Question 32 - Site 7 - Kingshurst Village Centre

Kingshurst village centre is in dire need of being demolished. The shops are mostly vacant and attract a lot of anti social behaviour new improved shops and nhs services would provide amenities that locals desperately need. New shops would also attract more people to go and use them and make residents of Kingshurst feel safer. Providing new homes is also an excellent use of the space and the regeneration will make residents greatly happy.

The regeneration of a tired and neglected development is required. I do not usually support demolition of sites, but this is an exception. We must not see the loss of social or co-operative housing, in and around the Kingshurst Parade development, unless it can be shown to be better than refurbishment and extension; also referring to houses in Church and School Close, within the boundary. The consultation and study covering the social, economic and environmental impacts of demolition and refurbishment now being undertaken, with reference to the local energy plan and housing standards, and in conjunction with residents is vital

I want to add to my earlier representation one or two more observations.Re Church Close/Colling Walk - there's now a possibility that all of the Colling Walk and Church Close houses except numbers 1 to 6 Church Close, will be demolished. Now though, I understand the developers may want to put the shops' service area backing to what is the school's service area. I'd not support this part of the development as these are perfectly good houses and what will happen to owners/tenants?.

Social housing needs to be maximised, plus an SMBC owned space for VCS group use.

The regeneration of Kingshurst Parade is long overdue. Please don't take any more green space in North Solihull when the plans are finalised

Yes.
As stated, the approach taken by Solihull Council is to be commended.

I support the above site being included as an allocated site to provide a new village centre, including a health and well being centre and a community space. Housing should be affordable and include social housing and be built to complement the new village centre. Consultation responses should be reflected in the final design of the centre.

Para 309, Kingshurst - I strongly support this and suggest that any further delays to this would be unacceptable. I would expect to see that social housing is maintained or improved on its current level at the site as it stands now.

Para 310 Jenson House/Auckland - Supportive in principle, but only if the playing field is kept in full, given the lack of green space and unhealthily high people per hectare in the ward at present. Our council plan outlines that enjoyment of area and public health are a priority, and losing this recreational space would have a detrimental effect on residents.

See Letter

See letters 1-4

On behalf of our Client Mrs M Joyce, we now formally submit on her behalf representations in connection with the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation.

The key question raised in the DSLPRSC is Question 39, which offers
an opportunity for our client to confirm she wishes her site to be included and the
reasons for that. In addition, this representation also addresses the following
questions: 2, 7, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 39 and 44.

see letter attached

We write on behalf of our Client, Kendrick Homes Limited, who have an interest in land to the north side of School Road, Hockley Heath - referred to as Land adjacent 84 School Road (Site Ref: 49) within the Council's current Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation (DSLPRSC).
see details in attached letter

We write on behalf of our Client, Belle Homes Limited in respect of Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Numbers 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green, Solihull B90 4JE. This letter is submitted in response to the current Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation (DSLPRSC
See detail in attached letter

We write on behalf of our various Clients, who jointly own land described below:
Proposed Allocated Housing Site 22 - Trevallion Stud, Wootton Green
Lane, Balsall Common CV7 7BQ
Also including consideration of land west of No. 32 Wootton Green Lane Site
Reference 160
see detail in attached letter

This is the response of Generator Group and Minton to the supplementary
consultation by Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The
purpose of the response is to comment on the draft Plan and promote the site on land adj Harpers Field, Kenilworth Road Balsall Common for inclusion as a housing
allocation within the Plan. The response is by question order. Whilst we have
responded to each question, the detailed points in relation to our site are set out under question 39 and your attention is specifically drawn to this part of the response. It should be noted the site is developer owned and delivery of the site can therefore come forward early in the plan period

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft Local Plan. As Chelmsley Wood ward Councillors, we would like to comment on the proposals in Chelmsley Wood and North Solihull specifically
COUNCILLOR C WILLIAMS
COUNCILLOR K MACNAUGHTON
COUNCILLOR J BURN

see detail in attached letetr

This is the response of Rosconn Strategic Land to the supplementary consultation by
Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the
response is to comment the draft Plan and promote three sites for inclusion as
housing allocations within the plan. The response is by question order.
The 3 sites are:
Land at Three Maypoles Farm Shirley
Land at r/o 2214 Stratford Road Hockley Heath
Land adj 161 Lugtrout Lane Solihull

The responses on the three sites to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation
are attached and which highlight the reasons why the sites should be allocations
within the Local Plan.

This document should also be read in conjunction with the Ecology Report and
Heritage Assessment in relation to land adj to 161 Lugtrout Lane, Solihull.
Your attention is also drawn to the attached Masterplan for land r/o 2214 Stratford
Road Hockley Heath.

Not withstanding that this is an informal consultation we consider that the document
should be accompanied by an up to date SA.

This is the response of Stonewater to the supplementary consultation by Solihull
Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the response is
to comment the draft Plan and promote the site at the Firs Maxstoke Lane (west of
Meriden proposed allocation site 10) for inclusion as a housing allocation within the
Plan. The response is by question order.
The original response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation is also
attached which highlights the reasons why the site should be an allocation within the
Local Plan (Site Ref 137).

see detailed comment in attached letter

This is the response of Mr Taj Khan, Sid Kelly and John Green to the supplementary
consultation by Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The
purpose of the response is to comment on the draft Plan and promote the site at 15,
59, & 61 Jacobean Lane Knowle for inclusion as a housing allocation within the Plan
and land north of Jacobean Lane being removed from the Green Belt and to support
the removal of land from the Green Belt to rectify anomalies and for consistency.
See detail response in attached letter and appendices

This is the response of Minton to the supplementary consultation by Solihull Council
on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the response is to
comment the draft Plan and promote the site at Oak Farm Catherine de Barnes for
inclusion as a housing allocation within the Plan. The response is by question order.
The original response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation is also
attached which highlights the reasons why the full Oak Farm site should be an
allocation within the Local Plan. We have also carried out our own Green Belt
Assessment a copy of which is attached

See Letters