Question 21 - Green Belt Changes

Showing comments and forms 61 to 73 of 73

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8934

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Philip Jordan

Representation Summary:

the proposed sites are in Green Belt and the local MP Caroline Spelman is fully supportive of preserving the Green Belt, and was democratically elected by the local population in that knowledge

Full text:

the proposed sites are in Green Belt and the local MP Caroline Spelman is fully supportive of preserving the Green Belt, and was democratically elected by the local population in that knowledge

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8973

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin

Representation Summary:

As previously stated, I am concerned by the principle of 'washed over' Green Belt.
I could not find clear a clear map pertaining to the land in question. This makes me reluctant to make detailed comments on it. From the narrative explanation it sounds reasonable, but there should have been clearer visual detail in the plan.

Full text:

As previously stated, I am concerned by the principle of 'washed over' Green Belt.
I could not find clear a clear map pertaining to the land in question. This makes me reluctant to make detailed comments on it. From the narrative explanation it sounds reasonable, but there should have been clearer visual detail in the plan.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8985

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Pendleton

Representation Summary:

The green belt offers home to wildlife and is a key characteristic of the village. It's residents opt for the location because of this, not in spite of it. Removing the green belt harms wildlife, increases congestion and noise pollution

Full text:

The green belt offers home to wildlife and is a key characteristic of the village. It's residents opt for the location because of this, not in spite of it. Removing the green belt harms wildlife, increases congestion and noise pollution

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9113

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Don't consider there is a defensible boundary to the north of these gardens. By removing this 'washed over' Green Belt status we consider that the level of attempted development throughout this ribbon of houses and into the land behind would be inappropriate and could jeopardise the quality of the green belt surrounding Hockley Heath with no clear boundary. We don't consider that any release of the land to the South automatically suggests a revision to the boundary to the North.

Full text:

We do not consider that it is appropriate to remove the washed over Green Belt from the north of School Road. Paragraph 200 talks about the fact that due to existing development with minimal gaps it would appear logical to remove it from the Green Belt, however, we don't consider that there is a defensible boundary to the north of these gardens. By removing this 'washed over' Green Belt status we consider that the level of attempted development throughout this ribbon of houses and into the land behind would be inappropriate and could jeopardise the quality of the green belt surrounding Hockley Heath with no clear boundary. We don't consider that any release of the land to the South automatically suggests a revision to the boundary to the North.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9387

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr. James McBride

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

Unreasonable and unjustified to limit this re-assessment of Green Belt boundary to north of School Lane. Given the new development in north, the same
'washed over' Green Belt assessment should be carried out south of
Hockley Heath along Stratford Road. Site 14 does not have open character and green belt lower performing in GBA. Immediately adjacent development, represents natural extension of village, and part of built area as recognised in BLR assessment. Much of site previously developed, has defensible boundaries, is in sustainable location and will contribute to provision from small sites. Parish NDP Survey indicates greater community support likely.

Full text:

See letters 1-4

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9920

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Generator (Balsall) & Minton

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

Should site 25 be allocated then there would be no objection to the run of
development along School Road being removed from the Green Belt in the
interest of consistency and in line with Paragraph 361 of the SDLP 2016.

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: 9967

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

Should site 25 be allocated then there would be no objection to the run of development along School Road being removed from the Green Belt in the interest of consistency and in line with Paragraph 361 of the SDLP 2016.

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: 10007

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Stonewater

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

Should site 25 be allocated then there would be no objection to the run of
development along School Road being removed from the Green Belt in the
interest of consistency and in line with Paragraph 361 of the SDLP 2016

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: 10047

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr T Khan

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

Should site 25 be allocated then there would be no objection to the run of
development along School Road being removed from the Green Belt in the
interest of consistency and in line with Paragraph 361 of the SDLP 2016.

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: 10089

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

Should site 25 be allocated then there would be no objection to the run of
development along School Road being removed from the Green Belt in the
interest of consistency and in line with Paragraph 361 of the SDLP 2016.

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

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10442

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

Support proposed green belt boundary which would enable Site 49 to come forward as part of land supply, but consider that Site 49 should be removed from the green belt in its own right and allocated for development. Site contributes little to green belt, is in otherwise developed area and has clear defensible boundary. Site is accessible and sustainable, notwithstanding apparent contradiction in Accessibility Study which rates Site 25 higher despite lack of footway. Site is well served by public transport and can contribute to provision for small sites.

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: 10493

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard Rendle

Representation Summary:

School Road is narrow rural lane and unfit for purpose.
Very limited footway provision.
Existing parking problems, particularly around the school will be exacerbated.
Parts of School Road are dangerous due to speeding vehicles.
Flooding is an issue in the area.
Additional development will exacerbate these issues.
Noise and disturbance will be created throughout the build phase and ongoing noise and pollution thereafter.
Lack of facilities in the village including doctors surgery and pharmacy. The infrastructure is inadequate to support additional development, including the primary school and public transport.
Loss of amenity, flora, fauna, wildlife and trees.

Full text:

see letter re: objecting to development in Hockley Heath

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10499

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Mr T Thomas

Representation Summary:

The plan removes the last green belt within the village.
School Road is rural and already a serious problem for traffic and cyclists using it. Additional development together with traffic from Blythe Valley using it as a "rat run" will make it far worse.
Site 25 will increase the size of Hockley Heath by 12% according to figures in this LDP. Adding the sites to the north of the road adds another 50 houses making 19% growth. With the new housing completed last year, this brings this to 25% growth in the village putting unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure.

Full text:

I do not agree for the following reasons:
1. The plan removes what is effectively the last green belt within the village, certainly the last in School Road.
When the next LDP consultation takes place in under 15 years more land will be needed and should be taken into account in developing this plan. Current Amber and Red sites should be reconsidered in the light of this rather than the current short term view.
2. School road is rural and already recognised as a serious problem for trafic and cyclist using it. 150 new homes together with traffic from the major Blythe Valley development using it as a "rat run"ill only make it far worse.
3.Site 25 as planned will increase the size of Hockley Heath by 12% according to figures in this LDP. Adding the sites to the north of the road adds another 50 houses making 19% growth. With the new housing completed last year by Waterloo housing and Spitfire brings his to 25% growth in the village putting unacceptable pressure on the local infrastructure.