Question 30 - Site 10 - West of Meriden

??

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 support this site, but also ask why sites 76 and 412 - Berkswell Quarry - has been assessed for employment only.

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).

Please see covering letter

Please see covering letter

Please see cover letter

Please see covering letter

Please see covering letter

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.

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.

See Letters 1-3

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

see letter re: site 10 - West of Meriden

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

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.

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

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)