Question 13 - Site 11 -The Green

As stated in the SMBC Emerging Concept Masterplan for site 11, 12 and 26 the proposed allocation of site could provide around 1900 homes which would require 11ha of public open space. Clarity is sought as to whether any playing pitches and ancillary provision will form part of the public open requirement to meet the demand generated from the new residents and to help address the shortfall in playing pitch provision as identified in the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy.

Q 13 - Site 11 - The Green

Of all the sites in and around Shirley this is the one that I consider to be a good location. Any development in this area will have a significant impact on infrastructure however it is an existing Brownfield site and has good transport connectivity. However I am disappointed that a significant opportunity has been missed. Rather than building even more car showrooms this land could have been better utilised by building houses. The mixed use area of this site should be for housing, reducing the need to develop inappropriately on Greenfield sites 26 and 4.

As Site 11 has already gone through part of the planning process I will be brief.
There have been issues over design of the planning application. There was also an opportunity missed with regards to higher density housing closer to the Stratford Road.
Whilst some will argue that the car dealerships provide additional employment, they are doing so in a location that would have been able to make a bigger contribution towards affordable housing, reducing demand on the Green Belt, providing access to sustainable travel and all with minimal disruption to existing residents.
That ship has sailed and so it should be used to inform better planning in the future. Residents have been largely supportive of the use of the site for housing, with concern from Blackford Road on how the development will directly affect them.
Where there are concerns for future developments is around design. Clearly Site 11 and 12 are expected to form a coherent and contiguous development. With the designs that have emerged on Site 11, many residents will hope that improvements can be made for the future development.
Furthermore, the numbers shown here do not appear to include the Extra Care development that has already been given permission. Whilst it might fall outside the plan period for the Local Plan, it is important residents remain informed the actual density of this site.
One reason why residents were conditionally supportive of the higher density of this site was so that more greenbelt could be saved and there might be an overall reduction in the housing expectations of this area. The lessons from this site should also demonstrate that residents have not been NIMBY but are working with the Council to find an amicable solution. The reduction across Blythe is still not to a satisfactory level so should be considered before the next iteration of the plan.

I think this is a good use of space, however there is still the question of road infrastructure not to mention the added pressure of more people and cars in an already overpopulated area, traffic will certainly be a problem. I was also disgusted to see that developers had ignored tree preservation orders in place on that site.

See attached letter

Please find attached the response from the Green Party team in Shirley West ward to the Draft Local Plan supplementary consultation.

For the avoidance of doubt, our specific concerns relate to the 3 Shirley wards, Blythe and the sites mentioned in the letter.

Please see attached.

Worcestershire County Council (WCC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the above consultation, and provides the attached officer-only comments. We are currently seeking endorsement of these comments by WCC's Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economy and Infrastructure, and will provide confirmation of this endorsement as soon as possible.

See Letter

See Letter

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

Thank you for referring the above consultation which we received on 30 January 2019. We apologise we have been unable to respond prior to now, and hope that you are still able to take our comments into account as the plan develops.
We have reviewed the above consultation document which is dated January 2019 and note the inclusion of additional sites for consideration for allocation.
We welcome the inclusion of Flood Risk as a potential 'Hard' issue in the site selection criteria as identified on page 18 and 19. We further recommend that Water Quality is added to the footnote in this section, with particular referenced to River Blythe's SSSI status. Further to this page 29 looks at what is required for the Blythe in the future and protection and enhancement of water quality should be included. Please see attached letter for our advice with regards to your site allocations, which incorporates comments previously provided, and adds additional comments in relation to your new sites. These comments should be used in preference to those previously provided as they have been updated