Local Housing Need

Please find attached representations prepared by Turley on behalf of IM Land in respect of Land at Earlswood Station in response to the Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation (January 2019).

We write on behalf of our client, IM Properties Limited (hereafter referred to as 'IM'), in response to the Solihull Local Plan Review (SLPR) Draft Local Plan (DLP) Supplementary Consultation, which was published for consultation in January 2019.
IM Properties own and are actively promoting several sites and assets within the Borough, including Mell Square, Blythe Valley Park and Fore Business Park.
IM Land, the strategic land division of IM, also has existing and emerging land interests within the Borough; separate representations have been submitted
in relation to IM Land's interests.
see attached letter

Please find attached our full representations to the above consultation that are submitted on behalf of William Davis Limited re: land at Station Road Hampton in Arden

See Letters 1 & 2

representations submitted on behalf of Real Christmas Trees - see attachments

see letter land South Broad Lane Berkswell

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

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 attached letter

Please find attached a representation to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation, made on behalf of L&Q Estates. This representation relates to Land at Damson Parkway, Solihull, and comprises the following attached documents:

* Consultation Response Document
* Representations Report, dated February 2017 (Appendix 3)
* Vision Document, dated February 2017 (Appendix 4)
* Un-met Housing Need and Duty-to-Cooperate (Appendix 5)

Please find attached a representation to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation, made on behalf of L&Q Estates. This representation relates to Land at Four Ashes Road, Dorridge, and comprises the following attached documents:

* Consultation Response Document
* Representations Report, dated February 2017 (Appendix 3)
* Vision Document, dated February 2017 (Appendix 4)
* Un-met Housing Need and Duty-to-Cooperate (Appendix 5)

Please find attached a representation to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation, made on behalf of L&Q Estates. This representation relates to Land at Bickenhill Road Marston Green , and comprises the following documents:

* Consultation Response Document
* Representations Report, dated February 2017 (Appendix 3)
* Vision Document, dated February 2017 (Appendix 4)
* Un-met Housing Need and Duty-to-Cooperate (Appendix 5)

Please find attached a representation to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation, made on behalf of L&Q Estates. This representation relates to Land at Berkswell Road, Meriden, and comprises the following documents:

* Consultation Response Document
* Representations Report, dated February 2017 (Appendix 3)
* Vision Document, dated February 2017 (Appendix 4)
* Un-met Housing Need and Duty-to-Cooperate (Appendix 5)

We write on behalf of our client Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd (TW), with regards to the Supplementary Consultation document and Concept Masterplan for Site 12
.As you are aware, Taylor Wimpey own much of the land in the Proposed Housing Allocation 12 South of Dog Kennel Lane, Shirley. Taylor Wimpey therefore fully support the allocation of the site for residential development and can confirm that housing development at this site is deliverable. The site is well located to
shops, employment, public transport and schools and is therefore in a highly sustainable location.
To support the allocation and to demonstrate how this can deliver a new sustainable community, we include an updated Development Statement for Site 12 (Appendix 1) prepared on behalf of Taylor Wimpey. This clearly sets out how a masterplan for this site, prepared for Taylor Wimpey, has evolved to address all of the constraints and opportunities. In addition, the following technical reports have been provided in support of the allocation:
* Ecology Technical Note prepared by EDP (Appendix 2)
* Green Belt Position Note prepared by EDP (Appendix 3)
* Flood Risk Scoping Note prepared by BWB Consulting (Appendix 4)
* Transport Report prepared by Vectos (Appendix 5)
The Heritage Assessment will be finalised on receipt of the SMBC report currently being prepared.
Overall, we consider that a housing allocation at this site could deliver in the order of 1,200 new homes together with associated social and physical infrastructure and public open space within a well landscaped and high quality designed masterplan.

See Letters

Q2 - Site Selection Process

The site selection process is flawed:

All reasonable alternatives have not been examined (bearing in mind the need to extend the Plan period to at least 2035)

* All reasonable alternatives have not been examined, in particular, options put forward in the Strategic Growth Study
* The Spatial Strategy has not been up-dated to cover options identified in the Strategic Growth Study
* The site selection process is flawed / applied inconsistently
* There is undue reliance on larger sites rather that small and medium-sized sites
* There is no consideration of safeguarded land, long-term development needs and an enduring Green Belt boundary

The housing requirement figure is too high

* The margin is excessive
* The housing requirement figure would result in build rates that are unachievable
* Suitable sites to meet the requirement have not / cannot been identified
* The housing requirement figure needs to be reduced
* The sustainability of the proposed contribution to the HMA shortfall needs to be examined bearing in mind the principal contribution of the Green Belt in key parts of the Borough and the shortage of suitable sites

Dear Gary Palmer/ Planning Team,
Thank you for your response and updated proposal regarding the new spatial allocation plans for south Shirley Blythe Valley area 2019

First i would like to say thank you and i welcome the decision to remove the controversial Allocation 13 from the draft local plan. The new proposal of Allocation 26 looks like a far better proposal.
Regarding the new Allocation 26 if this development does go ahead my only concern would be that this site is developed tastefully and reflects and blends in with the areas rural location taking in to account the area is rich in native wildlife,so any development would also be nature and environmentally friendly. Also i would hope that the Historic Bridleway (Peacock Lane) is left undisturbed along with the English Heritage site of Whitlock End Farm. Also my self and other local residents would hope that the new development of Allocation 26 is contained and does not spread any further towards existing Baxters fields or any further towards land towards the Dickins Heath canal so that this new Allocation 26 site does not further encroach other existing communities of south Shirley of Baxters & Woodloes Road south Shirley communities or destroy further greenbelt towards Dickens Heath Community so as to prevent a coalescence of communities as set out in the governments NPPF. paragraph 80 function of greenbelt.

Regarding other Allocations in the south Shirley Blythe Valley area noting Allocation 4 Dickens Heath and Allocation 12 Dog Kennel Lane i know there is still some serious concerns that these proposed amounts of housing development sites of land are still far too large and may cause some serious local infrastructure problems along with excessive pollution especially as we know Bromsgrove District Council have large Allocations along the Whitlocks station side which if they go ahead may lead to a serious problem for existing local communities. My thoughts on this is that you could consider reducing the size of these developments so that they do not over load the south Shirley Blythe Valley Villages.

After looking at looking at the proposed greenbelt land developments for the solihull borough it has been noted that the Blythe Shirley south area is still bearing the brunt of excessive development of 41% while knowle is 17% Dorridge & Hockley Heath is 7% Meriden 1% & Bickenhill 31% ???
This obvious percentage of greenbelt loss for South Shirley Blythe Valley is still unbalanced and unfair and i would again ask Solihull Council to look again at this and spread the developments more fairly across the borough especially as we know we are taking on some of Birmingham Councils Housing shortfall and from what i understand Birmingham Council are still dragging their feet in clearing up the large amounts of Brownfield sites that are still available I would ask that Solihull Council can continue to press Birmingham Council to get its act together and clear up the Brownfield sites before anymore of Solihull greenbelt is sacrificed as i still think Brown field sites of Birmingham should be developed first before we lose our precious urbs in rure .

I would like to register my concerns and objections to the current draft local plan.

What is quite frightening is that the HSR report into the historic past of Blyth Valley has not been acknowledged by Solihull Council, A report that was widely available and already printed. A Report that could have considerable bearing on future housing.Shirley and Blyth Valley has 38% of the proposed housing which is a higher percentage than any other area and would link surrounding areas together i.e. Cheswich Green, Dickens Heath, & Tidbury Green. This will turn into an urban mass with a lack of open space which is a requirement for health and well being.I believe the council has based it's calculation on the 2014 Office of National Statistics figures and there is a clear case that the 2016 figures could be used.There are no plans in the current draft for extra GPs and schools
There has been no consideration of increase of traffic on the current road system and public transport system, the Mott Macdonald plan was not obtained. The council state that public transport will be improved, however if there is no public transport now how can that be improved.There is already a lack of local GP's and pupils are already travelling far and wide due to lack of schools in the appropriate areas..Site 4 an extension of Dickens Heath, proposed as it is near a station. The council has asked for alternative sites, if being near a station is a requirement, have the fields to the east of Widney Manor Station been considered. Widney Manor Station is much better linked. Dickens Heath which won best village was based on all houses being within a 10 minute walk to shops, this is something that no longer can be claimed . Site 4 states that improvements will be made to the infrastructure however roads cannot be improved as there are ancient hedgerows, which again the council appear to have neglected.
Site 26 I have no objections providing that the level of housing is kept as per the plan however the increase in traffic on Bills Lanes would need the Mott Macdonald plan being obtained prior to any permissions being granted.
However with this development then site 13 is the mitigation against the loss of green belt and would be beneficial for the community if this was designated a Village Green/ Nature Reserve.

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, 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 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

6. Richborough Estates is supportive of the Consultation Document's reference to removing Cheswick Green from the Green Belt, particularly where there is the unusual situation of Mount Dairy Farm not being within the Green Belt but all the other properties in the settlement are. It is clear planning sense that a settlement of some 900 dwellings, together with a good range of local facilities, ought not to be washed over by the Green Belt because it makes little contribution to openness of the Green Belt.

7. However, in removing Cheswick Green from the Green Belt the opportunity should be taken to identify either at least one housing allocation or, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework, safeguarded land to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period.

8. The need to identify additional allocations, including at Cheswick Green, arises from Richborough Estates' answer to Question 1. It is considered inevitable that further housing allocations will need to be identified in the emerging Local Plan. Cheswick Green is a settlement where no allocations are currently proposed notwithstanding the settlement being served by public transport and having local facilities and services, including a primary school, parade of shops, public house, community hall and sporting facilities. The accessibility and sustainability credentials of Cheswick Green were recognised by the allocation and subsequent housing development at Mount Diary Farm (Cheswick Place).

9. These same accessibility and locational credentials, alongside the first opportunity to define a boundary, provide the basis for the identification of safeguarded land at Cheswick Green to meet longer-term development needs.

10. Promotional Brochure is being prepared by Richborough Estates for the land fronting Tanworth Lane which lies between the recent housing development at Mount Diary Farm and Highleys Farm. The land is referred to as Site 99 in the Borough Council's Site Assessment document.

11. The Brochure will be submitted to the Council and will identify how the site could come forward for housing development for circa 130-140 dwellings. Based upon the content of this Brochure, and consideration of the wider evidence based published by the Council, an up-date assessment of this site has been undertaken upon the Site Assessment's criteria and this is included at the end of this representation. Also attached to this representation is the draft illustrative master plan which shows how the site could come forward for development. The approach adopted will be explained in more detail the Promotional Brochure.

12. A landscape-led approach to the master planning of the site has been adopted as a key principle with the existing boundary vegetation being retained and creation of a physical and defensible Green Belt boundary. Areas of open space are identified which provide the opportunity for biodiversity benefits of the type of compensatory improvements to environmental quality and accessibility sought by the Framework when land is released from the Green Belt.

13. Other than Green Belt, there are no policy or insurmountable physical constraints to the development of the site for as illustrated in the Promotional Brochure.

14. There would be the opportunity to provide for a range of dwelling types and sizes at a density that respects the adjacent pattern of development and the site's location on the edge of Cheswick Green. Housing on the site would not be visually intrusive within the wider landscape setting of Cheswick Green when viewed from the surrounding countryside, nor would it pose issues of wider coalescence.

see attached letter of response

Dear Sir / Madam

Thank you for consulting Lichfield District Council on the Local Plan Review. The comments below focus on the primary areas of concern Lichfield District Council have. It remains the case that Lichfield District Council would welcome Duty to Cooperate meetings to address such matters prior to the regulation 19 publication version of the Solihull Local Plan.

* There remains concern that Solihull is not committed to fully addressing the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) shortfall. The supplementary consultation does not seek to provide justification as to how Solihull has arrived at providing an additional 2000 dwellings in addition to its OAN as a ceiling towards the shortfall, and does not have regard to the housing requirement options set out in the further strategic growth study.
* That whilst the recognition of the potential need to revise the housing requirement figure in the regulation 19 publication version is welcome, the concern regarding failure to meet the commitments associated with cross boundary cooperation remains as it is indicated that Solihull will only be updating their position in the version that is published. Without cooperation with authorities in the Housing Market Area, it remains the case that any finalised figure has not had appropriate assessment.
* That the land supply of 726 more than the OAN plus the 2000 identified to meet the shortfall in Birmingham is noted, but that it is not known if the provision provides a sufficient buffer to meet the need because, the requirement has not been justified.
* The refinements regarding methodology and approach to site selection appear to be soundly based on a sustainable approach to allocating sites based on their previously developed / greenfield status, accessibility to services and impacts for the Green Belt in line with the NPPF approach. However, the flaw remains that the identification of the additional 2000 to meet the shortfall has not been justified for the reasons previously set out. Accordingly, further sites may need to be identified and released.
* That the Local Plan should look to identify requirement and provision to 2036 which is the end date for the Strategic Growth Study and not to 2035. This ensures consistency in meeting provision across the HMA authorities.
* That the sustainability appraisal has not been updated to take account of the changes proposed in the supplementary consultation to the Draft Local Plan. Lichfield DC is also concerned that without agreement through duty to cooperate in respect of how the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area shortfall requirement is apportioned in the most appropriate way, the SA assessment will not have properly considered suitable alternatives and established the most sustainable strategy.