Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14628
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd (Dorridge Site)
Agent: Barton Willmore
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Site Selection approach not fully justified. Concerns with the application of the methodology in terms of its transparency and consistency. Some Green Belt sites rejected unjustifiably and capacity for further Green Belt release in accordance with the spatial strategy has been unduly constrained.
Not clear from the site assessment commentary on what grounds a site has been rejected.
Inconsistencies between the different evidence base documents used to inform the Site Selection process e.g. the SA and accessibility study. Site Assessment commentary does not appear to reflect the most up to date SA commentary i.e. in terms of the number of effects and whether these are positive or negative.
Inconsistencies between why some sites allocated others not. E.g. site Policy KN1 notes Grimshaw Hall as a constraint. The site assessment makes no reference to it under constraints.
The draft SLP Site Selection process should be reviewed for consistency and transparency to provide a justified evidence base for the draft SLP. We consider this would give rise to the conclusion that further Green Belt sites are suitable for allocation in accordance with the spatial strategy.
The draft SLP Site Selection process should be more fully justified by consistently considering the potential for mitigation measures in the assessment of sites, potentially enabling the identification of further Green Belt sites that are suitable for allocation in accordance with the spatial strategy.
See attached documents