I lodge the following as a representation from Wendy Blackburn of 39 Huxbey Drive, Solihull, B92 0PN on the draft submission of Solihull Local Plan AGAINST the proposed move of the current HWRC and Moat Lane Depop to site 12, being the 'preferred' site on Damson Parkway.

I am not qualified to comment on the ground of being a qualified solicitor however I AM fully qualified to enter a representation as having been a member of the local community for 30 years.

One first point of confusion is that in the " Assessment of land for potential re-location ofa Household Wast Recycling Centre and Dept" June 2019 the conclusion for site 12 was "redevopment of this site would be contrary to emerging strategic planning policy....and should be discountined".
The second point is that the current site is no longer required for the upcoming HS2.

Moving on.

Solihull Local Plan is to put people first and it is on this fundamental ground that I challenge whether the plan is both sound or legally compliant.
To be legally compliant:
1) Does if follow the local development scheme?
Answer, not a clue as I do not know what it is.

2) Have we carried out community engagement?
Answer, absolultely 100% zero community engagement at all. Nothing, zilch.

3) Sustainability Appraisal....
Answer, I have no doubt that to build on 15 acres of natural habit - the actual site of which has not yet been specified - can in no way have passed any 'sustainability appraisal' that wasn't seriously weighted against it. Do not forget that the MONSTROSITY that is now the JLR has already destroyed a vast area running along Damson Parkway, the likes of which is truly heartbreaking and an absolute eyesore.

4) Regard to Nation Planning Policy.
Answer, once again, no clue.

5) Duty to co-operate.
Answer, what does that even mean?!!!!!! Plain English would be nice.

To be sound:
1) Positively prepared - objectively assessed needs.
Answer, the current site is no longer needed for HS2

2) Justified with clear evidence.
Answer, there are at least 2 other sites that have not been taken into sufficient consideration. Site 2 is NOT close to a residential area and the isolated location lends itself to being ideal for not affecting the local community. UNLIKE the 'preferred' site on Damson Parkway. The same with Site 7, this has no local community NOR is it in current greenbelt.

3) Effective and deliverable.
Answer, not a clue.

4) Consistent with national planning.
Answer, once again I am not up to speed with national planning.

In conclusion,
Being 'sound' and 'legally compliant' both fail 2 of the required criteria for the proposal. Ergo the proposal is not flawed and should be deleted in it's present form.