Question 2 - We do not agree with the methodology of the site selection process. On the basis the Council have identified sites to assess, assessed them against the site hierarchy and categorised the sites as an allocation, potential allocation, unlikely allocation and no allocation, it is not 'good planning' to then ignore this assessment and consult on the Amber omitted sites.
Paragraph 390 confirms that 'the Council believe it is helpful to identify these 'less harmful' sites (that are shown as amber) so that residents and stakeholders are able to comment on their omission, and whether this is justified'. We object to this further consultation being undertaken on sites that the Council have assessed and rejected. We are also unclear how the Council have concluded these sites are less harmful. In the case of the land at the rear of 114 to 118 Widney Manor Road, Solihull, the Council themselves refused a planning application (2010/648/S) for residential purposes in 2010, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed in 2011. The local and national planning policy position has not changed in the intervening period and there are no material changes on the site to reach a different conclusion; we consider these points in greater detail below.
The inclusion of Amber omitted sites gives the promoters of these sites a 'way in' which in our view is contrary to the Council's own assessment and conclusions reached. We live in fear of this further attempt to garden grab. There must be better sites, outside of using back gardens to provide the housing needed.
In our view, the Council should not have included the Amber omitted sites as part of the supplementary consultation.