Question 23 - Site 8 - Hampton Road

Showing comments and forms 61 to 76 of 76

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9479

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Representation Summary:

Heyford Developments strongly object to the inclusion of Site 8 as an allocated site, ahead of land under their control at Blue Lake Road, as:
* It has been incorrectly prioritised in the Site Selection Process;
* The loss of the land parcel to the north of Hampton Road facilitating the proposed new sports pitches and adjacent housing is unjustified in landscape and Green Belt terms; and
* It would cause unacceptable harm to the setting of Grimshaw Hall (Grade I Listed)
Land off Blue Lake Road would be less harmful and can provide appropriate mitigation for green belt loss.

Full text:

Please refer to attached documents.
Lichfields is instructed by Heyford Developments Ltd ('Heyford Developments') to respond formally to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review supplementary consultation (January 2019 - March 2019).

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9510

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: The Knowle Society

Representation Summary:

The site is unsuitable for development as it would create an unacceptable skyline on this approach to Knowle.
The contours of the site will result in a prominent development.
Using the canal as a defensible barrier could open up surrounding areas around the canal for development.
Harm to the setting of Grimshaw Hall.
Impact on Knowle Conservation area from traffic generated by the development, particularly around the Hampton Road / High Street junction.
Adverse impact on ecology and inappropriate loss of Green Belt.

Full text:

the responses in the attached letter have been made by the Knowle Society

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9656

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Michael & Marion Joyce

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

Many sites rejected where there are no existing physical features, yet there is no clearly defined physical boundary along northern edge of NW proposal and site does not follow field boundaries. Topography means site more visually intrusive in green belt and impacts on openness. Impact on Local Wildlife Site, TPOs, right of way and setting of Grimshaw Hall.
SE proposal occupied by Knowle FC so question over deliverability. Further land promoted with potential impacts on Grimshaw Hall. Land is highly performing in Green Belt Assessment.
No very special circumstances to justify sports hub in green belt.

Full text:

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

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9679

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

Many sites rejected where there are no existing physical features, yet there is no clearly defined physical boundary along northern edge of NW proposal and site does not follow field boundaries. Topography means site more visually intrusive in green belt and impacts on openness. Impact on Local Wildlife Site, TPOs, right of way and setting of Grimshaw Hall.
SE proposal occupied by Knowle FC so question over deliverability. Further land promoted with potential impacts on Grimshaw Hall. Land is highly performing in Green Belt Assessment.
No very special circumstances to justify sports hub in green belt.

Full text:

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

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9688

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Belle Homes Ltd

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

Many sites rejected where there are no existing physical features, yet there is no clearly defined physical boundary along northern edge of NW proposal and site does not follow field boundaries. Topography means site more visually intrusive in green belt and impacts on openness. Impact on Local Wildlife Site, TPOs, right of way and setting of Grimshaw Hall.
SE proposal occupied by Knowle FC so question over deliverability. Further land promoted with potential impacts on Grimshaw Hall. Land is highly performing in Green Belt Assessment.
No very special circumstances to justify sports hub in green belt.

Full text:

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

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9700

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Landowners Wootton Green Lane

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

Many sites rejected where there are no existing physical features, yet there is no clearly defined physical boundary along northern edge of NW proposal and site does not follow field boundaries. Topography means site more visually intrusive in green belt and impacts on openness. Impact on Local Wildlife Site, TPOs, right of way and setting of Grimshaw Hall.
SE proposal occupied by Knowle FC so question over deliverability. Further land promoted with potential impacts on Grimshaw Hall. Land is highly performing in Green Belt Assessment.
No very special circumstances to justify sports hub in green belt.

Full text:

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

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9861

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Historic England- West Midlands Region

Representation Summary:

The Grade I status of Grimshaw Hall will require due weight to be given to its conservation. Any consideration of an allocation will need to demonstrate that sufficient account is taken of the Plan's evidence base to avoid or minimise harm to the significance of the Hall. Due regard must be had to the desirability of preserving its setting.
Without publication of the Council's Heritage Impact Assessment of this site, Historic England are unable to consider whether the principle of development or such a proposed response would be appropriate or effective in avoiding harm and the delivery of sustainable development.

Full text:

see attached document

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9922

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Generator (Balsall) & Minton

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

No objection in principle

Full text:

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: 9969

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

No objection in principle

Full text:

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: 10009

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Stonewater

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

No objection in principle

Full text:

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: 10049

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr T Khan

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

No objection in principle

Full text:

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: 10091

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

No objection in principle

Full text:

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: 10178

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr P Benton and Mr T Neary

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

Many sites rejected where there are no existing physical features, yet there is no clearly defined physical boundary along northern edge of NW proposal and site does not follow field boundaries. Topography means site more visually intrusive in green belt and impacts on openness. Impact on Local Wildlife Site, TPOs, right of way and setting of Grimshaw Hall.
SE proposal occupied by Knowle FC so question over deliverability. Further land promoted with potential impacts on Grimshaw Hall. Land is highly performing in Green Belt Assessment.
No very special circumstances to justify sports hub in green belt.

Full text:

See Letters

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10306

Received: 14/02/2019

Respondent: Gillian Griggs

Representation Summary:

Concept Masterplan needs to take into account:
1.Levels and topography issues for both housing and sports pitches which are significant and sensitive
2.Densities, as high density inappropriate on whole of eastern parcel, and western part should be medium transitioning to low
3.Public open space and structural green framework required for both parts
4.Design Coding required and should take account of levels, green infrastructure, landscape and visual impacts and floodlighting, together with transportation and heritage impacts

Full text:

My response to Q22 which sets out why I consider an 'in principle' objection to this allocation should be maintained pending further information from the Council on infrastructure and other matters raised in the Forum's original objection.
This is expanded upon below having regard to the information in the Landscape Study by Crestwood Environmental and the Heritage and Character Study and Masterplanning/Design and Design Coding work by Urban Vision Enterprise CIC.
In its submission to the 2016 DLPR consultation, the Neighbourhood Forum made comments on these two sites which raised questions over the allocations given the Council's own evidence base. This showed that:
* the sites are at the least accessible end of the scale and are poor in locational terms with no public transport access
* development would be a significant encroachment in to the Green Belt and countryside
* the parcels are 'best performing' and, arguably, 'moderately performing' Green Belt
* the impacts of additional traffic, particularly on the High St junction need to be explained as well as potential impacts on the Conservation Area
* further work is needed to understand the impact of topography on development, both housing and sporting, and of development on trees, hedgerows and Local Wildlife Sites.
Since then the Forum has had three meetings with the site promoters and the Council when their baseline studies have been shared. Whilst this was welcomed by the Forum, there has been no substantive responses or progress on the above matters. In particular:
1. The Council state that this allocation is consistent with Option G of the Spatial Strategy for the significant expansion of rural villages. However, the Spatial Strategy does not appear to favour any one Option and this option was one of the worst performing in the Interim Sustainability Appraisal.
2. The Council has not shared transport study findings with the NF as promised. However, the NF has been made aware of the 'measurable impact' that the Council's own Transport Study has shown at the High St junction. Despite this, the impacts of proposed development on traffic flow, junctions, village centre, Conservation Area and station parking are not mentioned in the Supplementary Update. Nor is there any indication of how impacts can be mitigated or how a bus service to this site can be achieved.
3. The Council considers that the main parcel of land at Hampton Rd would be a 'rounding off' of the settlement. A site visit demonstrates that this is not the case. Development here would be a major incursion into the countryside and Green Belt setting of Knowle.

4. The Atkins assessment of the larger parcel of Green Belt (parcel 36) as moderately performing is questionable. It is scored only as a 2 in terms of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment even though it meets the criteria to score 3, as does parcel 37. In terms of preserving the setting of the historic village it scores a 0 despite the fact that the landscape and topography play an important role in protecting the rural and historic setting of the village. The 'considerations' set out in the table on p7 of the GBA state that an assessment of topography has been taken into account in the scoring of this GB purpose but it is not evident in the scoring of this parcel. The scoring needs to be revisited. See also my comments in response to Q2 on inconsistencies in scoring.
5. The Council refers to providing a defensible GB boundary to the smaller parcel of land and continuing the GB boundary on the larger parcel by continuing the GB boundary on from the rear of properties along Wychwood Avenue down to Hampton Rd. However, there is no existing definitive boundary on site where shown on the masterplan- it is proposed to create a new boundary through road construction. This appears to be a novel approach to creating new GB boundaries and is inconsistent with the insistence elsewhere by the Council that sites cannot be reduced in size because strong existing defensible boundaries must be adopted. A number of other large sites may perform better in the Council's assessments if some areas can be excluded by creating new GB boundaries.
6. More information is required to explain how the Council has concluded that this is a 'green' site. Without this it is not possible to accept the Council's conclusion that development will only have no, or relatively low impact on relevant considerations, or that a severe impact can be mitigated.

As regards the Masterplan, the draft report from Crestwood Environmental for the NF together with the Heritage and Character Assessment and the Masterplanning/Design and Design Coding by Urban Vision Enterprise CIC provide clear evidence and advice on what the masterplan for these sites should contain if development in these locations is confirmed. The following summarise the key landscape and design considerations which need to be taken into account as they are not reflected in the concept masterplan at present:
1. Levels and topography.
The masterplan fails to reflect the significant levels issues across the northern parcel and how they will be addressed both for housing and for sports pitch provision. The image of the masterplan is highly misleading without any indication of how the change of levels will be accommodated. This is a sensitive issue locally given that the change in levels across the recently completed Taylor Wimpey development at Middlefield Spring were not taken into account leading to extremely poor relationships between houses at the lower level being dominated by 3 storey apartments on the higher level.
There is a 17m change in level across the site with the ground rising to a high point on a ridge. The masterplan shows residential development extending beyond the ridge line thus impacting on the GB and on views on the approach into Knowle from Hampton Rd. The NF Landscape Study advises that development on this parcel should be contained by the existing hedgeline of the second field to provide a) a definitive GB boundary and b) sit properly within the landscape such that the natural topographical containment of the settlement of Knowle is respected without any adverse impact on its character.
The change of levels must also have regard to the relationship to existing properties, particularly those in Whateley Hall Rd and Alveston Grove.
The change in levels will necessitate some significant engineering work to accommodate residential development and also to create level sports pitches. This will lead to terracing which will alter the landscape and rural character, particularly of the Green Belt approach to Knowle. The provision of car parking, a sports building near the high point of the land, floodlighting and the erection of high netting (necessary for the cricket ground adjacent to Hampton Rd) will all add to this significant adverse impact. This is a particular concern raised in the Landscape Study which concludes that other sites should be preferred to the larger parcel because of its adverse impacts.
If development is to be accommodated on these parcels of land, the masterplan should be amended to show how the levels are to be taken into account and ensure that residential development is restricted to the natural topographical containment of Knowle. The extent of earth works to accommodate the community sports hub and more information on the location and size of the sports hub building need to be made available to residents before further comment on the suitability of this area to accommodate sports pitches and related uses can be assessed.
2. Densities:
The Council needs to be clearer about the definition of high, medium and low densities.
High density on the whole area of the east side of Hampton Rd is not acceptable bearing in mind:
i) the Council's own evidence that states both parcels have low landscape capacity. The evidence of the NF Landscape Study, Heritage and Character Assessment and Masterplanning/Design and Design Coding Study all recommend that any new development on the edge of built settlement should make a sensitive transition between the built development and the open countryside or Green Belt through adopting lower densities towards the rural edge to avoid the appearance of overdevelopment and to maintain the rural character;
ii) the sensitive relationship to Grimshaw Hall, a Grade 1 Listed Building; and
iii) the criticisms from local residents about the density of the adjoining recent residential development which is around 36 dph.
iv) such a large area of high density would be out of keeping with the local character and be inconsistent with both LP and NP policies which aim to respect local character. High density on part of the site may be acceptable for some dwellings such as specialist accommodation for the elderly.
Development on the larger parcel, which is also described as having low landscape capacity, should be of medium density transitioning to low density as it reaches the retained GB and open countryside.
3. Public open space and structural green framework
Both sites should have a clear structural green framework which should be in place early during any development and preferably before house building commences. The current masterplan needs to be much stronger on this. The larger northern parcel contains Local Wildlife sites as well as hedgerows, protected trees, a green buffer to Grimshaw Hall, protected footpaths and the sports facilities. All these, together with a green buffer to houses in Whateley Hall Rd and Alveston Grove, should be shown as structural open space for any development on this site.
Levels information is again necessary to an understanding of the functionality and attractiveness of the POS. It appears from the masterplan that the existing LWS is to be treated as POS to serve this development. If that is correct, it is not acceptable as this development must meet its own needs, not utilise existing protected wildlife sites. For clarity, the masterplan should exclude the existing LWS at Purnells Brook.
It is not acceptable for there to be no POS to serve the southern area.
The accessibility of the community sports hub in the retained Green Belt corridor to the public also needs to be clarified. Will the sports area be fenced off preventing access along the green corridor?
4. Design Coding
I support the recommendation of the Landscape Study that any allocation at Hampton Rd be subject to a Supplementary Planning Document or Design Code to inform development which should be consulted on with the Neighbourhood Forum. In addition, matters relating to levels, green infrastructure, landscape and visual impacts and floodlighting, together with transportation and heritage impacts, should be properly considered in advance of any allocation.
Concluding comments on this allocation and the masterplan
Without information on levels, infrastructure impacts (particularly highways/junction impacts/mitigation), and clarity on the GB and LWS boundaries, it is not possible to support this allocation and the draft concept masterplan in its current form. The issues raised by the NF Landscape Study and Masterplanning/Design and Design Coding Study need first to be addressed.
This is not to say that these sites are not capable of some development. It is acknowledged that these sites, particularly the Football Club and Cricket Ground, may have the potential for some sympathetic residential development but at present what is being proposed is not justified by either the Council's methodology, its evidence base or that of the Neighbourhood Forum.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10326

Received: 02/05/2019

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

A Main River (Purnells Brook, tributary of the River Blythe) bisects the site, 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. 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. As a Main River, a minimum 8m easement should be provided from each bank in order to allow for essential channel maintenance. This will serve the dual purpose of protecting and maintaining green and blue infrastructure. Should you chose not to undertake modelling as part of a Level 2 SFRA, we will require modelling to be undertaken as part of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment in support of a planning application, and development will need to be located outside Flood Zone 2 and 3, and the 100 year plus climate change flood extent. Any numbers allocated for this site will need to have sufficient flexibility to ensure they can respond to unassessed flood risk issues so that the allocation is not compromised by inability to deliver the required scale of development whilst also meeting flood risk requirements.

Full text:

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

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10452

Received: 23/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Adrian McNicholas

Representation Summary:

Grove Rd would be an improved 1st choice.

As the highest location in the area, I think the new estate will become too visible.

Full text:

I do not believe the building of homes in Knowle off Hampton Road leading to Wychwood Av is the best location. This will increase traffic at the already congested Hampton/Warwick Rd intersection, and then create a 'rabbit run' through the estate road (Arden Vale). Grove Rd would be an improved 1st choice.

As the highest location in the area, I think the new estate will become too visible.

Furthermore creating a 'Sports Hub' beside the proposed site will also increase traffic, as this is not on a public bus/rail route, hence any visitors will need to drive to the location.