 85% of respondents to the newsletter and
by the Future Forum. These were then included
in the Issues and Options Report with minor
changes to reflect detailed comments received.
The more detailed ideas and suggestions made
during consultation were incorporated into the
Issues and Options report.
Four strategic spatial options were developed. In
particular the ideas emerging from the Future
Forum were included in these options, especially
the desire for a new centre to provide a heart to
Longbridge and the desire for a mix of uses.
2.4.3 Appendix 2 summarises the main priorities and
objectives emerging from the first stage of
consultation and how they are addressed in the 4
spatial options contained in the Issues and Options
Report.
Summary of Results of the postcard survey
276 forms were returned. In response to the question:
“Do you think we have identified the appropriate
objectives for the Area Action Plan?” 85.5% of
residents answered ‘yes’. Only 10.2% of residents did
not agree, either in part or fully. The remaining 4.2%
of respondents remained unsure whether the
appropriate objectives had been identified. Some of the
comments included:
“Very keen to get a human, cultural identity to
Longbridge.”
“Preserving memories of the Austin works, which was
an important employer in Birmingham throughout the
20th Century.”
“Community facilities are essential for the Longbridge
area to ensure a thriving community.”
“Ensure that there are high quality facilities to give the
local population something to do as well as attracting
outside business and thus, raising the economy of the
area, whilst preserving the history, beauty and the
environment.”
Forum members supported the concept of a new
town or village centre, along with other
improvements, to recreate a sense of community in
Longbridge. A mixture of shops (including smaller
shops) was also important.
Longbridge Future Forum- summary
The consensus was for a mixed-use scheme that
delivers jobs, housing, shops and community facilities,
based on a strengthened transport infrastructure whilst
preserving and enhancing open spaces. Conclusions on
the following main issues were:
• Employment: Forum members agreed with the
employment objectives of the Area Action Plan.
Retaining and enhancing local skills was considered
paramount, both amongst existing and future
residents of Longbridge.
•
Housing: A mixture of types of housing were
thought to be appropriate to provide for new and
existing residents of Longbridge,
•
Community/leisure/retail: Shortages in existing
community amenities were strongly identified and a
number of suggestions for future provision made.
•
Transport:
The Forum largely supported the
concept of a Longbridge park and ride and transport
interchange. Forum members also viewed the link
to Frankley as an important consideration for the
future, although were concerned about the cost and
feasibility of the heavy rail option.
•
Environment: Existing open space within the area
was considered one of the key benefits of living in
Longbridge and Forum members were keen that it
should be retained and enhanced through
maintenance and the provision of more structured
facilities such as recreation, play areas and cafés.
Section 3.0
Issues And Options Consultation
3
3.1
3.1.4 Specific uses identified through the first stage
of consultation were also highlighted including an
Austin Heritage Centre.
Introduction
3.1.1 This stage of consultation was based on an
Issues and Options report. This report outlined the
key issues emerging from earlier consultation,
proposed a vision for the AAP are and set out
objectives. It also set out 4 main strategic spatial
options for the regeneration of the Area.
3.1.5 The main consultation took place on these
options for a 6 week period between XX October
and 17 November 2006, although many uses of
means of communication on the Issues and
Options Report continued beyond this date into
2007.
3.1.2 All 4 options reflected a desire to create
employment and allowed for a mix of uses. Option 1
Employment led had a limited mix but options 2-4
allowed a much wider mix including leisure,
education, retail and housing facilities.
3.1.3 More detailed options were also put forward for
the River Rea, and for the development of land to
the east of the Cofton Centre (known as the
residential land use variation or swap). Transport
options were identified for further consultation
including options for the location of the park and ride
facility, options for improving public transport links to
Frankley, and the possibility of a link road through
the green belt as an alternative to widening
Longbridge Lane.
4
•
3.2 Consultation Methods
•
Letters
3.2.1 Letters were sent to all those on the mailing list
including key stakeholders, enclosing copies of
relevant documents. Namely: - the letter and the
Issues and Options Report was sent to relevant
stakeholders (namely the general and specific
consultation bodies), and the letter and newsletters
were sent to other organisations. All were invited to
comment. Details of organisations consulted by letter
are set out in Appendix 1 and copies of letters are in
Appendix L of the separate appendix.
•
•
survey, and Future Forum.
Set out the four strategic spatial options for the
AAP and the more detailed ideas for land use
allocations.
Invited feedback via a comments form (see
below)
Informed people about the upcoming events,
such as the exhibitions (see below).
Gave information on where to find out more
information including how to obtain copies of the
Issues and Options Report, details of the website,
telephone information line and Council officer
contacts.
3.2.3 The newsletter was sent out to all residents
and businesses within 1km of the AAP area (and
with letters to local organisations). Copies were also
made available at the following locations:
• Council offices including the Birmingham
Planning Department (Alpha Tower), Northfield
Neighbourhood Office, Bromsgrove Council
House and Worcestershire County Hall.
• Local libraries including Bromsgrove, Northfield,
Frankley Cofton Hackett and Rubery.
• Local medical centres at Longbridge Health
Centre and Cofton Medical Centre.
Newsletter
3.2.2 Edition two of the
Future 4 Longbridge
newsletter
(entitled
Options come forward):
• Reported back on
the outputs of stage
one
of
the
consultation
including
the
newsletter/postcard
5
Websites
the Midlands Edition Newspaper that circulates in
the Bromsgrove area.
3.2.4
The
future4longbridge
website was updated to
include the Issues and
Options
Report,
newsletters and give
details
of
the
consultation
arrangements.
Between Oct 2006 and
the end of January
2007 there were 1531 unique visitors to the website.
Issues and Options exhibition
3.2.7 A staffed exhibition was held at:
• Austin Sports & Social Club, 2-8pm Thursday 25
October 2006
• Austin Sports & Social Club, 10-3pm Friday 26
October 2006
• Barnt Green Church, 10-3pm Saturday 27
October 2006.
Approximately 300-350 people attended over the
course
of the
three
days.
3.2.5 The Council’s websites were also updated to
include the Issues and Options Report and other
documents (including the Initial Sustainability
Appraisal and emerging baseline studies) and give
details of the consultation arrangements
3.2.8
Vision
Twenty
one
and
officers
from Birmingham City Council and Bromsgrove
District Council staffed the exhibition. St Modwen
and their consultants were also present. Nine
Publicity & Press
3.2.6 Public notices, press releases and adverts
were placed in various local and regional
newspapers. This included an article in the Forward
newspaper on 18th October, an article in the
Birmingham Post on 19th October, and a notice in
6
volunteers from the Longbridge Future Forum also
helped to staff the exhibition to discuss their input
and findings from the Forum first hand with members
of the local community. Copies of the Issues and
Options Report, newsletters and comments forms
were available throughout the event.
•
responded to the recommendations in the
initial Future Forum report, and,
To obtain the Forum’s feedback on the
options in the Issues and Options Report.
3.2.9 After the staffed exhibitions, the display stands
were relocated to the St Modwen Marketing Suite
and Northfield Library for a further two-week period.
Forum Members hoped that throughout the
reconvened meeting and beyond there would
continue to be a ‘good opportunity to make a
difference’. A copy of the report of this meeting of
the Forum is contained in the separate appendix G.
Future Forum
Young People’s Events
3.2.9
The
3.2.10 A young people’s workshop took place on
Wednesday 27 September 2006. Local schools
from the area surrounding the AAP area were also
invited to send student participants to the workshop.
Eight young people aged between 13 and 18 from
across Birmingham attended including one from the
Longbridge area.
3.2.11 Birmingham City Council’s Youth Focus
Group also discussed the four options for AAP at its
meeting on 27th September 2006 and were given a
further update on1st November 2006.
Future Forum was reconvened on 17th October
2006. The purpose of the meeting was:
• For the AAP team to report back on the
options and demonstrate how these
Additional community meetings
3.2.12 The following meetings were held;
7
•
•
•
respondents demonstrates that a good cross-section
of people were reached by ward, age, ethnicity and
gender.
Longbridge
Regeneration
Consultative
Committee met in October 2006 to receive an
update on the consultation process, and the
Issues and Options Report.
A further
th
meeting was held 7 December 2006 to
update group on outcome of consultation.
Cofton Hackett Parish Council and Cofton
Residents met on 10th November 2006 to
receive an update on the AAP process and
details of the Issues and Options Report.
Northfield Ward committee met on 24th
January 2007the Committee received an
update on the Issues and Options report and
were advised of forthcoming consultation on
the Preferred Option.
3.3 Outcomes for the AAP
3.3.1 A total of 1164 comments forms were received,
together with 42 letters from residents organisations,
landowners and other statutory consultees.
3.3.2 The main comments received and responses
to them are summarized in Appendix 3. In summary
there was strong support for a mixed-use scheme
with a range of uses. In overall terms there was most
support for Option 2 (mixed use employment led),
followed by option 3 (mixed use town centre led). It
was recognized that certain elements on option 3
had benefits for the area e.g. the desire to see a
larger centre than proposed in option 2 to provide a
real focal point for the area, and the need expressed
by the landowners to ensure that the final plan is
deliverable and viable.
Issues and Options comments form
3.2.13 The freepost comments form was sent out
with the Issues and Options Report and with edition
two of the Future 4 Longbridge Newsletter. It was
also
available
at
the
exhibitions.
3.3.3. The Preferred Option is therefore based on
Option 2, but elements of option 3 have been
incorporated.
Appendix
3
describes
the
recommendations for the AAP Preferred Option.
3.2.14 A large number of
individuals and organisations
completed and returned the
form- see below. Analysis of
the demographics of the
8
9
Section 4
Preferred Option Consultation
10
4.1
Introduction
4.2
4.2.1 In line with previous stages and in order to
maximise awareness of the Preferred Options stage,
widespread publicity was carried out.
4.1.1 This stage of consultation was based on a
Preferred Options Report. This report outlined the
proposals that had emerged from the results of the
consultation at the Issues and Options stage,
(together with the results of the Sustainability
Appraisal and baseline work).
• Letters
4.2.2 Letters were sent to a wide range of
organisations, local groups and stakeholders: Letters were sent to all specific and general
consultation bodies together with copies of the
Preferred options Report, Sustainability Appraisal
newsletter and notice of DPD matters. Other local
organisations and groups were sent letters and a
newsletter. A list of all organisations and
stakeholders consulted by letter is included in
Appendix 4.
4.1.2 The Preferred Option proposed a new local
centre, a Regional Investment Site and a mix of
other employment uses, and up to 1400 dwellings
across the area including 700 on East Works.
Options were presented for the location of the park
and ride, the public transport link to Frankley and for
the River Rea.
4.1.3 The Preferred Options Report was supported
by a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report and nontechnical summary and the Notice of Proposal
Matters. Various baseline/background studies were
also available.
•
4.2.3 Edition three of the
Future
4
Longbridge
newsletter reported back
on the results of the Issues
and Options consultation
and
summarised
the
Preferred Option(s) for the
AAP. People were invited
to attend the exhibitions
4.1.4 Formal consultation took place for a 6-week
period between 22nd February and 5th April 2007,
although some meetings and events (e.g. Future
Forum Update and schools forum) extended beyond
this date.
11
and other ways of finding out more information
including the websites were detailed in the
newsletter. A copy of the newsletter is contained in
the separate appendix H.
office at Alpha Tower, and Bromsgrove Council
House for the 6-week period (between 22nd February
and 5th April 2007). The material was also made
available at various locations in the Longbridge Area
namely:
- Austin Sports and Social Club, Tessall Lane
- Birmingham Central Library
- Northfield Library
- Parish Offices, New Frankley in Birmingham
Parish Council, Arden Road, Frankley.
- All libraries in Bromsgrove
- Bromsgrove Council Customer Services Centre,
the Dolphin Centre,
4.2.4 The newsletter was sent out to all persons
within 1km of the AAP area (it was also sent out with
the letters to local organisations and other
consultees). Copies were also made available at a
selection of Council offices including the Alpha
Tower, Northfield District Office, Bromsgrove Council
House and Worcestershire County Hall, and in local
libraries and other venues where the AAP was
placed for inspection.
•
• Websites
4.2.7 The Future 4 Longbridge Website was updated
with the latest documents including the Preferred
Options Report, newsletter, etc. All documents could
be viewed and downloaded. There were 2088
unique visitors to the site during consultation on the
Preferred Option Stage. (Between Feb and April 07).
Newspaper adverts
4.2.5 There were public notices, press releases and
press adverts in various newspapers. In particular a
notice appeared in the public notices section of the
Birmingham Post on 22nd February 2007. (See
separate Appendix K)
•
4.2.8 The Council’s websites were also updated to
include the Preferred Options Report and other
documents, (including the Sustainability Appraisal,
baseline/background studies and assessments) and
to give details of the consultation arrangements.
Material Placed in locations for inspection
4.2.6 Copies of the Preferred Options Report,
Sustainability Appraisal, and other relevant material
was made available for inspection during normal
office hours at the Birmingham City Council’s main
•
12
Longbridge Information Line
4.2.9 The Longbridge Information Line remained
open until the end of April 2007.
•
consultants also attended at various times. Six
volunteers from the Longbridge Future Forum also
staffed the exhibition on various days to discuss their
input and findings from the Forum first hand with
members of the local community.
Preferred Option(s) exhibition
4.2.10 The Preferred Option(s) exhibition was held at
the following times:
- 2-8pm Thursday 8th March 2007 at Austin Sports
and Social Club
- 10-3pm Friday 9th March 2007 at Hollymoor
Centre
- 10-3pm Saturday 10th March 2007 at Cofton
Hackett Village Hall.
4.2.12 Copies of the Preferred Option Report,
newsletters and representation forms were available.
After viewing the exhibition those attending were
encouraged to complete representation forms.
4.2.13 After the staffed exhibitions the display stands
were relocated to the St Modwen Marketing Suite for
a further four week period.
Approximately 170-200 people attended over the
course of the three days.
4.2.11
The
exhibition was
staffed at all
times by Vision
Twentyone,
Birmingham
City
Council,
and
Bromsgrove
District
Council.
St
Modwen and
their
•
13
Longbridge Future Forum
4.2.14 The Future
Forum met for a
third
time
in
February 2007 to
consider
and
provide
final
comment on the
Preferred Option(s).
The
meeting
allowed the AAP
team to introduce
the
Preferred
Option(s) and demonstrate how it responded to the
recommendations made through the previous Future
Forum Reports, and to then obtain the Forum’s
feedback. The information gathered was then used
to feed into the Submission AAP document.
-
A local schools forum also took place in
December 2007.
•
Preferred Option representations forms
4.2.16 The representation
forms
with
freepost
envelopes were distributed
with the Preferred Options
report and with edition three
of the Future 4 Longbridge
newsletter. They returned a
high level of feedback.
Analysis
of
the
demographics
of
the
respondents shows that a
good cross section of
opinion was reached by
ward, age, ethnicity and gender.
The
representations form is contained in the separate
Appendix J.
• Additional community meetings and Forums
4.2.15 Several other meetings also took place at this
stage. These included:
- Northfield Ward Committee discussed the
Preferred Option(s) at its meeting on 21st March
2007
- Frankley Neighbourhood Forum held a public
meeting on 13th March 2007.55 members of the
public and local councillors received a
presentation on the Preferred Option(s) and a
discussion followed.
4.3
4.3.1 A total 550 organisations and individuals made
comments/representations.
4.3.2 Of those who indicated a view on the
representation form there was a high level of overall
support for the Preferred Option(s). Of those
14
respondents who expressed an opinion, 72.5%
supported all or part of the Preferred Option(s). Only
21.2% objected to part of the Preferred Option(s)
and 6.3% objected to the omission of a proposal,
policy or text. There were also a large number of
general comments and issues raised on the forms.
housing and suggested a number of alternatives
including the following:
• The whole site should be allocated for
industry and employment uses
• The whole site should be returned to the
Green Belt/open space
• The site should be developed for a mix of
housing and employment/industrial uses.
• Housing uses should be confined to the
northern end of the site, the southern end
returned to the Green Belt. Some also
suggested that housing be developed
adjacent to Groveley Lane. (Land use swap)
4.3.3 Some of the most significant comments, issues
and objections raised in the representations,
together with the councils response are set out in the
paragraphs below (not necessarily in order of
importance). A more detailed summary is set out in
Appendix 5 of this report.
•
Issues relating to overall approach/land use
strategy
4.3.5 AAP Response: The overall approach to the
mix of land uses has emerged from extensive public
consultation on a wide range of options and
appraisal through the Sustainability Appraisal
process, together with work on baseline/background
studies. A range of options for East Works- including
the use of the site for industry and the land use
swap- was considered at the issues and options
stage. The overall land use allocations are now
supported by the vast majority of individuals and
organisations who responded to the consultation,
and it is not therefore proposed to amend the AAP.
The Submission AAP does however contain a
number of proposals for minimising the impact of
new housing on the local community infrastructure
4.3.4 Members of the local community were
generally supportive of preferred option(s) and mix of
uses. There was strong community support for
employment uses on the site. A very small number of
respondents did not agree with the overall land use
strategy. In particular they considered that more of
the Area Action Plan (AAP) area should be allocated
for industry and employment, and the AAP proposes
too much housing.
A number of respondents were specifically
concerned about the allocation of East Works for
15
and on the local road network and these are dealt
with below.
•
community centre, library, local shops and open
space/play facilities. Related to this are concerns
about the density of residential development –
particularly on East Works.
Issues relating to the Regional Investment
Site (RIS)
4.3.9 AAP Response: The above concerns have
been addressed. Proposal H2 (East Works housing)
now includes specific requirements for an expanded
neighbourhood centre and for a land to be reserved
within the site for a new library and community
facility. Proposal H2 also allows for other community
facilities. Proposal LC1 provides for a range of
facilities to serve the local community within the local
centre including the Austin Heritage Centre. The
AAP also includes new parks on West Works and
East works sites (Proposals OS4a and OS4b).
Section D of the AAP sets out requirements for a
negotiated section 106 agreement to secure
allocation of land and provision of various community
facilities including the Austin Heritage Centre. The
Longbridge Community Infrastructure Levy includes
funding for education and off site improvements to
open spaces and recreational areas.
Densities proposed are in line with government and
other policy guidance.
4.3.6 There is continued support for the RIS from a
number of key stakeholders. However, the main
landowners consider that there is a need for a
flexible approach to land uses on the RIS to allow for
offices, and a range of supporting services as well as
high technology industry, research and development
uses.
4.3.7 AAP Response: A flexible approach has been
taken with Proposal RIS1 allowing for some office
and supporting services but with a floorspace limit on
these uses. These limits have taken account of
policy in the Regional Spatial strategy and
discussions with West Midlands Regional Assembly,
the Central Technology Belt and others
•
Issues relating to Housing on East Works,
West Works and in the Local Centre
4.3.8 Significant numbers of local stakeholders
wanted firm assurances that there will be adequate
new facilities and infrastructure in place to serve the
new housing. Facilities quoted as being required
included school places, health centres/doctors,
•
16
Issues relating to retailing uses in the Local
Centre
4.3.10 A number of comments were received (mainly
from retail operators and local groups) expressing
differing views on the retail floorspace limits in the
Preferred Options Report (POR). On the one hand
some considered that there is inadequate evidence
of need for retail development of the scale proposed
and are concerned that it will adversely impact on
existing centres (including Rubery, Frankley,
Northfield). On the other hand some considered that
there is evidence to support an increase in both
convenience and comparison floorspace and that the
floorspace does not allow for large non food
comparison good retailing such as an IKEA.
natural or semi natural channel with provision for
flood attenuation. There was also strong local
community interest in improving and opening up the
River Rea corridor.
4.3.13 AAP Response: Following consultation on the
POR further work has been carried out examining
options for opening up the River. This work has been
done in consultation with the Environment Agency.
Proposal OS2a in the Submission Document
proposes enhancement of the existing open channel
through west works and the opening up of the River
through the majority of the North Works site.
4.3.11 AAP Response: An updated retail
assessment and supporting note has been prepared
since the POR was considered which shows
capacity for additional retail development. The
Councils remain of the view that there is a need to
retain some of this capacity for additional retail
development in other centres and the floorspace
limits set out in the POR should not be increased.
Policy LC1 in the Submission Document therefore
retains the floorspace limits set out in the Preferred
Options Report.
•
•
Issues relating to the public transport link to
Frankley
4.3.14 There was a mix of views on the alternative
bus and heavy rail options put forward in the POR:
-
Issues relating to the River Rea
4.3.12 `A number of key stakeholders wish to see as
much as possible of the River opened up to form a
-
17
There was support for the bus option from some
residents and stakeholders on grounds that this
is more likely to be delivered and will serve a
bigger catchment area than the heavy rail. In
addition heavy rail will have a number of
disadvantages e.g. it will split the local centre and
the RIS, it will impact on Balaam’s Wood (Local
Nature Reserve) and on residential amenity.
There was support for heavy rail from some
residents and stakeholders on grounds that it is
interchange- although the latter is still ongoing.
Proposals T5 to T7 in the Submission Document
require high quality facilities that are well linked to
the station. The preferred location for the park and
ride is the north of Longbridge Lane, although
feasibility work will continue to consider whether
there is a case for moving the station and park and
ride south of Longbridge Lane.
more likely to attract people out of cars, and will
cause less pollution.
POR further work has been carried out jointly by the
City Council and Centro examining the options for
bus and rail in more detail. Proposal T4 reflects the
outcome of these studies and proposes a high
quality bus link to Frankley as part of a network of
improved bus services. Funding for this service is
included in the Longbridge Community Infrastructure
Levy as set out in section D of the Submission
Document.
•
Issues relating to the public
interchange and park and ride
•
Issues relating to the impact of traffic from
the development on the surrounding road
network
4.3.18 There were a number of concerns about the
impact of traffic generated by the development
including:
- The Highways Agency was concerned about
the lack of a robust evidence base to assess
the impact on the Strategic Road Network
including the M5 and M42 junctions
- Whilst the decision not to build the Longbridge
Link Road through the green belt was widely
supported, there were some concerns about
the impact of additional traffic on Longbridge
Lane.
- There is a desire to see traffic management
measures on local roads around the AAP
sites.
transport
4.3.16 There was support in principle for the
interchange and park and ride, with local people
particularly keen to improve the level of appropriate
parking available for rail users at the station. There
was also a desire to ensure that all the facilities
provided are of a very high quality and that a new
upgraded Longbridge railway station be considered
as part of the AAP.
POR further work has been carried out jointly by the
City Council and Centro examining the options for
the location of the Park and Ride and design of the
18
POR further traffic modeling work has been carried
out to assess impacts on the road network including
the Strategic Road Network. Proposals T13 to T15 in
the Submission Document require a package of off
site highway improvements including improvements
to Motorway Junctions and traffic management
measures. These also require that improvements to
Longbridge Lane are the subject of further public
consultation. Section D of the Submission Document
requires that developers fund the package of
measures through a Section 287 legal agreement.
The Longbridge community infrastructure levy also
contains funding for residents parking schemes and
traffic management measures in the local area.
•
the preparation of a climate change and energy
strategy for the AAP area.
•
Issues relating to the impact of the
development on ecological and recreational
resources around the site
4.3.22 There was a desire for stronger measures to
protect and enhance ecological assets within the
AAP area and provide new assets. Also to ensure
that ecological assets outside the AAP area such as
the Bittell Reservoirs and other waterways are
protected and enhanced. There were also concerns
about the impact of increased recreational pressure
as a result of proposed new housing particularly in
the adjoining green belt.
Issues relating to sustainability
4.3.23 Local people were also keen to see the plan
deliver an improved range of recreational and sports
facilities. There was interest in the appropriate
improvement of Cofton Park and the provision of
additional leisure facilities across the AAP site.
4.3.20 There is a desire for strong polices and
standards on sustainability to address climate
change. These include high BREEAM and Code for
Sustainable Homes standards, on site renewable
energy provision and the use of workable new
transport technology.
4.2.24 AAP Response: Specific proposals are
included in the Submission Document. For example
Proposals OS9 and S2 require a landscape and
biodiversity strategy and nature conservation
management plan. Proposal OS1 sets out a range of
improvements to Cofton Park. The Longbridge
community infrastructure levy provides for funding for
4.3.21 AAP Response: The Submission AAP
contains a Sustainability Strategy comprising
proposal S1 which sets out required building
standards under BREEAM and the Code for
Sustainable Homes, and Proposal S2 which requires
19
off-site recreational enhancements and ecological
mitigation.
quality bus route could be flexible and would
be quieter and more eco-friendly than a train.
•
River Rea: There was consensus between all
members of the Forum that the River Rea
should be opened up where feasible, creating
an improved landscape environment for the
whole community
•
The wider community benefits: The Forum
felt that residents in the surrounding area
would benefit from the development of the site
through the enhancement of the area,
creating an improved environment and
pleasant place to live. In order for all the
community to benefit from the development of
the site the Forum wanted all facilities and
services to be affordable for both local people
and visitors
Future Forum- summary of findings
The Forum were generally in favour of the Preferred
Option; however, there were certain places where
they suggested improvements to the overall design.
•
Housing and employment: The Forum felt
that a balance had been created between
land uses, particularly between the amount of
housing and employment on the site.
However, they felt that the mixed-use area
should be enlarged to incorporate a greater
mix of uses. The Forum favoured housing on
the East Works and recognised that
constructive thought had gone into the
developing the Preferred Option
•
Transport: The Forum were split over the two
transport infrastructure options for the public
transport link to Frankley. The heavy rail link
came under criticism for its potential to divide
the area; however, it was praised for its
convenience and ability to help reduce road
use. It was however recognised that a high
20
Section 5
PrePre-Submission Consultation
21
5.0 Pre-Submission Consultation
•
5.1 Introduction
•
5.1.1 This stage of consultation is based on the
Submission Area Action Plan Document. In this
document the Preferred Option has been worked up
into a detailed set of proposals. A proposal for the
Link to Frankley, the location of the Park and Ride
and the River Rea are also set out in this Document.
5.1.2 The Submission Document is supported by a
final Sustainability Appraisal Report and non
technical summary and a suite of
baseline/backgrounds studies.
5.1.3 The Document will be issued for a formal 6
week period of consultation at the same time that it is
submitted to the Secretary of State.
5.2 Consultation Methods
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Letters
Newspaper adverts
Material placed in locations for inspection
Websites
Drop-in Sessions
Longbridge Future Forum
22
Representation forms – and assistance in
completing the forms
Statutory Notices
Appendix 1: List of Organisations Consulted on Issues and Options
23
Appendix 1 List of Organisations Consulted on
Issues and Options
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Specific and General Consultation Bodies
• Government Office for the West Midlands
• West Midlands Regional Assembly and CEPOG
support team
• Natural England
• The Environment Agency
• Highways Agency
• Advantage West Midlands
• Electronic communications/telecommunications
bodies
- Birmingham Cable and Wireless
- Central Networks
- EON UK PLC
- Fujitsu Telecommunications
- G3 communications Ltd
- Mobile Operations Assoc
- UK Broadband Ltd
- British Telecom
• South Birmingham Primary Care NHS Trust
• Redditch and Bromsgrove PCT
• Birmingham and Black Country Strategic Health
Authority
• Severn Trent Water
• Adjoining authorities
- Worcestershire County Council
- Staffordshire County Council
•
•
•
•
24
Warwickshire County Council
Solihull MBC
Coventry City Council
Dudley MBC
Lichfield District Council
North Warwickshire Borough Council
Sandwell MBC
Walsall MBC
Redditch MBC
Access Committee Birmingham
Age Concern Birmingham
Arts Council West Midlands
British Geological Survey
Birmingham and Solihull TEC
Birmingham Diocesan Board of Finance
Birmingham International Airport
British Waterways
Church Commissioners
Civil Aviation Authority
Coalition for Disabled People in Birmingham
Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment
Council for the Protection of Rural EnglandWarwickshire, Bromsgrove District, and West
Midlands Branch
Commission for Racial Equality
Crown Estate Office
Disability Rights Commission
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inland Waterways Association
National Playing Fields Association
National Trust
Parish Councils
- Frankley Parish Council
- Cofton Hackett Parish Council
- Wythall Parish Council
- Bournheath Parish Council
- Hagley Parish Council
- Stoke Parish Council
• Passenger Transport Authorities and Executives
-Centro
• Police
- West Midlands Police
- West Mercia Police
• Post office property holdings
• Rail Companies/operators and the Rail Freight
Group
• Ramblers Association
- Birmingham Group
- Warwickshire Area Group
- Worcestershire Group
• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
• Sport England
• Theatres Trust
• The Wildlife Trusts for Birmingham and the Black
Country and Worcestershire
• Transport operators including
- Travel West Midlands
Diocese of Birmingham and Diocese of
Worcester
Electricity, Gas and Telecommunications
Undertakers including
National Grid Company
British Gas
TRANSCO
English Partnerships
English Heritage
Equal Opportunities Commission
Fire and Rescue Services
- West Midlands Ambulance Service
- West Midlands Fire Service
- West Mercia Fire Service
- West Mercia Ambulance
Forestry Commission
Freight Transport Association
Freightliner Group
GB Railfreight
Friends of the Earth
Garden History Society
Gypsy Council
Gypsy and Traveller Reform Commission
Health and Safety Executive
Help the Aged- England
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution
HM Prison Service
Housing Corporation
•
•
•
•
25
•
•
•
- Central Trains
- Chiltern Railways
- English Welsh and Scottish Railways
- Midland Red South Ltd
- National Express Group PLC
- Virgin Cross Country
- Arriva Midlands
Cross Country Trains
West midlands regional housing executive
Women’s National Commission
-
Others
In total the mailing list of over 500 groups
organisations and individuals received details of the
AAP. As well as the organisations listed above this
included
- Voluntary Groups
- Residents Associations and
Neighbourhood Forums
- Landowners
- Businesses- including all larger employers
in south west Birmingham
- Community religious groups
- Local agents, developers and their
consultants
- Councillors and MP’s
- Churches and religious centres
- Housing Associations
- Hospitals, Health organisations
26
Transport Groups
Schools and Colleges
Other residents who live outside the
mailing area for the newsletter and had
asked to be informed of the AAP.
Libraries at Bromsgrove, Cofton Hackett,
Frankley, Hagley, Northfield, Rubery,
Weoley Castle and Wythall.
Appendix 2: Summary of Key Priorities and Issues emerging from
evidence gathering and preparation stage
27
Appendix 2 Summary of Key Priorities and Issues emerging from evidence gathering and preparation stage
Priority/Issue
General
The need to create jobs, but also for a mix of other uses that will benefit the
local area and community.
Employment
Job creation and employment came out as having the highest priority overall.
Desire for a range of jobs/employment opportunities including manufacturing,
business park
Important to make jobs accessible to local people
AAP Response of Issues at Options Stage
All 4 options involve a mix of uses
Local Centre/Retail
There is a shortage of locally accessible and quality shops.
Desire for a mix of new shops including supermarket, smaller shops
Desire for a new local center with a full range of facilities
Recreation/Leisure/Community/ Services
There is a need for leisure, sport and recreational facilities and play areas.
Specific requests for swimming pool, sports/gym/leisure centre.
Desire for better community facilities e.g. schools and heath centres
Facilities need to cater for young people and teenagers
Desire to see something to preserve the heritage of the Austin Works
Transport
Support for a park and ride facility and public transport interchange
Improved walking and cycling routes are needed including improved routes in
the countryside.
Improved links to Frankley
Housing
Provision of quality new housing
A mix of types of housing particularly for elderly people, and larger family
housing
Need to ensure a good level of affordable homes
Environment
Preserving and enhancing open space including Cofton Park.
Other environmental improvements e.g. to river Rea
Improving the built environment with a high quality town or village square
A desire to give Longbridge a human identity and create a sense of community
Improved security and community safety
Delivery and implementation
There was a desire to ensure that development proposals are deliverable
All 4 options provide for some new retail. Scale and type of retail varies
between options.
28
All 4 options focus on providing new jobs. Numbers and type of jobs
varies between options. Options 2, 3 and 4 provide for new college.
All options provide some community uses and services although scale
and type differs between options.
All options provide for new park and ride facility. All options recognize
need to improve public transport links to Frankley.
All options consider walking and cycling routes
Options 2, 3 and 4 provide some housing although numbers of units vary
between options
All options protect Cofton Park.
Feasibility studies of Options for the River Rea were initiated with options
for retaining River in culvert and opening up river considered in detail.
Work on delivery and viability commenced.
Appendix 3: Summary of responses and how responses were
reflected in the Preferred Options Document
29
Appendix 3: Summary of responses and how responses were reflected in the Preferred Options Document
Respondent
Summary of Representation
AAP Response at Preferred Option(s) Stage
General Comments
CEPOG
Support Policies and proposals within the AAP should be
Team
employment led and the opportunity should be taken
to identify a Regional Investment Site (RIS) in order to
assist in the diversification of the Region’s economy.
AWM
Longbridge will be integral to the success of the A38
Central Technology Belt. Welcomes the commitment
in the AAP to the proposed creation of approximately
10,000 jobs across a range of skills and types,
through protecting existing jobs, creating new
employment opportunities and providing a sustainable
environment for employment creation.
Central
Technology The site should have an ambition that is big and bold.
Belt
The concept of a RIS was welcomed.
Future Forum
The Forum felt that it was important for the AAP to be
balanced between the different land uses especially
employment and housing. A plan that could provide a
real identity for Longbridge was wanted, either by
having a large enough ‘mixed use’ area to create a
proper town centre or by having an attraction for the
area such as a sports academy.
30
Agree. Preferred Option is an employment led
mixed use option with a 25hectare RIS and a
range of other opportunities to provide 10,000
jobs and assist diversification of the economy
mixed use option with a 25hectare RIS and a
range of other opportunities to provide 10,000
jobs and assist diversification of the economy
and provide a sustainable environment for
employment creation
mixed-use option with a 25hectare RIS.
Agree. Preferred option provides a mix of uses
and a local centre.
Responses
from Overall support for a mixed-use scheme with a range
residents completing of land uses. The five most important priorities for the
comments form
site are;
• Employment, job creation, including provision of a
regional investment site, technology park and
other industry
• Environment, namely improving Cofton Park and
other existing green areas,
• Housing, namely ensuring quality new housing
and a mix of size and tenure
• Improving transport including provision of a Park
and Ride, public transport interchange
• Improving retail and providing a new centre with
small shops, supermarket.
One overarching theme was the need to create a new
identity for Longbridge
Option 1 – Employment Led option
GOWM
This option is in line with existing policy, protects
employment land and shopping centres.
CEPOG
Support Identification of an RIS (including the approved
Team
for
West technology park) is in accordance with Regional
Midlands
Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). The level of proposed retail
Assembly
proposed appears consistent with that for which
consent has been granted. The extent of warehousing
uses is not specified. RSS policy states that large
scale warehousing is unlikely to provide economic
diversification.
AWM
There is an issue of deliverability in terms of the time it
would take to deliver this level of employment use – it
is possible that it could take 15+ years to bring
forward the site based on Option 1.
31
mixed-use scheme with a wide range of
employment, housing, retail, leisure, community
and other uses. All the priorities identified are
addressed in the preferred option.
Comments noted. Whilst it is recognised that
this option is in line with existing policy, many
respondents recognise that it will not achieve
the vision and objectives for Longbridge and will
not be deliverable in a reasonable timescale.
The Preferred Option is not therefore based on
Option 1.
St Modwen
Concerned about amount of employment land. It
would take over 25 years to deliver this option.
Future Forum
The Forum felt Option One was not suitable for the
area as although it would provide plenty of
employment opportunities the Forum felt it would not
meet the needs of the local community
Responses
from There was moderate support for this option with
residents completing 44.7% of those who indicated a view strongly agreeing
comments form
or agreeing with this option.
Option 2 Mixed use employment led option
CEPOG
Support Subject to clarification over the housing issues – see Agree. The Preferred Option is based on Option
Team
for
West below under housing heading-, it is considered that 2 but with some elements of option 3 see below.
Midlands
Regional this option is broadly consistent with the policies and
Assembly
proposals within the RSS.
Central
Technology Support for large Regional Investment Site
Belt
Friends of the Earth Considers this option is the most appropriate, as it
Birmingham
provides a greater mix of uses whilst protecting land
important for employment and industrial use.
AWM
Lacks levels of diversity and opportunities for
community allowed for in Options 3 and 4.
St Modwen
The proposals for the centre would fail to attract the
scale of development that would be attractive to
inward investment.
GOWM
‘Realistic’ option, although we have policy concerns
with the leisure and retail elements.
Transport 2000 West We would support “Mixed Use Employment Led
Midlands
option”.
32
Future Forum
The Forum felt that Option Two did seem to have
more of an emphasis on community needs with a
better variety of uses than option 1. However, as
there is little evidence that this option would create an
identity for Longbridge.
Responses
from This option had the highest level of support with
residents completing 60.3% of those who indicated a view strongly agreeing
comments form
or agreeing with this option. It also had the lowest
levels of dissatisfaction with only 21% against or
strongly against.
Option 3 - Mixed Use Town Centre Led Option
GOWM
Most cause for concern, in particular the inclusion of a
new Town Centre of up to 45,000 sq.m.
CEPOG
Support Concerned that level of retail development is
Team
for
West substantial and would appear to cater for more than
Midlands
Regional local needs.
Assembly
Central
Technology Concerned that development does not provide a RIS
Belt
of adequate size
Worcestershire
Large town centre cannot be justified
County Council
Highway Agency
Concerns about traffic impacts of large retail
development
St
Modwen Support. Town centre would assist in promoting
Developments Ltd
inward investment. Suggest their own option based on
options 3 and 4.
AWM
Support
Lickey Hills Society
The Lickey Hills Society’s preference is for aspects of
Option 3: Mixed Use Town Led and Option 4: Mixed
Use Residential led.
33
Comments noted. This option does not provide a
RIS of adequate size and quality. Also level of
retail is a concern as it raises a number of
significant issues including conformity with
planning policy, impact on other centres and
scope for growth in other centres. However
elements of option 3 should be included in
Preferred Option, namely a larger centre than
proposed in option 2 to add more of a
community focus, and more housing on west
works and north works subject to retention of a
RIS of 25hectares.
The
Friends
of
Balaam’s Wood
Responses
from
residents completing
comments form
We feel Option 3 is the best option.
This is the second most popular option with 51.5% of
those who indicated a view strongly agreeing or
agreeing with this option. Young people particularly
supported this option. A key reason for supporting this
option is a desire to see a centre that is large enough
to provide a real heart for the area.
Option 4 - Mixed Use Residential Led Option
GOWM
‘Realistic’ option, although we have policy concerns
with the leisure and retail elements.
CEPOG
Support Housing development, on brownfield land, is a
Team
for
West suitable use in the defined Major Urban Area and is
Midlands
Regional welcome in light of the higher levels of housing sought
Assembly
through the RSS Phase 2 revision. Housing should
not be provided at the expense of accommodating an
RIS.
St
Modwen General support. The centre would compete
Developments Ltd
effectively in terms of food shopping provision.
Suggest their own option based on options 3 and 4.
Lickey Hills Society
The Lickey Hills Society’s preference is for aspects of
Option 3: Mixed Use Town Led and Option 4: Mixed
Use Residential led.
Responses
from This option had the lowest level of support with only
residents completing 36% of those who indicated a view strongly agreeing
comments form
or agreeing with this option, and 44.9% stating that
they were against or strongly against
Land use swap
34
Comments noted. This option does not provide a
RIS of adequate size and quality. Level of retail
is still a concern as it raises a number of issues
including conformity with planning policy, impact
on other centres and scope for growth in other
centres. Loss of employment land is also a
concern.
Gallagher Estates
St
Modwen
Developments Ltd
The
Rambler’s
Association
Future Forum
Responses
from
residents completing
comments form
As currently configured the East Works do extend as a
major intrusion into what is otherwise open
countryside, whilst the “land swap” site does lie
between the Cofton Centre and Groveley Lane and as
such, its development should not compromise the
main purposes of the Green Belt to the extent that the
southern part of the East Works does at the moment.
This proposal is inappropriate for a number of
reasons- contrary to planning guidance, lack of
landscape benefits, would result in pressure for
housing on land further east.
Prefer not to see development in the Green Belt even
if it is a land swap to provide other open space.
The Forum were not in favour of the ‘residential land
use variation’ as it was felt to be the ‘easy option’
because the green belt is ready to build on and is an
easy ‘early win’, but it would take a long time to make
the south part of the East Works ready to be turned
back into green belt.
There was a split of opinion on this proposal, although
residents from Hillside Ward (Cofton Hackett area)
indicated a stronger preference than those who lived
in the Longbridge Ward (Groveley Lane area).
General Topics:
Environment
35
Some public support but limited to those who
would benefit from this option. Following further
baseline studies and sustainability appraisal
work land use swap not included in Preferred
Option.
The
Barnt
Waters Ltd
Green Concern regarding the effect of the proposed
developments will have on their water feeders.
Essential that ‘the cabbage patch” is protected from
contamination. Place on record the importance they
attach to safeguarding the their water quality and to
stress the need for incorporation of protective
measures in the designs of the redevelopment.
Environment Agency
Supports the regeneration of brownfield sites, but
reiterates that consideration must be given to
improving any constraints to development such as
flood risk, drainage and improving river corridors.
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment required.
Rubery
Lane The River Rea should be opened up to provide a
Residents Association green corridor through the Longbridge development.
British Waterways
Would welcome an extension of the site boundary to
the South to take in the canal at its boundary with the
A441 then following the canal to the southern edge of
the Lower Bittell.
Responses
from There was strong overall support for re-opening the
residents completing River Rea. Also a desire to maintain and enhance
comments form
open space including Cofton Park and to create green
spaces and linkages through the site and to enhance
links to the countryside.
Housing
36
Agree. Preferred Option Document Principle 3
sets out a number of requirements relating to
ecological mitigation and enhancements.
Agree. Further work on options for the River Rea
carried out in consultation with the Agency. Also
Preferred Options Document sets out options for
the River Rea for further consultation.
Preferred Options Document sets out options for
the River Rea for further consultation.
Not accepted. The Area Action Plan confines
itself to areas of major change and development
at the former MG Rover plant and immediately
adjoining land. The Preferred Options Document
does however recognise that off site mitigation
measures will be needed.
Agree. Preferred Options Document set out
requirements for a number of significant
environmental improvements including options
for the River Rea, new public spaces/parks at
north works, west works and east works,
improved green corridors throughout the AAP
area with links to the countryside, and
improvements to Cofton Park.
Central
Belt
Technology The need for high quality housing to compliment the
high quality employment was considered to be
important.
CEPOG
Support Housing development, on brownfield land at East
Team
for
West Works, is a suitable use in the defined Major Urban
Midlands
Regional Area and is welcome in light of the higher levels of
Assembly
housing sought through the RSS Phase 2 revision.
GOWM
There is the issue of proposing housing on land at
East Works in the context of the moratorium in
Bromsgrove.
Billingham and Kite Residential development would represent an
Ltd
unnecessary and inappropriate squandering of a
valuable economic resource, and should therefore be
avoided.
Responses
from General support for housing – subject to comments
residents completing above on the land use swap. General desire for a
comments form
range and mix of types and tenures of housing.
Employment
GOWM
AWM
Central
Belt
There are strong employment land protection policies
in place in both the Birmingham UDP and the
Bromsgrove Local Plan. The Preferred Options Report
would need to set out the justification for going against
the employment land retention policies.
Support the designation of land at Longbridge as a
RIS, which would provide the opportunity for the
creation of significant high level employment
opportunities in a form compatible with nearby
residential occupiers.
Technology The concept of high quality employment on the site
was thought to be critical. The importance of the
Technology Park to CTB was emphasised.
37
Agree. The Preferred Option Principles 6 and 7
recognise the need for a range of high quality
sustainable housing.
Agree. The site is functionally part of the Major
Urban Area and should be treated as a MUA site
for the purposes of housing policy.
Comments noted. The site is functionally part of
the Major Urban Area and should be treated as
a MUA site for the purposes of housing policy.
Comments noted. The Preferred Option is
employment led. However it also seeks an
appropriate balance between employment and
housing uses.
Agree. Preferred Options Document principle 6
seeks an inclusive range and mix of housing
types and tenures.
Comments noted. The Preferred Option is
employment led and seeks an appropriate
balance between employment and housing
uses. Justification set out in baseline reports.
Agree. Preferred Options Document sets out
proposals for a 25ha RIS.
Agree. Preferred Options Document sets out
proposals for a 25ha RIS including the
Technology Park.
Friends of the Earth West Works site should remain as an employment Comments noted. Preferred Options Document
Birmingham
use, preferably of an industrial nature that requires the allocates the majority of west works for
use of rail connection.
employment uses. Comments on rail freight
connection addressed below.
Billingham and Kite A RIS, with the size and locational advantages that Agree. Preferred Options Document sets out
Ltd
are available at Longbridge is a rare, perhaps unique, proposals for a 25ha RIS.
resource.
Responses
from A desire to create a large number and variety of jobs Agree. Preferred Options Document contains
residents completing and to maximise local recruitment and opportunities proposals that will deliver a target of 10,000 jobs
comments form
and training. Creation of employment was the main of a variety of types including high technology,
priority amongst residents. However there was general industry, retail, and leisure. Principle 5
recognition that traditional industrial uses may not be also states that the final AAP will include
deliverable and that other forms of employment are measures
to
ensure
that
employment
needed.
opportunities are accessible to local people and
provide training opportunities.
Transport
Central
Technology The transportation solutions should be bold in order to
Belt
avoid hamstringing the site for the future.
AWM
Support the proposed improvements to the local and
sub-regional transport network.
Centro WMTA
Requirements for high quality public transport
infrastructure should include bus interchange for both
bus and rail station and proposed centre, strategic
Park & Ride, high quality public transport access with
Frankley/Rubery and bus rapid transport along the
A38 corridor
CEPOG
Support It is considered that the identified Strategic Park and
Team
for
West Ride will help implement RSS Policy T6.
Midlands
Regional
Assembly
38
Overall package of transport proposals
Agree that a comprehensive package of
improvements which gives emphasis to
maximising modal shift towards high quality
public transport and walking and cycling, with
appropriate highway improvements to serve the
development should be proposed in the
Preferred Options Document.
Link Road
Agree that Link Road should dropped in
Preferred Options Document.
Highways Agency
New
Frankley
In
Birmingham
Parish
Council
The Inland Waterways
Association
Travel West Midlands
Concerns in terms of proposed link road. Agency
acknowledges and supports a Strategic Park & Ride
Facility.
The rail extension to Frankley is of vital economic
importance to the area, as it would allow Frankley
residents easy access to employment opportunities in
the north and east of the city.
Objects to proposals to build a bus way along the river
valley between Rubery and Longbridge.
Believe that the option to provide a dedicated bus
way, for a high specification service, utilising the track
of the Frankley branch, would provide the most
flexible option for improved public transport services.
Object strongly to proposals for a new link road.
Bournville
Village
Trust
Railfuture
Strongly object to a link road to the M42.
Transport 2000 West Enhancement of the environment, walking and cycling
Midlands
to improve the quality of life should be an important
part of the AAP.
Responses
from A variety of views were offered on transport options.
residents completing There were mixed views on the bus and heavy rail
comments form
options for serving Frankley. There was support for
improvements to the M5/ Junction 4. The least popular
option was the Longbridge Link Road through the
Green Belt, although opinion was split on the widening
of Longbridge Lane
Retail uses/scale of new centre
Central
Technology Consider that a new retail centre might undermine
Belt
other local retail centres, for example Northfield. The
view is that there should be not be a detrimental
impact on existing centres.
39
Link to Frankley
Note that there are mixed views on the
alternative heavy rail and quality bus options for
serving Frankley. Preferred Options Document
therefore sets out both options for further public
consultation and to allow further studies to be
undertaken.
Strategic Park and Ride
Support welcomed. Preferred Options Document
sets options for the location of the park and ride
car park to allow for further public consultation
and for further studies to be undertaken.
Rail Freight
Comments noted however it is considered that
the Regional Investment site and the provision
of new housing should take priority over the
retention of a rail freight facility. Preferred
Options Document.
Note that there is a wide range of views on the
scale of the centre. Retail impact assessment
needed to fully consider what scale of retail can
be supported whilst allowing for existing centres
Morrison
Supermarkets Plc
Retail should be of relatively small scale to meet local to be develop in line with needs.
needs only.
Asda Stores Limited
Asda Stores Ltd supports the principle of establishing
an expanded district centre within Longbridge to serve
the existing and proposed new community.
Costco Wholesale Ltd Agree with the allocation for areas of employment but
feel there should be more emphasis on a wide range
of employment generating uses that do not fall within
a use class - sui generis uses.
Worcestershire
Clearly the development of a small local centre is
County Council
desirable in sustainability terms but a large town
centre cannot be justified.
Responses
from Strong support for a new centre that is large enough
residents completing to create a new focal point and identity for Longbridge
comments form
but some recognise a need to be careful not to
adversely impact on other existing centres such as
Rubery, Northfield and Frankley.
Leisure, education and community facilities
Bournville College
The college’s preferred approach is to move from their Agree. Preferred Options Document recognises
present site and relocate entirely to a site near the that education uses should be included in new
former MG Rover factory in Longbridge.
centre, including potential to relocate Bournville
College.
Friends of the Earth In addition to retail uses we welcome the use Agree. Preferred Options Document Principle 9
Birmingham
proposals for leisure uses, although other facilities recognises the need for adequate community,
should also be provided for health, community and health, education, leisure and other facilities to
education uses dependant on the local community serve the development.
needs.
40
Sport England
Supportive of the redevelopment and cannot stress Agree. Preferred Options Document proposes
enough the benefits of sport in regeneration and to improved sports facilities in Cofton Park,
local economies.
improvements to other existing facilities to serve
the development and measures to encourage
walking and cycling
Cofton Hackett Parish With the number of residential dwellings proposed Agree. Preferred Options Document Principle 9
Council
there would not be enough Primary and Secondary recognises that in order to address the
school places available.
additional demand for school places financial
contributions will be sought from new housing
development to improve existing schools.
Responses
from The potential to include an Austin Heritage centre was Agree. Preferred Options Document supports an
residents completing mentioned by the largest number of respondents and Austin Heritage building either within the new
comments form
was widely supported. Respondents were also centre or within Cofton Park. Principle 9
concerned about whether there would be adequate recognises the need for adequate community,
community facilities to serve additional housing health, education, leisure and other facilities to
particularly at East Works.
serve the development.
Viability & Delivery
Centro WMPTA
Developer contribution through planning obligations Agree. Preferred Options Document Principle 13
required to assist the delivery of transport requires that developments contribute to the
infrastructure
public transport and other infrastructure needed
to serve the development.
Highways Agency
Development will need to be linked to a clear phasing Agree. Preferred Options Document Chapter 6
and delivery plan with all development contributing recognises need for a development programme
proportionally to the cost of delivery.
and phasing plan to ensure that appropriate and
St
Modwen Consideration needs to be given to deliverability necessary infrastructure is in place to
Developments Ltd
particularly having regard to the ability and need to accommodate and mitigate the impacts of
acquire additional land. References in the Issues and development. It also recognises the need to
Options Report which refer to the need to achieve ensure that the development delivers early wins
early success in delivering new development are to fund the infrastructure costs and deliver an
expedient take up of development.
therefore supported.
41
Appendix 4: List of Organisations Consulted at Preferred Options
Stage
42
Appendix 4- List of Organisations Consulted
at Preferred Options Stage
Specific and General Consultation Bodies
• Government Office for the West Midlands
• West Midlands Regional Assembly and CEPOG support team
• Natural England
• The Environment Agency
• Highways Agency
• Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission
• Network Rail
• Advantage West Midlands
• Electronic communications/telecommunications bodies
- Birmingham Cable and Wireless
- Central Networks
- EON UK PLC
- Fujitsu Telecommunications
- G3 communications Ltd
- Mobile Operations Assoc
- UK Broadband Ltd
- British Telecom Group PLC
• South Birmingham Primary Care NHS Trust
• Redditch and Bromsgrove PCT
• Birmingham and Black Country Strategic Health Authority
• Severn Trent Water
• South Staffordshire Water PLC
• Adjoining authorities
- Worcestershire County Council
- Staffordshire County Council
43
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
- Warwickshire County Council
- Solihull MBC
- Coventry City Council
- Dudley MBC
- Lichfield District Council
- North Warwickshire Borough Council
- Sandwell MBC
- Walsall MBC
- Redditch MBC
- Stratford on Avon DC
- Wyre Forest DC
Government Departments;
- Department of Transport
- Department for Education and Skills
- Department for Work and Pensions
- DEFRA
- Defence Estates
Access Committee Birmingham
Age Concern Birmingham
Arts Council West Midlands
British Chemical Distributors and Traders Association
British Geological Survey
Birmingham and Solihull TEC
Birmingham Diocesan Board of Finance
Birmingham International Airport
British Waterways
Burmcan UK
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
44
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chambers of Commerce- Birmingham, Herford and Worcestershire and Asian Business Forum and
Birmingham Junior Chamber of Commerce
Church Commissioners
Civil Aviation Authority
Coalition for Disabled People in Birmingham
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
Council for the Protection of Rural England- Warwickshire, Bromsgrove District, and West Midlands Branch
Commission for Racial Equality
Crown Estate Office
Disability Rights Commission
Diocese of Birmingham and Diocese of Worcester
Electricity, Gas and Telecommunications Undertakers including
- National Grid Company
- British Gas
- TRANSCO
English Partnerships
English Heritage
Equal Opportunities Commission
Fire and Rescue Services
- West Midlands Ambulance Service
- West Midlands Fire Service
- West Mercia Fire Service
- West Mercia Ambulance
Forestry Commission
Freight Transport Association
Freightliner Group
GB Railfreight
Friends of the Earth
45
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Garden History Society
Gypsy Council
Gypsy and Traveller Reform Commission
Health and Safety Executive
Help the Aged- England
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution
HM Prison Service
Home Builders Federation
Housing Corporation
Learning Skills Councils- Birmingham and Solihull, Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire
National Home Builders Federation
National Playing Fields Association
National Trust
Parish Councils
- Frankley Parish Council
- Cofton Hackett Parish Council
- Wythall Parish Council
- Bournheath Parish Council
- Hagley Parish Council
- Stoke Parish Council
Passenger Transport Authorities and Executives
-Centro/ West Midlands Passenger Transport authority
Police
West Midlands Police
West Mercia Police
Post office property holdings
Rail Companies/operators and the Rail Freight Group
46
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ramblers Association
- Birmingham Group
- Warwickshire Area Group
- Worcestershire Group
Regional Housing Board—West Midlands
Regional sports Boards- West Midlands
Road Haulage Association
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Sport England
Theatres Trust
The Wildlife Trusts for Birmingham and the Black Country and Worcestershire
Transport operators including
- Travel West Midlands
- Central Trains
- Chiltern Railways
- English Welsh and Scottish Railways
- Midland Red South Ltd
- National Express Group PLC
- Virgin Cross Country and Virgin Trains
- Arriva Midlands
Cross Country Trains
West midlands regional housing executive
Women’s National Commission
Others
In total the mailing list of over 500 groups organisations and individuals received details of the AAP. As well as
the organisations listed above this included
- Voluntary Groups
- Residents Associations and Neighbourhood Forums
47
-
Landowners
Businesses- including all larger employers in south west Birmingham
Disability Groups
Community religious groups
Local agents, developers and their consultants
Councillors and MP’s
Churches and religious centres
Housing Associations
Hospitals and other health organisations
Transport Groups
Schools and Colleges
Libraries at Bromsgrove, Cofton Hackett, Frankley, Hagley, Northfield, Rubery, Weoley Castle and
Wythall
Other residents who live outside the mailing area for the newsletter and had asked to be informed of
the AAP.
48
Appendix 5: Summary of Main Comments on Preferred Option and
Submission AAP Response
49
Appendix 5 – Summary of Main Comments on Preferred Option and Submission AAP Response
Name
Vision and Objectives
Advantage West Midlands
St Modwen Developments Ltd
National Trust
Overall land use strategy
Government Office West
Midlands
Solihull MBC
Worcestershire County Council
Summary of main comments and representations
How the issues have been
addressed in Submission AAP
Supports the vision as it chimes closely with that of the
West Midlands Regional Economic Strategy.
Supports the vision and objectives
Supports the vision and objectives but wishes to see a
specific objective relating to low carbon development
or responding to climate change.
Comments welcomed.
Broadly supports the strategy set out in the Preferred
Options Document and have no particular concerns
about the broad distribution of land uses.
Broadly supports the strategy set out in the Preferred
Options Document
The Proposals in the AAP should be welcomed for
being employment led and making the necessary
Regional Investment Site provision in the Birmingham
to Worcester High Technology corridor.
Support principles of the Preferred Options including
the creation of a wide range of jobs, new areas of
housing (including affordable housing), the location
and definition for the Regional Investment Site and the
mix of public transport and road improvements.
Supports the mixed use employment led approach and
the delivery of 10,000 new jobs on the site
Comments welcomed.
50
Comments welcomed.
Comments welcomed. AAP objectives
amended to address climate change.
Comments welcomed.
Comments welcomed
Comments welcomed
Comments welcomed
Head teacher, Colmers Farm
Junior and Infants School, Head
teacher St Columba’s Catholic
Primary School,
Hoerbiger UK, Transport 2000,
George Wimpey West Midlands,
Travel West Midlands, Bournville
Village Trust, Rubery Great Park
Residents Association, Lickey and
Blackwell Parish Council,
Bromsgrove Local Strategic
Partnership, Birmingham Friends
of the Earth, University Hospital
Birmingham NHS Foundation
Trust, Herefordshire and
Worcestershire Earth Heritage
Trust, John Boone Butchers,
Cofton News and Wines, Wythall
Parish Council,
(312 households- see footnote 1)
New Frankley in B’ham Parish
Council, Eric R Bowron, Andrew
Coulson.
Supporting and/or agreeing with all or part of the
preferred option
Comments welcomed.
Preferred options not supported. Development should
be industrial/manufacturing based and not mixed use
Comments noted. A range of options –
including an employment option
(option 1)- was considered at the
Issues and Options stage of the AAP.
The mixed-use employment led option
in the Preferred Options Report was
selected following the outcome of
public consultation, sustainability
appraisal, and viability work and
baseline studies.
51
National Trust, Centrica, Rubery
Lane Residents Association,
Billingham and Kite ltd,
(78 households- see footnote 2)
Objecting to and/or disagreeing with all of part of the
Preferred Option, or to the omission of a policy or
proposal. Specific concerns mentioned by these
respondents are dealt with below.
West Works, North Works car park- Proposed Regional Investment site
West Midlands Regional
Supports employment led nature of AAP proposals,
Assembly/CEPOG
particularly the identification of the RIS. Makes the
following comments on the detailed mix of uses;
• Regional Spatial Strategy requires that major office
(B1a) development are focussed in strategic
centres,
• Policies in Regional Spatial Strategy restrict RIS
sites to uses within class B1.
Worcestershire County Council,
Central Technology Belt
Supports the RIS (including its scale), as it will help to
meet the needs of the CTB. However the provision of
the RIS should not be compromised by the
encroachment of residential uses.
52
Comments noted. A range of options –
including an employment option- was
considered at the Issues and Options
stage of the AAP. The mixed-use
employment led option in the Preferred
Options Report was selected following
the outcome of public consultation,
sustainability appraisal, and viability
work and baseline studies.
Comments noted. Submission AAP
Proposal RIS1 requires that the
majority of uses in the RIS are B1 (b)
and B1(c) in line with RSS policy.
However the submission AAP also
allows for some office uses, B2
(general
industrial)
uses
and
supporting services. This recognizes
the need to ensure viability and
success of this urban brownfield RIS
and to allow for flexibility in meeting
future market needs. RSS Phase 2
Revision Preferred Option permits
quality B2 uses and Submission AAP
reflects this policy.
Support welcomed. The Submission
AAP allocates a 25ha RIS, shows a
clear site boundary and ensures that
the RIS is safeguarded primarily for
Class B1 uses.
RIS should be located on a conglomeration of sites
around and within the new centre.
Location and quality of RIS is more critical than its
size. RIS must contain a significant office (B1)
component as well as B2 and B8 uses and ancillary
uses
Midlands
Wishes to ensure that the RIS has the full support of
the partners involved in the Central Technology Belt,
that office levels are in line with Regional Spatial
Strategy, and that general industrial uses can be
justified and have the support of the Regional
Assembly.
Objects- industry not acceptable adjacent to existing
housing, RIS not needed.
Mrs Norma Wood, Gerald F and
Lesley A Redy
53
Comments noted. However consider
the RIS should be on a contiguous
site(s) in a visible location. Sites within
and to the rear of the local centre do
not
meet
these
requirements.
Submission Document however allows
for a more flexible range of uses and
emphasizes the unique opportunity at
Longbridge
to
provide
urban
brownfield RIS development.
Comments noted. However the
Councils are of the view that the RIS
should be a minimum 25ha in line with
RSS. AAP Submission document
does, however, allow a more flexible
approach to office, general industrial
(B2) uses and some supporting
services.
Comments noted. RIS supported by
key partners. RSS Review Preferred
Option supports RIS at Longbridge
and B2 general industrial uses. See
also response to comments from
Regional Assembly
Comments noted. However, RIS is a
key priority for this site in line with
RSS. Majority of site will be Class B1
uses, which do not adversely affect
residential amenity. Submission AAP
also recognizes need to ensure
appropriate
relationship
between
industry and existing dwellings.
Aldi Stores Ltd
Aldi own land on the northern side of Bristol Road
South within the area allocated for a RIS. Considers
that AAP should allow for the reinforcement of the
existing commercial and retail provision on Bristol
Road South.
Birmingham Friends of the Earth
Wish to see a Materials Recycling centre on this site
West Works, Housing site
There is potential to increase the number of dwelling
units to provide 920 units on north and west works
combined.
Housing should be relocated within the site to enable
rail connection to be retained.
North Works-overall approach to new local centre
Solihull MBC
The new local centre provides a necessary focus for
regeneration that could not have been anticipated by
the Birmingham UDP. The retail impact assessment
indicates that it would not harm existing centres. The
proposal is acceptable so long as it remains within the
floorspace limits set out in the Preferred Option.
54
Comments noted. Planning application
for Aldi store refused and appeal
dismissed. Reasons include adverse
impact on ability to deliver a RIS, site
not within an existing centre and a
store in this location could impact on
the launch of the new centre proposed
in the AAP.
Comments noted. However this would
not enable a RIS to be delivered.
Comments noted. In the Submission
AAP the number of dwellings has been
increased to allow for a 750 on north
and west works including a minimum
of 350 dwellings on west works. It may
be possible to accommodate more
dwellings depending on size/type of
dwelling, quality of design etc.
Comments noted. See comments on
rail freight below.
Comments welcomed.
Need to ensure that new centre is sustainable and
serves the needs of the community. Opportunities for
commercial investment should not be constrained to a
point where they are prevented.
Lickey and Blackwell Parish
Council, Lickey Hills Society,
a number of residents
Council, Bromsgrove Local
Strategic Partnership, A Coulson,
Michelle Culloo, John Berry, Mrs
K Nicol, Anthony J Beaumont,
Alan Sanson, Mr Craydon
Constable, Craig Dutton, Luke E
Bailey
Support for new centre with retail, college, local
services and other mixed uses
Object to/concerned about centre- reasons, large new
retail development not needed, desire to see a smaller
centre (with smaller food store and smaller scale retail
provision) adequate existing retail facilities in area,
adverse impact on other centres including Frankley
North Works- Specific comments on scale of retail and leisure uses
The scale of the centre should be appropriate to serve
Midlands
local needs and not detrimentally impact on
neighbouring centres
55
Comments noted. The Submission
AAP allows for a range of uses
including retail, services, leisure,
office, residential and other uses to
provide a sustainable centre and
attractive investment location. Office
uses are limited to a level that is in line
with other centres in the region.
Comments welcomed.
Comments noted. Scale of centre and
design and mix of uses supported by
vast majority of respondents in public
consultation. A retail assessment and
supporting note has been prepared
since the Preferred Options Report.
This shows capacity for a superstore
of 7,500 sq.m. gross at Longbridge
additional
capacity
for
retail
development in other centres such as
Frankley. Also Submission AAP
requires a range of retail space.
Comments noted. An updated retail
assessment and supporting note has
been prepared since the Preferred
Assembly/CEPOG
The scale of development exceeds the threshold RSS
policy PA13, although the comparison floorspace is
below the threshold in policy PA11. From the
information provided there is no evidence to suggest
that this level of retail development will undermine
policies PA 13 or UR3. However it is important that the
Council’s are satisfied that there will be a need for this
level of retail development, that there will not be
unacceptable impacts on of possibly vulnerable district
and local centres and that the AAP will be consistent
with existing Development Plan policies.
An increase in convenience and comparison retail
development from that proposed in the AAP can be
supported by technical work. Such an increase will not
unduly impact on existing centres. Propose a
superstore of 8,300sq.m. and comparison floorspace
in phased provision of 13,000sq.m. by 2016.
Mr Darren C Billington, Mrs Kelly
A Billington, Mr and Mrs Smith,
William Rawbone, Mr Chinn
Wants a larger town centre (Option 3 at Issues and
Options stage) to provide a wide range of shops. Also
leisure uses including cinemas, clubs theatres
ASDA Stores Ltd
Support scale and type of retail development
proposed.
56
Options Document was considered.
This shows capacity for additional
retail development of the scale
proposed and that there will not be an
unacceptable impact on other centres.
Comments noted. Although technical
work shows capacity for additional
floorspace, this is over a wider area.
The Councils remain of the view that
there is a need to retain some of this
capacity
for
additional
retail
development in other centres and the
floorspace limits set out in the POR
should not be increased. Policy LC1 in
the Submission Document retains the
floorspace limits set out in the
Preferred Options Report.
Comments noted. Option 3 allowed for
a town centre of up to 45,000 sq.m.
gross. Retail assessment shows that a
centre of this size would have an
adverse impact on other centers, it
would also be contrary to policy etc.
Comment welcomed.
WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC.
Land Securities/Birmingham
Alliance
Consider retail development should be restricted to
2,500sq.m. and object to scale of retail proposed for
the following reasons;
• The Area Action Plan is not supported by evidence
of retail need for a store of up to 7,500sq.m. gross
• Concerned that retail provision of this scale will be
out of keeping with the retail function of the new
centre and will lead to an adverse impact on
existing centres
• The provision of a town centre received the highest
level of opposition during consultation and was
considered inconsistent with planning policy.
Proposals for Longbridge should be subject to retail
assessment with regard to impact on committed
schemes in the City Centre and the impact on nearby
centres. The comparison floorspace should not be
provided in a small number of large units. The role and
function of the centre should be specified in line with
advice in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6.
57
Comments noted. An updated retail
assessment and supporting note has
been prepared since the Preferred
Options Report was considered. This
shows capacity for additional retail
development of the scale proposed.
Comments noted. A retail assessment
and supporting note has been
prepared since the Preferred Options
Report was considered. This shows
capacity for a retail development of the
scale proposed and additional capacity
for retail development in other centres.
The Submission Document Proposal
LC1 requires comparison units in a mix
of sizes.
Firstplan o.b.o. IKEA
IKEA would welcome the opportunity to locate on a
suitable site within the Longbridge area. An IKEA store
will bring intrinsic regeneration benefits particularly in
terms of inward investment and number of jobs and
enhanced profile of the area. Object to limit on
floorspace for non-food comparison goods as it will not
provide scope and flexibility to locate an IKEA store at
Longbridge. Considers floorspace provision should
reflect the guidance in PPS6 and allow for provision of
additional retail floorspace, subject to passing the tests
in PPS6.
AAP should not define specific types of leisure uses
North Works- Education and community uses
Friends of Balaam’s Wood,
Wish to see new community uses e.g. community
various residents.
centre, open access to college library, support for
Austin Heritage Centre
Richard Burden MP, Central
Technology Belt, Birmingham and
Solihull Learning Skills Council
North Works- Housing
Supports relocation of Bournville college to this site
There is potential to increase the number of dwelling
units to provide 920 units on north and west works
combined.
58
Comments noted. IKEA not taken
forward for a number of reasons
including competing demands on land,
and development is unlikely to comply
with AAP design strategy. No retail,
transport, sustainability or planning
policy
assessments
to
support
proposal for an IKEA store submitted.
Birmingham City Council will continue
to work with IKEA to find a suitable site
elsewhere within the City.
Agree. Submission AAP does not
restrict types of leisure uses
Agreed. Submission AAP proposes an
Austin heritage and mixed use
community building and requires some
college facilities to be accessible to the
public.
Comments welcomed.
Comments noted. In the Submission
AAP the number of dwellings has been
increased to allow for a 750 on north
and west works combined, including
approximately 400 dwellings on north
works. It may be possible to
accommodate
more
dwellings
depending on size/type of dwelling,
quality of design, building heights etc.
North Works- River Rea options
Environment Agency
Birmingham Friends of the Earth,
Friends of Balaam’s Wood, Mrs
Joyce Dale, Colin C Shale,
Jacqueline Sutherland, A
Coulson, Lickey Hills Society, Mrs
M Osaye
Nanjing site
Cofton Centre Site
National Trust
Recognise the many constraints on the site however
the Agency wish to ensure that the optimum amount of
the river is opened up and watercourse restored as a
natural or semi-natural channel. Opening up the river
also presents an opportunity to solve existing flooding
problems by incorporating attenuation along the route
of the river.
Support opening up of the River Rea, or as much of it
as possible
Comments noted. Further studies of
options for the River have been carried
out in consultation with the
Environment Agency. The proposals in
the Submission AAP involve opening
up the river across the majority of the
north works site. The section through
the retail quarter will however remain
in culvert due to a number of
constraints in this location. Proposals
include flood attenuation measures.
The proposed new development and transport
proposals make it difficult to incorporate an open
channel throughout its length. Therefore wish to retain
culvert with water features on North Works Site.
Support opening up of the River Rea but concerned
whether proposals adequately address Environment
Agency’s requirements for flooding.
The AAP should make provision for bringing forward
additional parcels of land for development within the
Nanjing site for employment, mixed uses or residential
uses depending on location and circumstances.
Want Nanjing to make effective use of their site. Land
surplus to their requirements should be put to new
uses appropriate to its location.
recognises that Nanjing may release
land for development and encourages
more efficient use of the site. It also
states that future uses will be
considered in the context of overall
aims of the AAP and adjoining land
uses.
Site is on elevated land and prominent when viewed
59
from surrounding countryside and needs structural
landscaping at its edges and internally. Wants to see a
masterplan for the Cofton Centre.
UK Independence Party,
Stephen Peters,
East Works
Assembly/CEPOG
The site should be developed as green technology
park including a Multiple Recycling Facility
East works is considered functionally part of the Major
Urban Area and as such supports implementation of
the Regional Spatial Strategy.
Housing is acceptable on this site provided that
GOWM and the Regional Assembly confirm that is can
be credited against Birmingham’s housing targets.
60
proposal OS 16 states that the existing
landscape buffer will be protected
managed and enhanced. Planning
permission now granted for Cofton
Centre with safeguarding conditions.
Comments noted. Uses permitted in
Submission AAP would permit green
technology park.
Comment noted. Regional Spatial
Strategy Review Phase 2 confirms that
East Works forms part of the major
urban area.
Barnt Green Waters Ltd,
Billingham and Kite Ltd, Barnt
Green Sailing Club,
Roger A Barker,
Mrs Aesha Grievson,
Anthony Clewley, Jeffrey Taylor,
Roger A Barker, Clive I Anderson,
Charles W Regan,
Alison B Jones, John Chasemore,
Garth Wood, Damian Bowen,
Alan R Carter, Katherine Williams,
Andrew Finn/Helen Aspey,
John Slack, Mr Anthony Atwell,
MT and JD Powell, Diane B Carr,
Nigel G Bradley, Mr David Laity,
Jonathan Lucas, Bruce Frizzell,
Philip F Everard,
Catherine R Brooks, Stuart Howe
Object to housing. Reasons include impact on semirural environment, impact on Cofton Church Lane,
road network not adequate, and inadequate local
facilities.
Wish to see site used for:
• Employment,
• A mix of employment and housing,
• Residential land swap option with part of East
Works returned to Green Belt/open space and part
residential
• Open space.
Comment noted. A range of options for
East Works was considered at the
Issues and Options stage of the AAP.
These options were a) use of the site
for employment and b) the land swap
which included use of part for open
space and part for housing. The use
of the whole site for housing was
supported by the majority of individuals
and organisations who responded to
the consultation at Issues and options
and Preferred Options stages and by
the
baseline
and
Sustainability
Appraisal reports.
Submission AAP does however
contain a number of proposals for
minimising the impact of new housing
on the local community infrastructure
and on the local road network.
61
Lickey Hills Society, Lickey and
Blackwell Parish Council
Partnership,
Wythall Parish Council,
Emily Mayne/Carol Barrett,
David P Grinnell,
Sandra Shopshire,
Mrs Angela J Morton,
Prof Richard H R White,
Paul Stephens, John K and
Elizabeth Duncan,
Stephen Oliver,
Mr Anthony Atwell,
Stephen Peters, Jean Brown,
Andrew and Valerie Sayce,
Marlene B Grinnell,
Anthony Goodman
Clifford Bird
Cofton Hackett Parish Council,
Barnt Green Parish Council,
Transport 2000,
Norman B Witham, Alan R Lacey,
Steven J Bach, David Harris,
Lickey Hills Society, Transport
2000, UK Independence Party,
Partnership, Worcestershire
Detailed comments and concerns:
• Desire to see a mix of types including provision for
first time buyers, elderly
• Some respondents want a mix of tenures with high
level of affordable housing – although other
respondents concerned about impact of high levels
of affordable housing
• Desire to see retirement village and provision for
the elderly including sheltered and nursing
accommodation.
• Residential development is too dense/ 700
dwellings is too many,
• Desire for high quality design, green spaces,
access and parking arrangements on the site
• Impact on green belt
• Concerned about impact on local property values
requires a mix of types and sizes and
35% affordable housing
• Submission AAP allows for extra
care
and
other
types
of
accommodation for the elderly.
• Current national and local planning
policy supports higher densities.
Submission AAP contains design
policies to ensure high quality
design.
• Submission AAP requires open
space within site along River Arrow
• Property values are not a material
planning consideration
Wants vehicular access from Cofton Church Lane
Oppose any vehicular access to Cofton Church Lane
Comments noted. Cofton Church Lane
is not a suitable access to the site and
is part of a long distance footpath.
Submission Document proposes other
suitable access points for East Works
site
Wish to see additional facilities to serve development
such as medical centre, village hall, and library, shops,
primary school facilities, policing, and youth facilities,
play areas.
Also there is a need for improved road transport
Agree. Submission AAP Proposal H2
includes specific requirements for an
expanded neighbourhood centre and
for a land to be reserved within the site
for a new library and community
62
County Council,
infrastructure and a bus service between East works
Emily Mayne/Carol Barrett,
and the station.
Mike Powell, R Duggins,
Margaret Hickman-Smith,
Andrew Filer, Graham S Elsworth,
M Powell,
Cofton Park
Sport England, Lickey Hills
Supports sport, recreational and open space
Society, Richard Burden MP,
improvements to Cofton Park and inclusion of former
Herefordshire and Worcestershire car park into Park
Earth Heritage Trust, Geoff
Athorsuch, Laura Clinton, Laura
Clinton
St Modwen Developments Ltd,
Object to Austin Centre in park, this facility should be
Lickey Hills Society, Lickey Hills
located in the new centre.
Country Park Joint Committee,
Some also do not want to see other built facilities in
park namely commercial horticulture.
Karen LD Jenkyns Patricia and
David Hughes, Frances Brannan,
Mrs Kelly A Billington
Public Transport- public transport interchange
Centro, Travel West Midlands,
Support transport interchange. It is consistent with
Solihull MBC, Network Rail,
current planning policy and sustainable development.
Centro state that further detailed work is needed on
Birmingham Friends of the Earth, design of facility. Network Rail emphasise the need for
Transport 2000, Richard Burden
good links between public transport modes.
MP
Some respondents emphasise importance of high
quality design.
Public Transport- Longbridge station and other rail improvements
Friends of the Earth,
Improvements to Bromsgrove station and increased
capacity along rail routes to Bromsgrove should be an
important part of the transport strategy.
63
facility. Proposal H2 also allows for
other community facilities. Movement
Strategy proposal T4 includes new and
improved bus services to the station
and
proposal
T15
allows
for
appropriate traffic management.
Comments welcomed
Agree. Submission AAP proposes that
Austin Centre be located in local
centre and not in park
Comments welcomed. Further joint
work between City Council and Centro
underway to determine detailed
design.
Agreed. Proposal T12 includes
improvements to Bromsgrove station
and services.
Wish to see new railway station to serve East Works
and Cofton Centre sites
Public Transport- Strategic park and ride
Support strategic park and ride facility. Reasons- it is
Assembly/CEPOG,
consistent with current planning policy and sustainable
development and will assist the implementation of
Solihull MBC, Centro,
policy T6 in Regional Spatial Strategy.
Lickey Hills Society, Jill Wood,
Mrs Joyce Dale, Peter A Talbot,
Richard S Turner,
Robert D Anchor,
Marlene B Grinnell,
Railfuture West Midlands, Travel
Concerned about park and ride. Reasons- will
West Midlands
encourage increase in car commuting from rural areas
in north Worcestershire, will detract from rail stations
such as Bromsgrove, will lead to intense traffic peaks,
will undermine reliability and frequency of feeder bus
services to stations
Richard Burden MP, Richard
Jones, Susan Glennon
Park and ride should be located south of Longbridge
Lane- Reasons better integrated with centre, less
impact on residents of Tessal Lane, potential to
relocate station adjacent to new park and ride.
64
Comments noted. Not feasible to
provide additional station in this
location.
Comments welcomed.
Comments noted. Park and ride is part
of a strategy to improve public
transport facilities and encourage
public transport use throughout a wide
area. This includes Proposal T12 for
improvements to services and stations
including Bromsgrove station and
Proposal T4 for an improved network
of buses. Also Proposal T8 provides
for bus priority measures at junctions.
Comments noted. Following
consultation on the Preferred Options
Document further work has been
carried out jointly by the City Council
Centro, Network Rail, Longbridge
Consultative Group, Mr and Mrs
Coyne, John Barnett
Favour location north of Longbridge Lane adjacent to
station to facilitate effortless transition between modes.
Centro and Network Rail consider that further
evaluation would be needed to fully assess alternative
option south of Longbridge Lane. Residents state that
park and ride should be located north of Longbridge
Lane- Reasons include less impact on residents that
border onto railway, nearer to station
Transport 2000
Concerned at scale of park and ride. Wish to ensure
that it meets demands from immediate local area
rather than from the Worcestershire dormitory towns.
Public Transport- Quality network of buses
Travel West Midlands,
Supports upgrading of all services to quality standards.
Wants to see improved network of buses extending
into north Worcestershire including Rubery, Frankley,
Fairfield, Cofton Hackett, Hopwood, Beoley and further
afield to Kidderminster area.
Friends of Balaam’s Wood, West
Wish to see eco-friendly options for new buses
Midlands Friends of the Earth, Mr including hydrogen buses.
K Moore
University Hospital Birmingham
Other options preferred including Metro or Light rail
NHS Foundation Trust, Mr
along Bristol Road,
Brookes, Miss P Thompson,
Hoerbiger UK
65
and Centro examining the options for
the location of the Park and Ride.
Proposal T5 in the Submission
Document requires a high quality
facility that is well linked to the station.
The preferred location for the park and
ride is the north of Longbridge Lane.
However proposal T6 states that
feasibility work will continue to
consider whether there is a case for
moving the station and park and ride to
the south of Longbridge Lane
Movement Strategy proposes public
transport improvements over a wide
area including improvements to
Bromsgrove station to ensure that
public transport is an attractive
alternative to the car.
Proposal T4 proposes a wide network
of quality buses.
Comment noted. This will be for the
bus operators to consider as the
proposals are implemented.
Comments noted. Metro and light rail
not affordable or deliverable.
Public Transport- Link to Frankley
Supports rail link to Frankley. Reasons:
Railfuture West Midlands
• A rail link would offer benefits in terms of
Council
accessibility and social exclusion and encourage
modal shift.
• Reasons buses not reliable,
Mr Brookes, Miss P Thompson,
• Rail has less impact on CO2 emissions,
Dennis Thompson,
• Rail will reduce road congestion.
Mark Connaghan, Philip Gough,
Other comments
Richard Jones, Andrew Wheeler,
• Options presented in the Preferred Options
Alan Morgan, A Coulson,
document are inaccurate and biased. Constraints
Chris Young, Mr Gerald Lane,
referred to could be overcome by provision of a
Kevin Hannon, Paul Cutter,
boxed in railway through the north works site.
Michael J R Counsell,
• Ask that no decisions be made on alternative bus
Mr Mike Cooper, Paul Seeley,
and rail options until the detailed studies on these
Samantha Lowe,
options have been the subject of full consultation.
Stephen W Young,
• Some want to see reopening of rail link as far as
T Mansbridge, James K Smith,
M5 motorway
Martin J Field,
Centro
The rail link to Frankley is an important aspiration of
Centro. Whilst there may be benefits in an alternative
quality bus option, substantive evaluation of this option
is needed and Centro will be seeking at least the same
benefits from any such alternative. Centro is keen to
identify the best option and will work with partners to
deliver this.
Consider that option of railway reinstatement should
be retained for wider and longer term transport
strategy options.
66
Comments
noted.
Following
Report a detailed Rail Strategy has
been prepared by consultants working
jointly by the City Council and Centro.
This examines the options for bus and
rail in detail and recommends a high
quality bus based solution for serving
the Frankley area.
Reopening of rail line as far as M5 not
deliverable.
Comment noted. However do not
consider it is appropriate to keep open
options for the long term.
Central Technology Belt
Richard Burden MP
Friends of Balaam’s Wood,
Rubery Great Park Residents
Association, Rubery Lane
Residents Association, Bob and
Lynn Smith, Roy Michael James,
J Eyre, Mr Darren Godfrey, Brian
M Whitmore, John Cullwick, Ray
Mont, Steve Shaw, Simon Day,
Sandy Woolley, Gillian A Bennett,
Mr K Moore, Mr David W Spence,
Penny Moore, Maureen Moore,
June Stanton, Arthur Davis
West Midlands Friends of the
Supports bus link to Frankley on grounds that it offers
an integrated approach, will maximise accessibility for
the majority of people and that rail extension proposals
under-estimate the costs in capital, environmental and
design terms.
Supports bus link to Frankley on grounds that rail
option will sever the Regional Investment Site, reduce
the developable area and hamper the creation of an
integrated new local centre.
Supports bus link to Frankley on grounds that rail
option will bisect the site and make it more difficult to
achieve an attractive town centre of the type needed to
secure regeneration of the area. Also bus allows
greater flexibility to serve a wider catchment area.
Considers that there is little or no chance of securing
the investment necessary for rail. Also protection of the
route without the line being constructed will not benefit
local people and would constrain the development.
Supports bus link to Frankley and object to rail link.
Reasons
• Rail option has a number of disadvantages
including environmental damage to River Rea and
Balaam’s Wood, cost, impact on quality of life of
residents living next to the line, would only serve a
small percentage of Longbridge and Frankley
residents.
• Bus is more convenient, cheaper, more flexible,
and can serve a wider area.
Comment noted. Following
Report a detailed Rail Strategy has
been prepared by consultants working
jointly by the City Council and Centro.
This examines the options for bus and
rail in detail and recommends a high
quality bus based solution for serving
the Frankley area.
Alternative options and forms of transport suggested
including light rail or Metro, People Parry Movers,
Comments noted alternative options
suggested are not deliverable.
67
Agree. Submission AAP Proposal T4
proposes a high quality bus link to
Frankley as part of a network of
improved bus services. Funding for
this service is included in the
Community Infrastructure Levy as set
out in section D of the Submission
Document.
Earth, Jim Eyre, Jason Kirby, Mr
motorised scooters, possibly using route of heavy rail
B Shough
line
Transport- Highway improvements
Highways Agency
Points to need for mitigation measures on the Strategic Agree. Submission AAP includes
Road Network- particularly Motorway junctions
proposals for improving Motorway
junctions. Proposal T14
There is a particular need for a strategy of
Agree. Submission AAP includes
improvements to the motorway junctions and for
proposals for improving Motorway
measures to mitigate the impact of additional traffic on junctions and A38 (Proposals T13 and
the A38 Corridor between Longbridge and Lydiate Ash T14) to be implemented through
including the section through Rubery.
Section 278 agreement/s.
Concerns that highway improvements including design Comment noted. Submission AAP
of realigned Bristol Road South (A38) do not give
proposal T8 requires highway
adequate consideration to buses and pedestrians
improvements to include bus priority
measures. Proposal T4 requires that
bus route to Frankley incorporates bus
priority access across the A38.
Friends of the Earth, Councillor
Object to improvements to upgrading and use of
Comments noted. Longbridge Lane is
Randal Brew, Barrie A Hudson,
Longbridge Lane to provide access to motorway
proposed alternative to Link Road
Ronald Henn, J Eyre, Richard
network. Some suggest upgrading A38 instead.
through green belt. Longbridge Lane is
Shephard,
part of the Birmingham’s Strategic
Highway Network and Submission
AAP proposal T13 proposes improved
junctions and minor improvements to
alignment to be the subject of further
public consultation.
Supports access to M5 Motorway via A38 and use of
Agree.
Bournville Village Trust,
Longbridge Lane to access M42. Improvements to
Longbridge Lane are important to provide good quality
access to the M42.
Transport- Rail Freight
68
Rod Hilditch, Philippa Edmunds,
Travel West Midlands, Transport
2000, Birmingham Friends of the
Earth
Network Rail
Objects to omission of rail and road freight interchange
facility in the AAP area. Consider that:
• Consider existing rail alignment and sidings should
be retained for future rail freight use at west works
site.
• Provision should also be made for rail freight into
Cofton Centre sites.
Request further discussions
Principle 1- High Quality Design
Access Committee for
Need for high quality design and for design principles
Birmingham
relating to access for people with disability.
Adrian Bromley
Principle 2- Sustainable Development
Strongly support this principle and due to its scale and
Midlands
national/regional profile, Longbridge has the potential
to be a beacon of best practice, particularly in
renewable energy
Supports principle of sustainable development in AAP
and points out clear economic benefits arising from
improved environmental practice
69
Comments noted. Following
Report a detailed Rail Strategy
prepared by consultants working jointly
by the City Council and Centro. This
examines rail freight and concludes
that this would limit the potential for
redevelopment of the site and is
unlikely to be attractive to potential
users.
Agree. The Submission AAP Policy
DS1 sets out principles to secure high
quality design and has a strong focus
on placemaking. Existing
Supplementary Planning Guidance
and Documents will also apply
including Birmingham City Council’s
Access for People with Disabilities
SPD.
Comments
welcomed.
The
Submission
AAP
states
that
Longbridge will be an exemplar
development that targets zero carbon.
To achieve this the Sustainability
Strategy contains two proposals:
National Trust, Steve Simmonds
University Hospital Birmingham
NHS Foundation Trust,
Supports principle of sustainable development but
wants to see specific measures proposed relating to
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and specific
standards for the Code for Sustainable Homes and
BREEAM.
Wish to see a stronger commitment to local
sustainable energy such as a CHP plant and other
sustainable sources of power
Site provides opportunity to be a national and
international demonstrator in response to climate
change and the AAP should develop specific
proposals for this
Principle 3- Protection and enhancement of the natural and built environment
Natural England
Increased public access the Bittell Reservoirs SSSI
could have an adverse effect on wildlife interest and
ecology. Also ecological mitigation could be required in
terms of water quantity and quality
Barnt Green Waters Ltd, Barnt
Support general emphasis on enhancement of ecology
Green Sailing Club, Mike Powell
and wildlife. However concerned about:
• Re-opening River Arrow and impact on Upper
Bittell Reservoir SSSI in terms of water quality and
ecology.
• Impact of storm water from the Cofton Centre site
Proposed housing will result in increased pressure on
countryside and increased trespass/crime at Upper
Bittell Reservoir.
70
•
•
Proposal S1 sets out required
building standards under BREEAM
and the Code for Sustainable
Homes, and,
Proposal
S2
requires
the
preparation of a climate change
and energy strategy for the AAP
area as well as other strategies for
water,
biodiversity,
waste,
materials,
and
community
infrastructure. These include a
requirement to maximize the
proportion of energy form local and
renewable or low carbon energy
sources including CHP.
Comments welcomed. The
Submission AAP has a strong
emphasis on quality open space, and
protecting and enhancing biodiversity.
It contains the following specific
proposals to address these issues;
• Proposals S2, OS9, and OS15
address need for an ecological
protection and enhancement and
management strategies, including
mitigation measures. Community
Infrastructure Levy includes
funding for off site ecological
Environment Agency
Mark Whitmore, Martin F Birrell,
Carol F Mack,
Andrew Day
Wish to see nature conservation enhancement
including enhancement along restored watercourses.
Recommends that a Nature Conservation
Management Plan be prepared for the whole site.
•
Supports opening up of Rivers Rea and Arrow.
Support for a sustainable approach to surface water
•
management (SUDS).
More open space and greater emphasis on ecology
and wildlife needed. Specific suggestions that there
•
should be more open space adjacent to River Rea and
that pond adjacent to East Works should be turned into
a nature reserve.
Wishes to see old Signal Box retained
Principle 4 Economic Regeneration and Employment
Desire for more commitment to encourage green
technologies.
Want to see provision for business start up facilities
and technology hubs with shared facilities adjacent to
local centre
Principle 5- Training and Local Labour
71
measures. Enhancement of the
pool adjoining east works is
included.
Proposal OS2b requires opening
up of River Arrow.
Proposal S2 requires a site wide
strategy to address water issues
including sustainable drainage.
Community Infrastructure Levy
includes funding for measures to
manage impact of increased
pressure on the surrounding
countryside.
Comments noted. Signal box not
proposed for retention, it is not of
quality for listing and is affected by the
A38 improvement (Proposal T8)
Comments noted. Proposals EZ1 and
LC1 and Section 106 require
affordable business space and
facilities to support local businesses.
Regional Investment Site management
and delivery body will encourage high
technology industries and could
encourage environmental technologies
industries to locate in area.
Supports the use of local labour initiatives and
Comments welcomed. Submission
measures to create a skilled adaptive and innovative
AAP includes a number of proposals to
help young people into work including
workforce to attract and support the growth of high
the new college, skills and training
value added jobs and businesses. Also wants to see
programmes and local employment
policies that promote diversity initiatives to ensure
and training agreements. Longbridge
access to employment is shared by all sectors,
Community Infrastructure Levy
improve links between business and education and
contains funding for local employment
encourage graduate retention.
Longbridge Consultative Group
The plan needs to take into account the requirement to and training initiatives.
provide and develop a wide range of skills; training and
educational opportunities linked to the projected
employment sites.
Richard Burden MP
Desire to see education and training theme of AAP
developed to boost skills and aspirations among local
people
Principles 6, 7 Housing – (see also comments under East Works and West Works housing sites)
Support design of sustainable housing to include
Comment welcomed. All housing
Birmingham
affordable housing and lifetime homes standards.
proposals in the Submission AAP
require 35% affordable housing and
encourage Lifetime Homes standards.
Government office West Midlands New housing should be “Secured by Design”
Comments noted. Supplementary
Planning Guidance “Places for Living”
and “Places for all” will apply. These
address detailed design requirements.
George Wimpey West Midlands
Desire for flexibility within the areas allocated for
Agree. Proposals in Submission AAP
housing to cater for a variety in density and design
encourage a variety of densities,
types, and sizes of dwellings. It also
Mr Paul Lloyd, Charles E Lewis,
Various comments on the type of housing including:
includes requirement for 35% social
Dr RHR Aston
• There is a need for more housing for those with
housing, and encourages homes that
special needs
meet Lifetime Homes standards
• There is a need for new housing to be affordable
• More family housing is needed,
• Three storey dwellings not suitable for older people
72
Principle 9 other facilities to serve development
Birmingham Women’s Healthcare Birmingham Women’s Healthcare Trust wishes to be
Trust,
kept informed of healthcare plans for this development
Worcestershire NHS Primary
and likely population so that Trust can build additional
Healthcare Trust, South
capacity into its future plans.
Birmingham NHS Primary Care
Primary care trusts note that the impact of new
Trust,
residential development on primary care services
needs to be considered. Father work is needed to
assess impacts for additional GP services. Seek
community space that could be used by health
outreach workers.
Need for adequate school facilities to serve
Michael J H Smith, Dr RHR
development highlighted. See also comments above
Aston, Longbridge Consultative
about education facilities to serve east works housing
Group, Mrs Amanda Whittaker
site.
(and other local residents)
Mrs K Nicol, Stephen J Rudge,
More sports and leisure and recreational facilities are
Headteacher St Columba’s
needed, including facilities for young people. Specific
Catholic Primary School, Cyril L
ideas include a theatre, and ice- skating,
Bailey, David J Galbraith, Craig
Dutton, Maria Melville (and other
local residents)
Comments noted. Meetings held with
relevant PCT’s and provision for local
health facilities included in Proposals
LC1 and H2.
.
Comment noted. Submission AAP has
considered school facilities and
proposes Community Infrastructure
Levy to fund improvements to existing
schools
Agree. Submission AAP proposes a
variety of new and improved facilities
e.g. sports facilities in Cofton Park,
Austin building and other leisure uses
in centre, new walking and cycling
routes, play facilities for all ages and
improvements to existing recreation
and facilities both within the AAP area
and in adjoining areas.
Comments welcomed.
Richard Burden MP, Peter J N
Support for heritage museum. See also comments
Havins, Norman J Milne, Mr B
above that this facility should be located in the new
Shough (and other local
centre and not in Cofton Park.
residents)
Principle 10 – Walking cycling and public transport (see also comments under Public transport above)
Countryside Service
Support. Pleased that the North Worcestershire Path
Support welcomed.
has been identified.
73
Friends of Balaam’s Wood
South Birmingham NHS Primary
Care Trust,
Inland Waterways Association,
Penny Moore, Miss P Thompson,
David P Grinnell
Support provision of walking and cycling and improved
access to green spaces and countryside. Some want
to see more in document to support sustainable
transport. Specific comments on health benefits of
walking or cycling, desire for dedicated cycle routes
and desire to see the reopening of the former footpath
through the East works site.
Birmingham, Mrs K Nicol
Request that use of section 106 funding for
shopmobility improvements are considered.
Wants to ensure that public transport meets the needs
of the widest groups of the population and includes
provision for access for people with disabilities
Principle 11 – Roads and highways – (see also comments under Highways above)
Barnt Green Parish Council,
Concerned about impact of additional traffic. Wish to
see traffic calming measures/traffic management
Elizabeth Duncan,
measures in:
• Barnt Green area
Roger King, Mary Jones
• Cofton Hackett area, especially on Groveley Lane,
• Lickey area
• Tessall Lane.
Associated environmental improvements also needed
in surrounding areas, including pedestrian crossings.
Principle 12 Planning matters
Environment Agency
Wish to see policies that require full site investigation,
risk assessment and remediation and validation.
Principle 13-Delivery and Implementation
Submission Document will need to set out in detail
74
contains a number of proposals to
support walking, cycling. Proposal T1
proposes network of pedestrian and
cycle routes throughout the plan area
with links to surrounding areas and
Proposal OS2b proposes reopening of
footpath through East Works and
under railway line
Comments noted. Community
Infrastructure Levy includes funding for
social exclusion initiatives.
Bus strategy provides for low floor
buses and strategic park and ride
facility provides disabled car parking.
Rail improvements will make station
more accessible.
Agree. Comments noted. Submission
AAP Proposal T15 proposes traffic
management measures outside the
AAP boundary needed as a result of
the development. Community
Infrastructure Levy includes funding for
traffic management.
Agree. This is incorporated in
Submission AAP proposal OS13
Agreed. Submission AAP includes
Midlands
St Modwen Developments Ltd,
Richard Burden M.P.
Centro, Travel West Midlands
Network Rail
Highways Agency
how each element of the proposals will be
implemented, by which organisation and when they will
be delivered
Phasing of development needs to take account of
requirements for sufficient cashflow to fund
reclamation and infrastructure, building market
confidence and creating early impetus in regeneration
of Longbridge.
Wants to ensure that proposals in the AAP are crossreferenced in other regional planning and resource
allocation processes such as the West Midlands
Regional Economic Strategy and in funding bids for
transport projects.
Need for funding to support public transport
improvements. Investment in these must take place
early to ensure that new trips are made by sustainable
means of transport. Planning contributions will be
required towards major capital projects, pump priming
new services and revenue funding to support the
delivery of high quality public transport.
Wish to ensure that developers contribute to upgrading
rail facilities (e.g. improvements to stations) to allow for
increased demand and patronage
The AAP should identify the mechanism by which
transportation improvements will be delivered with all
development contributing to the cost of delivery.
Sustainable transport measures will be needed
including a Travel Plan.
Seeking Section 106 planning obligations for education
provision to meet needs for additional school places
associated with housing development on East works
site.
75
detailed information of delivery.
Agreed. Phasing in Submission AAP
largely reflects developer’s aspirations.
Agreed. The Council’s will continue
joint working with relevant bodies to
ensure that proposals in the AAP are
included in the relevant strategies and
funding bids.
Agreed. Submission AAP Section D
requires that the developers enter into
a Section 278 legal agreement(s) to
deliver highways improvements and
public transport interchange.
Longbridge Community Infrastructure
Levy includes funding for
improvements to bus and rail.
Proposal T11 requires a travel coordinator to achieve targeted modal
share by public transport walking and
cycling.
Agreed. Submission AAP Section D
requires developers contribute a
Longbridge Community Infrastructure
Levy. This will provide funding to
Lickey and Blackwell Parish
Council
Section 106 monies should be made available to
spend on local service improvements to mitigate the
impact of the development on the local community
South Birmingham NHS Primary
Support use of section 106 agreement to support
Care Trust,
community and health facilities and services within the
area
Richard Burden MP
Wishes to see community support programmes
General comments on policy context, procedure and level of detail
Concerned about lack of strategic planning framework
(i.e. Core Strategy) to provide a policy basis for the
AAP.
Highways Agency
Council, Travel West Midlands,
Mr Graham Wilson, Alison Gillen
Concerned that:
• Preferred options report does not contain sufficient
detail of transport proposals and transport
proposals are not sufficiently clear
• Robust evidence base is not yet available in line
with PPS12 to support transport proposals in the
AAP. In particular VISSIM and TRANSYT
modelling is needed to assess transport impacts.
76
increase capacity in existing schools,
social inclusion initiatives and other
community infrastructure. Section 106
agreement also requires developer to
provide some community buildings
including Austin building.
Comment noted. In view of the urgent
need to secure the regeneration of the
former MG Rover site the AAP has
been prepared in advance of the
Birmingham and Bromsgrove Core
Strategies. All its proposals are
however in general conformity with
Regional Spatial Strategy.
Comments noted. Following public
report a suite of transport studies has
now been finalised to provide the
evidence base for the Submission
AAP. These include bus and rail
strategies, transport modelling reports
and transport infrastructure reports,
which have been prepared in
consultation with Centro and the
Highways Agency. These will be
available for public consultation
alongside the Submission AAP. In
addition the Submission AAP now
contains a detailed set of transport
proposals.
Firstplan o.b.o. IKEA
Lack of clarity about whether the AAP Preferred
Options Report (POR) presents preferred option or
options. Status of concept masterplan in POR is not
clear.
Comments noted. Plan is in line with
guidance in Planning Policy Statement
12.
Footnote 1- Households supporting all of part of the Preferred Option
Jim Eyre, Mr N Dodd, Pamela Oakes, Derek Groves, Mrs Sandra Henn, John Cockrell, Roy Michael James, Mr and Mrs
Whitehouse, Patricia and David Hughes, Edna M Ackrill, Try Moncrieff, Ray Sandhu, Mr and Mrs Wilks, Diane Johnson,
Charles W J High, Jill Wood, Roy Jones, Alan G Taylor, Mrs CM Beresford, Mrs Joyce Dale, Mrs D Palmer, Mrs Lorraine
DaCosta, John P Philip/Sandra A Wharrad, Dennis Thompson, Laura Smith, Peter TJ Holt, Mrs Shelagh Hunt, Charles E
Lewis, Peter A Talbot, William Rawbone, Brian M Lawrence, Geoff Athorsuch, Graham C Shale, Paul J Lowe, Laura
Clinton, David Broomhall, Victor C King, Anita Tsarbos, Joan P Alcorn, Maxine Chandler, Andrew Day, Peter Bleakley,
Stuart Montgomery, Miss Paula Gloster, Carolyn Dinnis, Mr Michael Podmore, Keith J Henley, James A Lindsay, Mark
Connaghan, Barrington R Hall, Mr A Dudley, Grahame Brown, Ms Jean Hill, Dr Colin Ridley, Mrs Carole Slater, Mrs P
Million, Paul Harris, Kenneth W Beresford, Richard S Turner, Luke Payton, Pamela Elliott, Thomas J Green, Carol Tomes,
Jason Kirby, Miss Susan Pearce, Adrian Bromley, Philip J Baker, Mr Leon Coley, Mrs Susan J Bodley, Janet Young, David
J Turner, Mrs Ingrid Greening, Trudi Cutts, K J Downes, John N Austin, Betty Nelson, Rob Smirthwaite, Thomas L Bailey,
Lee D Chesson-Willetts, Richard Jones, Alan J Everitt, Dr RHR Aston, Dorothy A Bilbrough, Mr Michael Johnson, Miss
Rachael L Palin, Hazel Purcell, Barbara Gartside, Elizabeth A Fernandez, Alan Morgan, Susan Glennon, Annette
Robinson, Cheryl Evitts, Brian Bridgewater, Mrs M Osaye, Mr J Cowins, Graham Poole, Miss Jennifer C Wooley, George
Godfrey, Mr Darren Godfrey, Chris Young, Neil J Bough, Brian M Whitmore, David P Grinnell, Richard Paterson, Mr Gerald
Lane, Philip D Brookes, Mr and Mrs Shaw, Peter Grimshaw, Christopher R Charlton, John Barnett, Mrs J Atkins, Marianne
Colbear, Anita F Jarvis, Miss Lisa Bolton, David Richardson, Samuel Wheeler, Sylvester G Walters, Cartmell Celia, W
Rainbow, June Wood, Ian Craddock, Spencer K Johnson, John L S Marklew, Richard Leese, Kevin Hannon, Desmond
Pink, Brian Adams, Ray Mont, Miss Francine Bird, Mary P Carr, Andy Lowe, Irene W Dodd, Steve Shaw, Ian Parker,
Joanna Rak, Mrs Carol Hancox, Angela Carmalt, Beverley Smith, Shirley Godden, Miss B A Slatford, Mr Geoffrey Hayden,
Mr Gary Elliot, Mrs Carolyn Tipton, Jeffery Ali, Alison Murphy, Gordon H Trengrouse, Tim Haigh, Patrick Curtis, Mrs R
Haarhoff, Mrs J Sykes, Mr and Mrs A D James, Vincent Brennan, Claire L Harris, Sarah J Staines, Anthony Clewley, Mrs F
E Dunbavin, Edgar F Andrews, Paul Cutter, Paul Kennedy, Barry Hodgson, Roberta Bassett, Simon Day, Ann V Hanson,
Caroline Bridge, Jill Blunn, Winifred Flanagan, Mrs C A Nicholls, Michael J R Counsell, Steven Wallsgrove, Steven J Bach,
77
Kevin E Drew, Martin Thomas, Sandy Woolley, Eileen Godfrey, Hayley Anderson, Mark Whitmore, J H Lee, Mrs Angela J
Morton, Michael D Evans, Mrs Kris Evans, Mr Martin Reynolds, Michelle Culloo, Mr B Shough, Miss S Yates, Mrs M Doig,
Angela Westwood, Mrs Irene M Fothergill, Mrs Elaine Buckett, Miss Nicola Lloyd, John K and Elizabeth Duncan, Ivy T
Davis, Barry Wheeler, Margaret E Sparkles, Esmelin Marsh, Peter R Stevenson, Leonard Cottam, Sonja Thomas, David
Paling, George F Davis, Mr Raymond Parfitt, The Occupier 40Chelston Rd, Stephen Oliver, Mr Ralph Harris, Arthur H
Hemming, Anthony McCall, Mr Craydon Constable, Mr Mike Cooper, David Harris, Amy Smith, Mrs Margaret Hopley, Anne
Milner, Michael T Kelly, Colin Jones, S McKenzie, Dorothy Young, Mrs Iris Taylor, Mr Noel F Davis, Mr David Evans,
Henry T Barnwell, Janet Dedicoat, Mrs Diane Morris, Mrs Annette Grigg, Michell Weaver, Norman J Milne, Luke E Bailey,
Johen I Mustin, Alan Stephens, Dennis W Ehrenfried, Colin Everiss, Helen M Tresigne, Gerald F and Lesley A Redy,
Sandie Granville, Richard A H Robinson, Christopher B White, Kenneth Morris, Stephen Cooley, Mrs Aleta Chapman,
John Preston, Brian Cohen, Barry Green, Stephen Capella, John Gibson, Nicola Ostermeyer, Rita Wattison, Rachel Mann,
John L Apsley, Margaret Hickman-Smith, Alison Merchant, Peter Wilthshire, Mr B Lunn, Phil Myslowski, Clare Carter,
James C Stewart, Ivor Stephenson, Royston W Norridge, Moyra J Holmes, James A and Susan E Branson, Brenda M
Pallett, Sidney Wilkins, Margaret Camynataa, Mrs Bernardine R Duffy, Samantha Lowe, Sergio Andrioli, John Halloran, Mr
and Mrs EB and BJ Martin, K Lewis, Mr M and Mrs D Sharpe, Linda Evans, Lorraine Bird, Stephen W Young,
Christopher Hopkins, Gail Woollacott, Fredrick E Perry, Pippa Mold, Gordon A Willday, John Clarke, James E James, Paul
Whitby, Steven Griffiths, Mr George Robinson, Kelly Hill, Mrs Caroline Morris, Betty P Jones, Margaret Andriow, Barry W
Drew, Richard Martin, Tracy Hazell, Hedley F Wells, Stephen Taggart, Ricky Dale, John and Margaret Norlinds, John A
Blunn, Paul A Canvin, Mr and Mrs Crockford, Gillian Jennings, Janette A Digby, Mrs Beryl J Moore, Fran Phipps, Graham
S Elsworth, Mr Roy Shaw, Hilary L Riley, Mr and Mrs R Price, Vikki Steward, Anthony Armond, Liz Milne, John H Smith,
Robert D Anchor, N H James, Paul and Dawn Bacchiochi, Mairead U Hawker, Edward Goodwin, John T Lewis, Mrs B A
Smith, Anthony Leeson, Maureen Moore, June Stanton, Barry Drew, Michael J Massingham, Martin J Field,
Footnote 2- Households objecting to or disagreeing with all of part of the Preferred Option, or to the omission of a
policy or proposal
A J Buckler, Barrie A Hudson, Michael J H Smith, Stephen J Rudge, Andrew Finn/Helen Aspey, Jacqueline Sutherland,
Garth Wood, Andrew Hodges, Anthony J Beaumont, Clifford Bird, Damian Bowen, Graham Wilson, Alan Sanson, Mr
Ronald Henn, Mr Chinn, Sandra Shopshire, John Fellows, R A Sadler, Norman B Witham, Roger Barker, Mrs Aesha
Grievson, Mr Darren C Billington, Bill Reynolds, Alan R Carter, Richard Shephard, Jonathan Dakin, Jeffrey Taylor,
Jacqueline A Fensome, Alan R Lacey, Sara Boyce, Mrs Norma Wood, Mrs Amanda Whittaker, David J Galbraith, Paul
78
Stephens, R Duggins, Donovan R Wesson, Martin F Birrell, Mr Anthony Atwell, Roger A Barker, Frances Brannan,
Stephen Peters, Craig Dutton, Roger King, Katherine Williams, MT and JD Powell, Clive I Anderson, Mr and Mrs Smith,
Maria Melville, John Chasemore, Diane B Carr, Alison Gillen, Gerald F and Lesley A Redy, Paul Seeley, Eric R Bowron,
Andrew Filer, Dr G Theodoulou, Mrs Karen A Aldridge, Charles W Regan, Alison B Jones, David G Pritchard, Geoffrey E
Stephenson, David Laity, Elizabeth Forrest, Andrew and Valerie Sayce, Mrs Mary Hodgson, T Mansbridge, Mrs Kelly A
Billington, Jonathan Lucas, Karen LD Jenkyns, Simon I Owen, Bruce Frizzell, Arthur Davis, Steve Simmonds, Philip F
Everard, Catherine R Brooks, Stuart Howe, Andrew Coulson,
79
80

Longbridge AAP Pre Submission Consultation Statement 20 03 2008

Transcription

Similar documents

from the Company Dedicated to Pediatrics.

Doublehead Resort on Beautiful Lake Wilson Town Creek, AL Cost

4 star ALOE HOTEL, PAPHOS

Times of Delhi - 02 April 2014

Essjai newsletter May

International Migrants Day “New Brummies” tell their story_Dec18

IAN EMES: A Retrospective The original Pink Floyd animator

CLICK ME TO SEE the arts world tour in PDF

REGISTER EARLY—SAVE $150! See page 2