Question 39 - Red Sites

Showing comments and forms 121 to 150 of 188

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9791

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr D Edmonds

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9795

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs M Edmonds

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9799

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs E A Seal

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9803

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Leslie Eustace

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9807

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs B Stanley

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9811

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr J Stanley

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9815

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs C Cavigan

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9819

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs J Bliss

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9823

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs P Green

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9827

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr D Perks

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9831

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Rita Perks

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9834

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr James Hamilton

Representation Summary:

There are alternative sites for building rather than narrowing the gap at this point (near site 1/Meriden Gap)
Section 15 and Paragraph 405 for example show Sites - No.76 and No.212 at Cornets End Lane which could provide a new settlement without narrowing down the Meriden Gap.

Full text:

To whom it may concern,

I wish to respond to SMBC's Draft Local Plan and, in particular, to the section on their intentions for Balsall Common - Barratt's Farm development.

I appreciate the need for additional housing in the borough and that Balsall Common will be expected to accomodate it's fair share of these. However, careful thought must be given to the preservation of the Green Belt in the Meriden gap to prevent further urban sprawl narrowing the areas of open land between Coventry, Solihull and Birmingham.

This is particularly an issue in the proposals for Site 1 - Barratt's Farm. Paragraph 96 of the Draft Plan states that the planned developments will enhance the Green Belt. How can this be the case when Barratt's Farm is the narrowest point of the Meriden Gap - only just over a mile wide at this point. Coventry have already made plans to build up to the Solihull Borough Boundary in Berkswell whilst Warwickshire are already building additional housing at Burton Green. SMBC's plans will further erode the Meriden Gap. Once land is released from the Green Belt (Paragraph 97) it can never be reclaimed and the benefit of the Meriden Gap will be lost for ever. SMBC's plan suggests the need for a strong defensible eastern boundary to the Green Belt which in effect narrows it. There are alternative sites for building rather than narrowing the gap at this point. Section 15 and Paragraph 405 for example show Sites - No.76 and No.212 at Cornets End Lane which could provide a new settlement without narrowing down the Meriden Gap.

Interestingly, there is no mention of the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan for Berkswell - something we have worked hard on to maintain and preserve the rural character of this area. Meriden's NDP and Hampton-in-Arden's NDP have been taken into consideration but not Berkswell's. Why not? The Riddings development is a prime example of how housing can be built so that rural character can be kept and the resulting traffic impact can be minimized by thoughtful road planning. The open park spaces are a great (and vital) amenity which are well used and bring together older and newer housing areas and people.

Relating to Paragraph 95 - The Concept Master Plan states an intention to develop a tract of open space running through the majority of Barratt's Farm to achieve the 'Riddings Hill' type of development. There doesn't appear to be clear evidence in the plan that this will be the case. The 'low density housing' proposals and the 'potential area for development' on the 'SMBC's Illustrative Emerging Concept Plan' (page 14) will completely fill the area between older and new housing - nothing like the exemplary Riddings Hill development. The proposed 'by-pass' runs right through the middle of this 'Tract of Open Land' too lessening it's recreational use. Unavoidable perhaps - more open parkland could be included in the development area to the west of the bypass to offset this.

Relating to Paragraph 95 - The Concept Master Plan also states the intention of incorporating the long-established use of playing field/recreational space into the broader aspect of informal and formal recreational facilities. Why then, for the Barratt's Farm proposal, has it earmarked the playing field behind the Catholic Church on Meeting House Lane as and area for 'low density housing'? On a personal note, this field (Very recently the Catholic Church has fenced it off) has been extensively used, for many years, by village residents for recreational activities - football, etc. I have lived in Balsall Common since 1996 (23 years) - my children (and many other local children) have grown up using and enjoying it. A real worry for me is that if the low density housing were to be built on the playing field, where would the access point to the site be. Suggestions I have heard show access through Oxhayes Close. This would be highly dangerous both for vehicles, pedestrians and residents. The junction between Oxhayes Close and Meeting House Lane has a very restricted line of sight making it extremely unsuitable for an increase in traffic. Detailed traffic analysis would need to be done on the junction?

Looking at the emerging concept plan for Barrett's Farm, it is insufficiently developed to enable a clear assessment to be made by myself as a resident. I find it difficult to fully assess it's impact and I have many concerns which it fails to address. I suggest that it is essential that any building work should be kept on hold until HS2 construction in the area is complete and the major access points (Station Road and Waste Lane) to the bypass constructed. With the massive disruption HS2 is likely to bring to this area it should be possible for SMBC to prioritize building in other areas within the Borough before development here. Any piecemeal development of Barratt's Farm must be avoided until a stronger concept plan for the whole site is in place.

It would make sense for all development on Barrett's Farm to only use access points onto the proposed bypass. Matching the Riddings Hill development and routing the bulk of additional traffic away from the con-jested Village Centre.

If the whole area proposed to be released from the Green Belt were to be developed fully it could result in over 2000 homes (stated in the SMBC 2013 Local Plan) being built on Barrett's Farm alone. A huge increase in cars in the village and overwhelming pressure on village infrastructure not to mention pollution worries.

Enhancements to the Village Centre are mentioned in the Plan but a thorough analysis of the impact of new housing on the centre and village as a whole needs to be undertaken to look at the effect of increasing the population of our village by 50% before committing to additional housing.

Finally, what is SMBC's justification for selecting Balsall Common for much of the Council's housing needs?

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9839

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Christopher Read

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9843

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Francoise Read

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9848

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr David Davies

Representation Summary:

Red Site ref 56- Clopton Crescent
Green Space should not be used to build more houses.
Additional development will result in more traffic, increased congestion and delays as well as being unsafe for children to walk to school.
Property values will reduce.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9851

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Schools of King Edward VI in Birmingham

Agent: Avison Young

Representation Summary:

SHELAA Site 11, Widney Manor Road.
Do not agree with categorisation as a red site. Contend this is a consequence of: i) a flawed site selection methodology; and ii) flawed judgements that have been applied in the assessment of Site 111.
- Disagree that site is isolated, as reflected in PBA SHELAA
- Site has medium accessibility as referred to in evidence
- SA and Accessibility Study differ in assessment of proximity to primary school
- Disagree with Green Belt Assessment, should be lower performing parcel
- SHELAA Assessment is incorrect, is not in a Flood Zone
- Site promoter working with Cadent Gas on gas pipeline
- Disagree with Landscape Assessment's relevance to site
- Disagree with elements of Sustainability Appraisal (see letter)
- Site has achievable capacity of 79 dwellings.

Full text:

See Letters 1 & 2

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9882

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Stephen Dunn

Agent: Sworders

Representation Summary:

Site 110 should be a green site.
Since the assessment, the site has been reduced in area and there is possible links with site 98.
The site would now score very highly in accessibility for all facilities and would be adjacent to the village centre. There would be a reduction in encroachment into the countryside and less impact on Green Belt. Comments relating to the majority of the site being detached from the main settlement and there being limited development present are now irrelevant. A defensible Green Belt boundary could be created through a track and field boundaries.

Full text:

Sworders act on behalf of Mr. Stephen Dunn, landowner of Site 110 - Land to the south of 114 Kenilworth Road. The representations are submitted in response to the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation, January 2019.

We wish to comment on the following 3 questions:
Question 2: Do you agree with the methodology of the site selection process, if not why not and what alternative/amendment would you suggest?
Question 37: What compensatory provision should be made for land being removed
from the Green Belt? Where relevant give examples that are specific to individual sites proposed for allocation.
Question 39: Are there any red sites which you believe should be included; if so which one(s) and why?

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9887

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Mr T Thomas

Representation Summary:

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.

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.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9895

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Representation Summary:

We strongly object to the way in which Site 426 has been assessed in the site selection process
see letter for detail

Full text:

see letter land South Broad Lane Berkswell

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9937

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Generator (Balsall) & Minton

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

Site 338-Land adj Harpers Field, Balsall Common
Other sites appear to be reliant on delivery of HS2 or the Bypass.
Site 3 would stretch much further south and have greater impact on Green Belt.
Site 338 only fails on the lack of defensible Green Belt boundaries to the south and west. This is disputed.
The site is no further from the centre than the sites allocated in the 2013 Local Plan.
Site assessment is incorrect as there is a footpath alongside the site.
Green Belt Assessment conclusions are disputed as the site context has changed.
Site easy to deliver.

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: 9947

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Councillor Chris Williams

Number of people: 3

Representation Summary:

Site 53
Agree that Bluebell Recreation Ground is unsuitable for development. It's a popular local park and other land is already being lost to HS2 nearby.

Site 221
Agree that the Onward Club green space is unsuitable for development, as it's a recreational area used for sports.

Site 225
Needs redevelopment to make better use of space.

Site 54
strongly agree that this green space is well used recreational space of significant value. It was donated philanthropically to the predecessor local authority to be used for recreational activity. Concerned that there could be some development at the bottom part of the site, behind the Family Tree Club on Clopton Crescent. A Council depot was placed on this land in the past despite there being a Covenant on all of the playing field. Returning this land to green space would return the land to its original use.
Site 56
Agree this site is unviable and not sensible to develop. Most of it is already well developed with popular, socially-rented bungalows and a Public House that has received recent investment.

Full text:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft Local Plan. As Chelmsley Wood ward Councillors, we would like to comment on the proposals in Chelmsley Wood and North Solihull specifically
COUNCILLOR C WILLIAMS
COUNCILLOR K MACNAUGHTON
COUNCILLOR J BURN

see detail in attached letetr

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9983

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

Part of site 340 lies within previous site 13. These should still be included as allocations.
The suggested advantages of site 26 over site 13 are not accepted. Site 13 has not been dismissed for technical reasons. Similar site issues e.g. coalescence, maintaining a Green Belt gap apply equally to other sites but are not referenced. These can be mitigated on Site 13.
Masterplanning of sites 11, 12, 13 together in terms of infrastructure, form
and content made complete sense.
Site 26 is within a highly performing Green Belt parcel; site 13 is not.

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: 10064

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr T Khan

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

Land at 15,59,61 Jacobean Lane should be included as an
allocation.
The site appears to fail on Green Belt and accessibility issues. Access onto Jacobean Lane can be created thereby improving accessibility. Commentary suggesting difficulties in establishing a new defensible boundary is contested.
Boundary fencing with substantial tree and hedgerow planting provides firm and defensible Green Belt boundaries. The site performs equally well or better in Green Belt terms than some allocations.
It is clearly part of and relates well to the village in terms of its character layout and context.

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: 10106

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

Oak Farm (site 24) allocation should include the full extent of the original submission (Site Ref 136).
The Boundary of the site would make a firmer and more defendable Green Belt Boundary than that currently identified. Roads have been identified as defensible boundaries on other sites; this is no different.
The omitted land makes little contribution to landscape quality or the purposes of the Green Belt.
From the traffic island on the eastern edge of the village, the site is clearly part of the settlement; Friday Lane being the visual boundary between the settlement and open countryside.

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: 10115

Received: 27/02/2019

Respondent: Ms Anne Stewart

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10131

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: L&Q Estates - Land at Bickenhill Road, Marston Green

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

Based on the inconsistency with the site selection assessment of sites that has
been demonstrated fully within the Landscape and Visual Statements (Appendix
2) it is considered that site 195 Land at Damson Parkway should be included as
an Amber site if not a Green site, particularly given the neighbouring sites to the
south of the Grand Union Canal have been included as a Proposed Housing
allocation - Site 16 for development of up to 600 dwellings.

Full text:

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 Damson Parkway, Solihull, and comprises the following attached 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)

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10135

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: L&Q Estates - Land at Bickenhill Road, Marston Green

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

Based on the inconsistency with the site selection assessment of sites that has
been demonstrated fully within the Landscape and Visual Statements (Appendix
2) it is considered that site 199 Land at Four Ashes Road should be included as a
Green or Amber site.

Full text:

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 Four Ashes Road, Dorridge, and comprises the following attached 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)

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10141

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Star Planning and Development

Representation Summary:

Land at Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green site reference 99 should be deleted from green belt when new boundary for settlement is defined and allocated for housing or safeguarded for longer-term development needs. Site has no insurmountable constraints, would not be visually intrusive and would have defensible green belt boundary. Site could provide 130-140 dwellings based on landscape-led approach. An up to date site assessment is provided to replace the site assessment prepared by the Council.

Full text:

6. Richborough Estates is supportive of the Consultation Document's reference to removing Cheswick Green from the Green Belt, particularly where there is the unusual situation of Mount Dairy Farm not being within the Green Belt but all the other properties in the settlement are. It is clear planning sense that a settlement of some 900 dwellings, together with a good range of local facilities, ought not to be washed over by the Green Belt because it makes little contribution to openness of the Green Belt.

7. However, in removing Cheswick Green from the Green Belt the opportunity should be taken to identify either at least one housing allocation or, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework, safeguarded land to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period.

8. The need to identify additional allocations, including at Cheswick Green, arises from Richborough Estates' answer to Question 1. It is considered inevitable that further housing allocations will need to be identified in the emerging Local Plan. Cheswick Green is a settlement where no allocations are currently proposed notwithstanding the settlement being served by public transport and having local facilities and services, including a primary school, parade of shops, public house, community hall and sporting facilities. The accessibility and sustainability credentials of Cheswick Green were recognised by the allocation and subsequent housing development at Mount Diary Farm (Cheswick Place).

9. These same accessibility and locational credentials, alongside the first opportunity to define a boundary, provide the basis for the identification of safeguarded land at Cheswick Green to meet longer-term development needs.

10. Promotional Brochure is being prepared by Richborough Estates for the land fronting Tanworth Lane which lies between the recent housing development at Mount Diary Farm and Highleys Farm. The land is referred to as Site 99 in the Borough Council's Site Assessment document.

11. The Brochure will be submitted to the Council and will identify how the site could come forward for housing development for circa 130-140 dwellings. Based upon the content of this Brochure, and consideration of the wider evidence based published by the Council, an up-date assessment of this site has been undertaken upon the Site Assessment's criteria and this is included at the end of this representation. Also attached to this representation is the draft illustrative master plan which shows how the site could come forward for development. The approach adopted will be explained in more detail the Promotional Brochure.

12. A landscape-led approach to the master planning of the site has been adopted as a key principle with the existing boundary vegetation being retained and creation of a physical and defensible Green Belt boundary. Areas of open space are identified which provide the opportunity for biodiversity benefits of the type of compensatory improvements to environmental quality and accessibility sought by the Framework when land is released from the Green Belt.

13. Other than Green Belt, there are no policy or insurmountable physical constraints to the development of the site for as illustrated in the Promotional Brochure.

14. There would be the opportunity to provide for a range of dwelling types and sizes at a density that respects the adjacent pattern of development and the site's location on the edge of Cheswick Green. Housing on the site would not be visually intrusive within the wider landscape setting of Cheswick Green when viewed from the surrounding countryside, nor would it pose issues of wider coalescence.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10150

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: L&Q Estates - Land at Bickenhill Road, Marston Green

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

Based on the inconsistency with the site selection assessment of sites that has
been demonstrated fully within the Landscape and Visual Statements (Appendix
2) it is considered that Land at Bickenhill Road, Marston Green in accordance with
the Council's own assessment site should be at least an Amber, if not a Green
site.

Full text:

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 Bickenhill Road Marston Green , 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)

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10159

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: L&Q Estates - Land at Bickenhill Road, Marston Green

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

Based on the inconsistency with the site selection assessment of sites that has
been demonstrated fully within the Landscape and Visual Statements (Appendix
2) it is considered that there are three sites that should be removed from being
assessed as Red sites and moved into Amber, including Site 197 land at Berkswell Road, Meriden.
Utilising this site would enable a less intensive scheme more in keeping with a semi-rural settlement on Site 10, and spread development on smaller scale sites.

Full text:

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)

Attachments: