Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14176
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Hampton Road Developments Ltd
Agent: Savills
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The Council should set out Green Belt compensation projects which can be paid for through CIL. Communities could then identify projects that compensation could fund.
Where compensation cannot be provided on site or would result a reduced net developable area, there should be an effective strategy to enable off site contributions to be made in other locations e.g. through the identification of donor sites. It is not clear from item 4 of this policy where the Council will be using section 106 funds to make compensatory improvements.
No indication of how the level of compensation will be determined. A formula or calculation should be provided to allow developers to plan for this requirement on top of the other contributions sought.
Request that the Council amend Policy P17A to refer to the use of CIL as well as S106 agreements to set out the Green Belt compensation projects. We also seek confirmation from the Council as to the level of compensation that will be requested for sites removed from the Green Belt.
This policy should make reference to land which the Council has identified as “donor sites” for compensatory improvements to be made via section 106 contributions secured by the Council for off-site contributions. This would make the policy more effective and justified. This change would also assist in making policy P10, in respect of biodiversity net gain more effective and justified.
We consider that this policy is unduly onerous and should be amended to allow for flexibility in the application of concept plans. As set out above there are a range of compensatory improvements that could be provided. The concept plans included within this Local Plan should not be relied upon to provide such detailed information because the Council’s evidence base is considered to be high level, whereas the evidence prepared on behalf of the landowners is more detailed. In particular the Council’s heritage advice is strongly objected to. HRD have had two separate opinions on the report prepared by David Burton Pye which concludes that the concerns and restrictions raised in respect of Grimshaw Hall are both inaccurate and unnecessarily restrictive. During the preparation of the local plan significant landscape and heritage detail was provided to the council to justify the proposals being promoted by HRD and it was requested that this detail be considered further at the planning application stage.
See attached documents.