Question 39 - Red Sites

Object

Representation ID: 8703

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs K Drakes

Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement

Object

Representation ID: 8742

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Jeanette McGarry

Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement.

Object

Representation ID: 8767

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land at Fulford Hall Road

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Strongly believe that our Client's site (reference 404) should be included as a 'green'
site.

Object

Representation ID: 8790

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land at Widney Manor Road

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

LAND AT WIDNEY MANOR ROAD: SITE REFERENCE 407 should be included as a 'green' site. Object it has been assessed as 'red'. We do not agree with the conclusion that it will have 'severe or widespread impacts that are not outweighed by the benefits of the proposal'. The site is in one of the most sustainable locations in the Borough. There are no constraints which can't be mitigated. Has strong defensible green belt boundaries. Would achieve 100% affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 8807

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land North of School Road

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

We consider our Client's site (reference 416) should be included as a 'green' site. Site is well enclosed by defensible boundaries to the west by Ashford Lane and a detached dwelling; to the south by School Road and a detached dwelling; and to the north by another detached dwelling and agricultural buildings. Do not agree that landscape presents a constraint to development, the character assessment is broad in nature and a more site-specific assessment would arrive at a different conclusion having regard to the context of this site. A number of larger allocations have similar landscape characteristics. Site adjacent to 84 School Lane is assessed as green and our site could result in an identical conclusion. Site contains good accessibility to services and facilities in the village. This includes Hockley Heath Primary School and a bus service to Dorridge, which contains a rail station with direct links to Solihull and Birmingham. Other nearby services in Hockley Heath can be accessed by a short walk or cycle. Hockley Heath should be higher in the settlement hierarchy and identified as suitable for higher levels of growth.
We consider that Hockley Heath is a sustainable location for additional housing growth as it has a sufficient range of services and facilities within the village, including a primary school.

There are no constraints which cannot be mitigated, including heritage, flooding, ecology, trees and access. Development here would not adversely impact upon the character of the settlement.
Improved accessibility is proposed for properties along School Road to and from the village centre through the provision of a footpath.
The site is in single ownership and is available for development with no legal or ownership problems.
It is free from significant constraints and there is strong market demand for housing in this area, it can therefore be considered deliverable (from the point of Local Plan adoption) in terms of the definition within the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 8828

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land West of Stratford Road

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Consider our Client's site (SHELAA Ref. 417) should be included as a 'green' site:
- Site should score similarly to land adj. to 84 School Road
- Green Belt gap not too narrow
- Landscape buffer can be added to site
- Site has capacity to provide land for community infrastructure such as primary school, sports pitches, GP surgery
- Hockley Heath should be placed higher in the spatial strategy hierarchy of settlements, as a sustainable location with services and regular bus service to Dorridge & Solihull.
- Site is suitable, achievable and available now.

Comment

Representation ID: 8865

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land South of Park Lane

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Land South of Park Lane should be included as a 'green' site when considered for employment use.

Comment

Representation ID: 8911

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Kler Group - Gentleshaw Lane

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

- Two red sites should be upgraded to amber and arguably green: Site 135 (land at Dorridge Road, Dorridge) and Site 107 (Land at Gentleshaw Lane, Knowle).
- Site 135: Council's main constraint is the site's lack of strong Green Belt boundary raising concerns over the site's impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the need to release additional land. Do not agree with this view as defensible boundaries are clear especially when considering the 2 parcels in the site assessment (which is not made clear in Councils' accompanying map) as distinct from the 4 parcels assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal.
- Site 107: Site is considered 'amber' in the tabulated assessment and 'red' within the site assessment map with no explanation for the drafting error. Site is in a highly sustainable location and would represent a 'rounding off' of the settlement in this location. The presence of TPOs and a high pressure gas line should be afforded a moderate weighting which they are not granted in the Councils' assessment. Both of these issues can be easily mitigated.

Object

Representation ID: 8932

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: St Philips Land - Land at Smiths Lane Browns Lane & Widney Manor Road

Agent: Lichfields

St Philips consider that Site 503, 1.7ha of land east of Stratford Road, Hockley Heath should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for development to meet the future housing needs of the settlement, in conjunction with land off Aylesbury Road in Warwick District, which will be promoted through the review of the Warwick District Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 8970

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Kealie Ahmad

Re-assess site 48, Earlsmere House (in isolation or together with others sites in the same location) taking account of current committed developments in the area and now Amber proposed. All are huge and have a massive impact on the openness of the greenbelt. Accessibility assessment is incorrect -Site is closer to the GP surgery, food store, transport, than most on Cheswick Green and Blythe Valley. Landscape sensitivity assessment is inconsistent. Extensive traveler sites, resulting in land taken out of greenbelt not even mentioned in landscape assessment. The site falls within spatial strategy plans. Councils assessment is dishonest.

Comment

Representation ID: 9004

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin

Whilst this is a necessary question, I envisage only developers will respond.
The reason being, the site assessment document is separate. It is some 674 pages long. It is an unrealistic ask for residents to contribute, except on sites they have already become aware of. Even then, the likelihood of them finding the exact site is low.

Comment

Representation ID: 9019

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Hulse

I support the response made by the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum

Comment

Representation ID: 9023

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Hulse

I support the submission made by the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum

Comment

Representation ID: 9048

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association

We support the fact that Grange Farm, Balsall Common site has not been selected as it is productively farmed Green Belt land with no defensible boundaries, and if selected would have left it open to urban sprawl towards Birmingham and loss of the Meriden Gap.

We question why the triangle of land off the A452 between Park Lane and Lavender Hall Lane Balsall Common to be used by HS2 as a works compound for 6 years has not been chosen as a site, and believe this should be included.

Comment

Representation ID: 9073

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Antony Cooper

Site 413 and Site 207
Believes level of development in KDBH is excessive without further amber or red sites because of excessive congestion which will occur, inadequate roads leading to road safety issues, increased strain on local services and the developments being out of character with the existing built environments.

It is difficult to understand why site 413 is amber and site 207 is red. 207 has greater separation, is more in line with the KDBH Neighbourhood Plan, is more in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and has better and easier access to Solihull Town Centre.

Object

Representation ID: 9099

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Hatfield

Grange Farm, Balsall Common (Sites 142, 198 & 233)
Grange Farm is not included at all and I feel that this is a much better option and the land is also owned by a sole developer. I do not know why the green points for this area are not better than Barratt's Farm.

Comment

Representation ID: 9105

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Dr Lucy Hillman

There are alternative sites between Knowle and Solihull which would be far better served locally if developed rather than green belt land in Knowle and Dorridge. The access to the M42 easier, access to more parking, larger shopping facilities, schools, more surgeries, employment opportunities, public transport links etc and better infrastructure surrounding for e.g.red Site 207 would be a far better site to develop than the green belt land of Knowle.

Support

Representation ID: 9107

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr. Andreas Welzel

I support inclusion of Site reference 84. Currently this is unused wasteland and an eyesore. In 2018 planning application was already granted for 2 4-bed bungalows on the east end of the site. So it would make sense to include the entire strip for housing, ideally Self build/ custom build. It would then join a larger more coherent area with the west of Dickens Heath site and the (currently amber) site Land r/o 146 to 152 Tilehouse Lane.

Support

Representation ID: 9115

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Yichae Doh

Please include the land south of Houndsfield Lane (reference 84). I believe this is perfect for self-build. We registered on the Right to build register and building our own home on this land we could free up our space on the register. Last year planning permission for two dormer bungalows was granted for the east end of this site, where previously there was only a small dilapidated workshop. Following this precedence, I believe it is preferable to include the land in the local plan to help enabling a more orderly development, rather than having the owners press individually for permission.

Object

Representation ID: 9131

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Dr Paul Rylah

It's not clear to me if the area north of Hockley Heath, bordering and south of the M42 between junctions 4 and 5, comes under this section. If so then I object to the omission of this site for development. It would cause the least disruption and traffic congestion in comparison to nearby earmarked development sites around Hockley Heath, Knowle and Dorridge , is extensive enough that it can be developed whilst still maintaining the "Solihull Gap", offers close transport links to Solihull, Birmingham and beyond, and would have the least impact on nearby settlements. It's a no brainier!

Object

Representation ID: 9168

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr H Keene

Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement.

Object

Representation ID: 9184

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs L Keene

Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement.

Object

Representation ID: 9188

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Clifford Gledhill

Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement.

Object

Representation ID: 9192

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Ronald A Smith

Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement.

Object

Representation ID: 9196

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs June E Smith

Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement.

Object

Representation ID: 9200

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr T N Walton

Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement.

Object

Representation ID: 9201

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: IM Properties

Agent: Marrons Planning

Red site 62: Land Adjacent Shirley Golf Course.
This Priority 5 site in the council's site hierarchy should be identified as a 'green site', as the assessment for Site 62 does not support the Step 2 refinement from potential allocation to a site with significant harmful impacts. There are no significant impacts on the green belt, as the gap between settlements would not be reduced and is much greater than maintained from other allocations, or on landscape character, as other sites allocated in the same LCA Area and there is no finer-grained assessment. Site should be categorised as high accessibility rather than medium/high, as footway can be provided and Accessibility Mapping score of 40 is incorrect, should be 100. Site has a strong defensible boundary with the golf course to the south.

Object

Representation ID: 9210

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Tanworth Educational Foundation

Agent: Hancock Town Planning

Objects to the omission of Red Site 57: land adjoining 2102 Stratford Road, Hockley Heath. Has same accessibility assessment as allocated site 25.
The site is also assessed as being within a lower performing green belt and landscape character area as site 25. The only difference between the two sites appears t be that the Borough Council has concluded 'it would be difficult to establish a new logical and defensible green belt boundary in this location'. Green belt boundaries are very defensible and site 57 is a separate visually self contained parcel of vacant land clearly differentiated from open farmland. Disagree site has high landscape sensitivity and very low capacity to accommodate change. This is based on fact site falls within large landscape character assessment area 2, inadequate for assessing 0.12 ha site fronting busy A3400. Land opposite four storey Hockley Court business space and relates to built up area of Hockley Heath. Contributes little towards purposes of the green belt. Is visually separated from wider landscape, opposite to substantial multistorey buildings, is a very small site which would not erode the gap between settlements, is not within open countryside already bounded and fenced off, Hockley Heath is not a historic town and development of this site could enhance approach to village, would have no impact on urban regeneration elsewhere

Object

Representation ID: 9223

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs J King

Agent: PRW Strategic Advice

CFS 69- relatively close to the Birmingham-Stratford rail line & stations and local services, is underused, includes a vacant house and commercial buildings, is shielded from wider views by trees and by existing development in Norton Lane and Rumbush Lane and is capable of an immediate start.

Site is well placed to provide a much needed boost to housing land supply with no significant detriment to strategic Green Belt functions, support public transport provision in the area and contribute appropriately to necessary funding for the development of the proposed Earlswood Living Landscape.

Comment

Representation ID: 9294

Received: 20/03/2019

Respondent: L&Q Estates and Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Avison Young

We are firmly of the view that the Grange Farm, Balsall Common site should be allocated for development and that the available technical evidence demonstrates that this is the case.
We take no issue with the Council's over-arching strategy of seeking to focus growth, first and foremost, on land beyond the Green Belt.
We also take no issue with the Council's acknowledgement that of the Growth Options commented on previously, Option A (High Frequency Public Transport Corridors and Hubs) - including around Balsall Common), offers considerable potential to deliver sustainable growth