Question 17 - Site 6 - Meriden Road
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7192
Received: 08/03/2019
Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Parish Council and Catherine-de-Barnes Residents' Association
Extra traffic will overload Lapwing Drive/Meriden Road junction so development should be conditional on an upgraded junction and pedestrian crossing to the footway on the north side of Meriden Road.
See Letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7590
Received: 09/03/2019
Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association
Extra traffic will overload Lapwing Drive/Meriden Road junction so development should be conditional on an upgraded junction and pedestrian crossing to the footway on the north side of Meriden Road.
Please accept that attached as Catherine De Barnes Residents Association to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation . This response is the work of a joint working group comprised members of the RA and Hampton Parish Council.
Although almost identical to the response from Hampton Parish Council we have made a correction to para 6.8 where the word north has been replaced by south and there is an additional para.6.10 .
See letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7753
Received: 12/03/2019
Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Society
Concerned that development will add pressure to local infrastructure, particularly the primary school and the doctor's surgery which are both currently operating at capacity.
Concerned that extra traffic generated will overload the existing priority junction of Lapwing Drive and Meriden Road.
No clear plan exists for the development, including layout, and for that part of the land which should be returned to Green Belt.
Approval should be conditional on providing an upgraded junction to cater for the additional generated traffic. This should include a pedestrian crossing on Meriden Road as no path exists on the development side of Meriden Road.
Please find attached Hampton-in-Arden Society's response to the current draft local plan consultation.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7865
Received: 13/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Debbie Moseley
Questions 16, 17, 18 and 26 within the plan. I fully support the arguments put forward of the joint working group from Hampton Parish Council and Catherine de Barnes Residents' Association response to the SMBC Draft Local Plan (\Parish Response to SMBC Draft Local Plan January 2019) submitted on 03.02.2019
Questions 16, 17, 18 and 26 within the plan. I fully support the arguments put forward of the joint working group from Hampton Parish Council and Catherine de Barnes Residents' Association response to the SMBC Draft Local Plan (\Parish Response to SMBC Draft Local Plan January 2019) submitted on 03.02.2019. I do not believe site 16 (Lugtrout Lane) should be included as an allocated site and objections are based on loss of Green Belt, loss of an effective rural gap & defensible boundaries and the inability of local infrastructure to handle the development. I strongly oppose development of site 16.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7869
Received: 13/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Andrew Moseley
Questions 16, 17, 18 and 26 within the plan. I fully support the arguments put forward of the joint working group from Hampton Parish Council and Catherine de Barnes Residents' Association response to the SMBC Draft Local Plan (\Parish Response to SMBC Draft Local Plan January 2019) submitted on 03.02.2019
Questions 16, 17, 18 and 26 within the plan. I fully support the arguments put forward of the joint working group from Hampton Parish Council and Catherine de Barnes Residents' Association response to the SMBC Draft Local Plan (\Parish Response to SMBC Draft Local Plan January 2019) submitted on 03.02.2019. I do not believe site 16 (Lugtrout Lane) should be included as an allocated site and objections are based on loss of Green Belt, loss of an effective rural gap & defensible boundaries and the inability of local infrastructure to handle the development. I strongly oppose development of site 16.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7922
Received: 13/03/2019
Respondent: Felsham Planning & Development
Agent: Felsham Planning & Development
In addition to this site we believe that land at 145 Old Station Road should also be considered for housing development. The case in support is set out in the attachment.
In addition to this site we believe that land at 145 Old Station Road should also be considered for housing development. The case in support is set out in the attachment.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8965
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin
Yes.
For reasons given in my answer to Q16, I feel the site should be included. The masterplan looks reasonable from initial inspection but would need development with residents to ensure appropriate integration with the character of the village. Design and material usage will be key to ensuring an attractive and beneficial development is achieved.
Yes.
For reasons given in my answer to Q16, I feel the site should be included. The masterplan looks reasonable from initial inspection but would need development with residents to ensure appropriate integration with the character of the village. Design and material usage will be key to ensuring an attractive and beneficial development is achieved.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9344
Received: 21/03/2019
Respondent: Halford Holdings
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
The 'Draft Concept Masterplan' document, January 2019, acknowledges
that alternative premises would need to be found for the wood shaving operation to
enable the residential development of both sites. This is likely to be problematic
given the 'bad neighbour' characteristics of the use.
Site preparation works required for brownfield element questioning viability.
These significant doubts over deliverability mean site should not be allocated
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9377
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr. James McBride
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
The 'Draft Concept Masterplan' document, January 2019, acknowledges
that alternative premises would need to be found for the wood shaving operation to
enable the residential development of both sites. This is likely to be problematic
given the 'bad neighbour' characteristics of the use.
Site preparation works required for brownfield element questioning viability.
These significant doubts over deliverability mean site should not be allocated.
See letters 1-4
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9654
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Michael & Marion Joyce
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
The 'Draft Concept Masterplan' document, January 2019, acknowledges
that alternative premises would need to be found for the wood shaving operation to
enable the residential development of both sites. This is likely to be problematic
given the 'bad neighbour' characteristics of the use.
Site preparation works required for brownfield element questioning viability.
These significant doubts over deliverability mean site should not be allocated.
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
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9689
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Belle Homes Ltd
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
The 'Draft Concept Masterplan' document, January 2019, acknowledges
that alternative premises would need to be found for the wood shaving operation to
enable the residential development of both sites. This is likely to be problematic
given the 'bad neighbour' characteristics of the use.
Site preparation works required for brownfield element questioning viability.
These significant doubts over deliverability mean site should not be allocated.
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
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9704
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Landowners Wootton Green Lane
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
The 'Draft Concept Masterplan' document, January 2019, acknowledges
that alternative premises would need to be found for the wood shaving operation to
enable the residential development of both sites. This is likely to be problematic
given the 'bad neighbour' characteristics of the use.
Site preparation works required for brownfield element questioning viability.
These significant doubts over deliverability mean site should not be allocated.
We write on behalf of our various Clients, who jointly own land described below:
Proposed Allocated Housing Site 22 - Trevallion Stud, Wootton Green
Lane, Balsall Common CV7 7BQ
Also including consideration of land west of No. 32 Wootton Green Lane Site
Reference 160
see detail in attached letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9737
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd
Agent: Harris Lamb
Site 6 is currently occupied and there is no guarantee will be available for development. Adjoining SLP2013 Site 24 yet to come forward. Dependent on relocation of Arden Wood Shavings, outside Council's control.
Land at Diddington Lane (Site 418) available, being promoted, without constraints.
Concept masterplan. Poor relationship with Meriden Road, stronger gateway beneficial. Existing dwelling will result in cramped setting for new dwellings. Road hierarchy confused, single central road better and avoids single sided development along E boundary. Open space better divided into smaller more evenly distributed areas. Landscaping within site where needed by topography, with views retained.
see letter
promoting land to the West of Diddington Lane HIA
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9776
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: William Davis Ltd
Agent: Define Planning & Design
Site is adjacent to the existing allocation in the SLP (site 24) and effectively forms an extension to that allocation. Despite anticipated release of allocated SLP site by April 2023 no planning applications have come forward on the site. Boundary changes have effectively omitted the area of brownfield land, the majority of the allocation is therefore greenfield. Arden Wood Shavings Limited currently operates within part of DLP Site 6 and it is understood that the company has no plans to vacate the site. Previous representations by the company have highlighted ongoing use of the depot and a desire to implement recent planning permissions. This is a significant consideration in terms of deliverability. In addition as indicated in the 2012 SHLAA there are also a number of other physical constraints and limitations to the development of SLP Site 24 that require consideration, including access and local infrastructure, lack of suitable routes to key local services and facilities, poor relationship to existing development, creation of an indefensible Green Belt boundary. Do not object to the two sites within the settlement however given the proposed comprehensive approach to the development of SLP 24 and proposed site 6 there is considerable uncertainty in terms of the overall deliverability of both Meriden Road sites.
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
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9889
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd
Agent: Arcadis
Support Site 6 allocation as contribution to housing supply and opportunity for range of housing including specialist housing for elderly and smaller homes. Logical extension of village alongside SLP allocated Site 24, allowing phased development with sites coming forward separately. Density should be appropriate to character of surroundings and allow sufficient flexibility.
Phasing should recognise different status of sites and ownerships meaning delivery in 3 phases to be reflected in masterplan.
Any shortfall of open space within site should be made up via contributions to improvements elsewhere in settlement and an allowance made for location in green belt.
Any drainage/SUDs feature must be realistic and achievable in terms of ownership, gradient and capacity.
see letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9916
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Generator (Balsall) & Minton
Agent: DS Planning
Land to the west of this site was allocated for housing in the 2013 Local plan
on condition that the former ammunition depot was reclaimed for open
space or if not available an alternative development solution delivering open
space was forthcoming. This situation still exists and so calls into question
the allocation. Also the viability of the site may be affected dependent on any
potential contamination issues as a consequence of the former use of the
site
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
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9963
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land
Agent: DS Planning
Land to the west of this site was allocated for housing in the 2013 Local plan on condition that the former ammunition depot was reclaimed for open space or if not available an alternative development solution delivering open space was forthcoming. This situation still exists and so calls into question the allocation. Also the viability of the site may be affected dependent on any potential contamination issues as a consequence of the former use of the site.
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.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10003
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Stonewater
Agent: DS Planning
Land to the west of this site was allocated for housing in the 2013 Local plan
on condition that the former ammunition depot was reclaimed for open
space or if not available an alternative development solution delivering open
space was forthcoming. This situation still exists and so calls into question
the allocation. Also the viability of the site may be affected dependent on any
potential contamination issues as a consequence of the former use of the
site.
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
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10043
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr T Khan
Agent: DS Planning
As indicated in the response to DLP consultation the land to the west of this
site was allocated for housing in the 2013 Local plan on condition that the former ammunition depot was reclaimed for open space or if not available an alternative development solution delivering open space was forthcoming.
This situation still exists and so calls into question the allocation. Also, the viability of the site may be affected dependent on any potential contamination issues as a consequence of the former use of the site
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
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10085
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd
Agent: DS Planning
Land to the west of this site was allocated for housing in the 2013 Local plan
on condition that the former ammunition depot was reclaimed for open space or if not available an alternative development solution delivering open space was forthcoming. This situation still exists and so calls into question the allocation. Also the viability of the site may be affected dependent on any potential contamination issues as a consequence of the former use of the site.
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
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10177
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr P Benton and Mr T Neary
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
The 'Draft Concept Masterplan' document, January 2019, acknowledges
that alternative premises would need to be found for the wood shaving operation to
enable the residential development of both sites. This is likely to be problematic
given the 'bad neighbour' characteristics of the use.
Site preparation works required for brownfield element questioning viability.
These significant doubts over deliverability mean site should not be allocated.
See Letters
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10325
Received: 02/05/2019
Respondent: Environment Agency
There is a culverted ordinary watercourse on the northern boundary of the site which is a tributary of the River Blythe, however our 'Flood Map for Planning' only shows the flood risk from watercourses with a catchment area greater than 3km2, mapping of the risk from the watercourse has not been undertaken and as such this is the only reason the site is shown to lie in low risk Flood Zone 1. The assessment of flood risk and easement from the ordinary watercourse should be agreed with the LLFA, however we strongly recommend that hydraulic modelling of the watercourse is undertaken as part of a Level 2 SFRA to inform of the developable area and capacity of this potential allocation. Regardless of flood risk, we recommend an unobstructed green corridor is maintained along the banks of the watercourse for the purposes of protecting and maintaining green and blue infrastructure.
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