Question 30 - Site 10 - West of Meriden
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 6808
Received: 24/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Sarah Bridge
??
??
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7649
Received: 12/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Lynn Parker
I feel the information given regarding site 10 has been very confusing. Original 2 separate sites, the land owned by Stonewater (site137)at the Straw Poll where a site plan could be seen was rejected by 3% supported by 0%. Getting 3 land owners to work together to achieve best outcome for the village and it's needs will be very difficult. The pond area has now been included in the site there should be a LWS Panel survey and assessment carried out . I agree that the land on Birmingham Road should be developed with 50 2/3 bedroom Private &Affordable homes.
I feel the information given regarding site 10 has been very confusing. Original 2 separate sites, the land owned by Stonewater (site137)at the Straw Poll where a site plan could be seen was rejected by 3% supported by 0%. Getting 3 land owners to work together to achieve best outcome for the village and it's needs will be very difficult. The pond area has now been included in the site there should be a LWS Panel survey and assessment carried out . I agree that the land on Birmingham Road should be developed with 50 2/3 bedroom Private &Affordable homes.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7782
Received: 13/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Wheeler
I support this site.
I support this site, but also ask why sites 76 and 412 - Berkswell Quarry - has been assessed for employment only.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8593
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
Loss of potential Local Wildlife Site which should be surveyed before a decision is made to allocate this site - precautionary principle should not allocate the site due to ecological constraint.
The Ecological Assessment (2017) recommends:
The site is part of a potential local wildlife site (Fields SP28G4) which has been recommended for survey but permission to survey has not been granted. The site has an interesting mix of habitats and there is potential for it to be incorporated into a larger local wildlife site incorporating the grassland, open scrub and pond with other nearby habitats.
There are on site and offsite opportunities to restore the grassland to semi-improved quality, reduce the density of scrub and protect the pond and maintain habitat connectivity along the stream and amongst stretches of hedgerows.
The ecological constraints plan identifies constraints across the majority of the site. We therefore object to the allocation of this site due to the significant impact on an ecological feature of country value for nature conservation (using the precautionary approach).
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8762
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land at Fulford Hall Road
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
Whilst we have no objection to Site 10 (west of Meriden), we understand that this site is being promoted by McCarthy and Stone, and we question whether these 100 dwellings are Class C2 or C3. If this site is intended to be delivered as C2, what contribution does this make towards meeting the Council's overall housing requirement and what contribution, if any, it will make the overall affordable
housing requirement?
Please see covering letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8785
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land at Widney Manor Road
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
Whilst we have no objection to Site 10 (west of Meriden), we understand that this site is being promoted by McCarthy and Stone, and we question whether these 100 dwellings are C2 or C3. If this site is intended to be delivered as C2, what contribution does this make towards meeting the Council's overall housing requirement and what contribution, if any, will it make towards overall affordable housing requirement?
Please see covering letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8804
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land North of School Road
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
Whilst we have no objection to Site 10 (west of Meriden), we understand that this site is being promoted by McCarthy and Stone, and we question whether these 100 dwellings are C2 or C3. If this site is intended to be delivered as C2, what contribution does this make towards meeting the Council's overall housing requirement and what contribution, if any, will make towards the overall affordable
housing requirement?
Please see cover letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8825
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land West of Stratford Road
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
No objection, but question whether 100 dwellings are Class C2 or Class C3 (as site being promoted by McCarthy and Stone).
If accommodation is C2, what contribution does this make towards meeting the
Council's overall housing requirement and what contribution, if any, it will make the overall affordable housing requirement?
Please see covering letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8843
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land Fronting Waste Lane
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
Whilst we have no objection to Site 10 (west of Meriden), we understand that this site is being promoted by McCarthy and Stone, and we question whether these 100 dwellings are Class C2 and C3. If this site is intended to be delivered as C2, what contribution does this make towards meeting the Council's overall housing
requirement and what contribution, if any, will it make towards the overall affordable housing requirement?
Please see covering letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8962
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Meriden Parish Council
Support inclusion of Site 10 and provision of affordable/special needs housing.
Summary of our comments on draft concept masterplans:
- 1ha allocated for open space, this should not be a balancing pond/SUDS with a path leading to nowhere
- Proposal of 100 homes on remaining 2ha would equate to 50 dph, we think this density is too high. 3storey development would visually conflict with character of village. Need to respect site is gateway to village.
- No. of parking bays conflict with draft Meriden NDP.
- Vehicular access maybe better from Maxstoke Lane or Birmingham Road
- Need for pedestrian crossing across Fillongley Road, by Maxstoke Lane, across to shops.
- Insist that a comprehensive and collaborative approach be taken on this site with the landowners.
We believe that Site 10 west of Meriden should be included as allocated site as we did with the 2016 Draft Local Plan based on evidence from the Meriden Parish Plan (2009), Meriden Parish Design Statement (2011), Meriden Parish Council's straw poll results to the Call for Sites and the Meriden Neighbourhood Plan Survey 2016.
Our comments on the draft concept master plan are as follows:
You are proposing that this 3ha site has 1ha put aside for Public Open Space leaving 2ha for development. This identified area of open space should not be a balancing/SUDS with a perimeter path to nowhere! There is a need for more provision for health and wellbeing across all age ranges.
By proposing around 100 homes on the remaining 2ha, this would equate to 50 dph which in our view is too high a density having regard to existing densities and the need to preserve and enhance the character of the village.
You are working with three landowners and the only one who has come back with any detail is
McCarthy and Stone proposing 24 1-bed apartments, 24 2-bed apartments and 6 bungalows and you state that the development of 3 storeys on this site could be appropriate. Their site is the gateway into Meriden and 3 storeys would be visually conflicting with our village character. Parking allocation on the proposed plan shows 48 bays. This conflicts with our draft Housing Design policy in Meriden's Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan which states 'allocated parking spaces (excluding garages) must be included at a ratio of 1 space per bedroom. This would mean that McCarthy and Stone's plan for 54 dwellings would require 84 parking spaces. We would also want commitment from McCarthy and Stone to offer 40% of the 54 dwellings as affordable housing.
Stone Water Housing, owners of the eastern part of the site, tabled their preferred option to expand the offer of the Firs development but no plan has come forward so we cannot comment on this. However, the new Firs site proposes access via Maxstoke Lane already coping with car traffic from the 87 Meriden Gate homes, the current Firs site and homes along Maxstoke Lane and from Maxstoke Close. It may be better to propose vehicle access from Maxstoke Lane to the northwest or Birmingham Road. The old Maxstoke Lane has a narrow footpath with houses on either side; this is a walk to the shops from the Firs, (older people). A pedestrian crossing should be a condition of development across Fillongley Road by Maxstoke Lane across to the shops.
The site landowner with the smallest parcel on the site is currently not interested in investing in consultant/design fees for the site until it was formally allocated in the Local Plan.
We remind you that in November 2017 we wrote to your planning department to red-flag our concerns that a comprehensive and collaborative approach between land owners could be lacking at site 10 and as a parish council, we would expect and insist that only a comprehensive and collaborative approach be taken on this site and we will not support 'piecemeal' applications. We trust that we can work together to ensure the right outcomes for site 10.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8991
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin
In part.
Plans would need to be refined with the local community. This is a strategically important location and as such should facilitate growth, alongside benefiting from HS2.
In part.
Plans would need to be refined with the local community. This is a strategically important location and as such should facilitate growth, alongside benefiting from HS2.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9361
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr J Kimberley
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Support allocation of Site 10 as logical extension of Meriden that meets policy objectives and has least impact. Site is lower performing green belt, partly brownfield, has no constraints, high accessibility, is deliverable within a settlement identified for limited expansion, and is well-related to centre. Will contribute to identified local affordable housing need. Consider Site 119 as part of proposed allocation could come forward in isolation.
Site Assessment for 119 incorrect; delete reference to contaminated land, should be part brownfield, and should not refer to indefensible boundaries, as include The Firs housing development, trees and hedgerows.
See Letters 1-3
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9570
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: IM Land
Agent: Stansgate Planning LLP
Site does not have capacity for 100 dwellings without significant harm to landscape character/biodiversity. Site part of green gateway to Meriden. Importance of trees/vegetation to setting recognised in LCA. Development would be uncharacteristic and loss of vegetation contrary to guidelines in LCA. No reference to potential LWS and how this is accommodated.
Should consider other sites such as Site 420 North of Main Road which performs better in site assessments and has no biodiversity constraint.
This representation is made on behalf of IM Land, a subsidiary of IM Properties PLC who are working with landowners to promote land north of Main Road, Meriden for new housing
see attached letter and appendices
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9876
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Frontier Estates
Agent: Gillings Planning
The principles of this site allocation in terms of the quantum of development and proposed density approach are supported. The allocation would be suitable for a range and type of housing across both C2 and C3 use classes which would include accommodation suitable for the elderly. This should be recognised within the emerging site allocation policy to confirm that the proposed 100 homes can include provision for C2 and C3, thereby conforming with the provisions of national policy.
see letter re: site 10 - West of Meriden
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9891
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd
Agent: Arcadis
Accept need to identify land for housing around Meriden, including Site 10. Site, together with others, could contribute to housing need. Appropriate as extension to village without having detrimental impact on character or surrounding area. Excellent highway links to Coventry and Birmingham avoiding village.
see letter
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9929
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Generator (Balsall) & Minton
Agent: DS Planning
Agree in principle
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
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9976
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land
Agent: DS Planning
Agree in principle
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.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10016
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Stonewater
Agent: DS Planning
Agree in principle
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
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10056
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr T Khan
Agent: DS Planning
Agree in principle
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
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10098
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd
Agent: DS Planning
Agree in principle
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: 10225
Received: 27/02/2019
Respondent: Alan Lole
Concept Masterplan
Impact of development on residents of Maxstoke Lane. Proposed access points should be reconsidered and more consideration given to residents if any construction takes place. Added traffic will worsen high risk associated with junction with Fillongley Road. There is a much more practical, logical and safe access/egress point available for this development.
The attachment shows the subject of great misgivings and trepidation for myself and other residents of Maxstoke Lane.!!
During the construction of Meriden Gate, it is no exaggeration to say that we went to 'Hell and Back'.
Maxstoke Lane collapsed under the onslaught of the impact of Heavy vehicles. Also the noise, vibration and pollution levels were grossly intolerable.
It is true to say that The Lane became a raceway for construction vehicles. Please please please can some serious consideration be given to avoid this??
On top of this, the proposal to make Maxstoke Lane the designated access/egress comes across as very much ill-considered.
I say this as the junction with Fillongley Road is a High Risk point already without added traffic. The danger area is vehicles leaving the island, at speed, with many seeing no need to indicate.!! This is genuinely scary for pedestrians and vehicles leaving Maxstoke Lane, alike and is already an accident waiting to happen.
When there is a much more practical, logical and safe access/egress point available for this development, it seems unreal that this proposal is even on the table.!
It is fully understood that houses have to be built but, surely, consideration can be seen to be given to existing resident's serious concerns.
I speak, not for myself alone but also for this corner of Meriden and cannot leave it unsaid.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10328
Received: 02/05/2019
Respondent: Environment Agency
An ordinary watercourse forms the northern boundary of 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. 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
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10438
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: L&Q Estates - Land at Bickenhill Road, Marston Green
Agent: Pegasus Group
Site has a number of constraints and increase in density will impact on more sensitive area to the north, be high for an otherwise semi-rural settlement and be incongruous with the guidance in the LCA.
Restricting development to the less sensitive southern part and utilising an alternative site, Site 197 Berkswell Road would allow more appropriate smaller scale and lower density development
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)