Question 34 - Washed Over Green Belt Settlements for Potential Removal
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8271
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Richard Batchelor
Widney Manor Road
Changing the status would give developers a way in
Planning permission for development of the land behind 114-118 Widney Manor Road was refused in 2010. The traffic considerations in that appeal were not considered significant, but the situation in the road needs more detailed assessment before any development is considered.
It is good to see that the land to the east of the road remains in the green belt and forms a green corridor out of town maintaining the "urbs in rure" spirit of Solihull. Development such as that suggested by Rainier Developments - see https://www.rainierdevelopments.co.uk/strategic-land/widney-manor-road-solihull/ should be non-starters.
Changing the status would give developers a way in Planning permission for development of the land behind 114-118 Widney Manor Road was refused in 2010. The traffic considerations in that appeal were not considered significant, but the situation in the road needs more detailed assessment before any development is considered.
It is good to see that the land to the east of the road remains in the green belt and forms a green corridor out of town maintaining the "urbs in rure" spirit of Solihull. Development such as that suggested by Rainier Developments - see https://www.rainierdevelopments.co.uk/strategic-land/widney-manor-road-solihull/ should be non-starters.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8387
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Darren Douglas
We object to the possible removal of the Green Belt status of Widney Manor Road. We also strongly object to the possible inclusion of the land at Widney Manor Road and in particular, the rear of 114 to 118 Widney Manor Road, Solihull.
The Inspector's overall conclusion is that the significant harm that would be caused (which includes through loss of openness) would not be outweighed by provision of housing on this site.
Please see attached letter
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8476
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Lyn Holtham
These areas have changed in character and should be taken out of green Belt.
These areas have changed in character and should be taken out of green Belt.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8477
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Lyn Holtham
Taking these areas and Lady Byron and Grove Road out of the washed over Green Belt would open the way to potentially swallowing up larger areas of adjacent land with further loss high quality landscape and rural character.
Taking these areas and Lady Byron and Grove Road out of the washed over Green Belt would open the way to potentially swallowing up larger areas of adjacent land with further loss high quality landscape and rural character.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8495
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Simon Taylor
- Rationale for removal of washed over Green Belt status is questionable as it appears to be based upon the agreement to and development of recent sites which have contributed to inconsistencies in Green Belt Policy. The question should be why these recent developments were allowed, not to use it as the basis for further development and removal of washed over status.
- Also openness of settlements at sites identified above, very much add to openness of Green Belt
No, the removal of the washed over Green Belt status should not be allowed for these areas, in particular those identified at Whitlocks End, Tidbury Green and Cheswick Green as the openness of the settlements very much adds to the openness of the Green Belt. To suggest that existing housing development, constructed many years ago, should form the basis for a change in policy (on the basis that newer developments e.g. those at Cheswick Green conform to a different policy) is ridiculous and illogical. Surely the question should be why the newer developments were allowed when they clearly do not conform to the Green Belt Policy. To suggest an error of planning judgement in allowing the newer developments should form the basis of further errors in removing the status, is clearly flawed - two wrongs don't make a right!
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8537
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Joelle Hill
Tidbury Green has already seen substantial development and should not be increased any further.
Tidbury Green has already seen substantial development and should not be increased any further.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8574
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Robin Easterby
Please see attached letter. This is a blatant attempt at Garden Grabbing!!
(Letter not attached on JDi. Email sent 09.05.19 to respondent, Robin Easterby via PSP email address. Email reply on 09.05.19 stating that he was unable to resend letter but..."I suspect you may already have seen similar contents from other objecting residents on Widney Manor Road as it was a standard letter recommended by the Widney Manor Action Group. Basically I object to the proposed development as it would fundamentally change the nature of the area, is green belt, and is an example of garden grabbing at its worst. The traffic along Widney Manor Road has dramatically increased since I moved into 136 and the proposal will only make matters worse."
Please see attached letter. This is a blatant attempt at Garden Grabbing!!
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8655
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Birmingham City Council
BCC support the proposal in the Consultation document to remove certain villages/settlements from their current status of washed over green belt to help boost windfall housing provision and help maximise the delivery of sustainable homes.
BCC support the proposal in the Consultation document to remove certain villages/settlements from their current status of washed over green belt to help boost windfall housing provision and help maximise the delivery of sustainable homes.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8719
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Ian Hazlehurst
I object strongly to the proposal to change the Green Belt status of land bordering Widney Manor Road.
Solihull Council Planning Committee refused planning permission on land to the rear of 114- 118 Widney Manor Road in July 2010.This Application was dismissed on appeal in 2011. The reasons given included the harm the proposal would do to the Green Belt.
No justification in removing the GB designation (205&308). The moving of the GB would have not apparent benefit other than to property speculators
This draft Plan demonstrates a method of generating growth by 'Garden Grabbing'.
see attached letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8763
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land at Fulford Hall Road
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
In terms of Tidbury Green, yes, its washed over Green Belt should be removed. Further to this, given the matters we have raised above, we consider there are also exceptional circumstances to justify our Client's site being removed from the Green Belt. We suggest that the new Green Belt boundary runs along Rumbush Lane to the east and along the line of Big Dickens Wood and the new landscape
buffer proposed between our site and Dickens Heath Sports Club.
Please see covering letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8786
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land at Widney Manor Road
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
We consider that the revisions to the Green Belt boundary around Widney Manor Road should go further, with the new boundary located east of our Client's site along up to the Local Nature Reserve, as set out in our answer to question 2. We consider that given the nature of the site, and the contribution the affordable-led development will make to the Council's overall affordable housing requirements, this constitutes the exceptional circumstances required to justify this change to the Green Belt.
Please see covering letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8899
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Kler Group - Gentleshaw Lane
Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd
In the specific circumstances the washed over Green Belt status of settlement/areas should be removed since it will make for a more rational, logical and defensible boundary to the West Midlands Green Belt where it is situated within Solihull.
see attached document
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8998
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin
This section has not been delivered in an appropriate manner to elicit valuable contributions. The wording is confusing, and I expect there will be fewer responses, though with greater inconsistency.
If so, this will raise questions over the contribution that responses to this section make to the consultation. This can be addressed, in future, with an explanation that would adhere to the Crystal Mark standard of Plain English. Mapping alongside the questions is a simple addition that would elicit clearer and more indicative responses.
This section has not been delivered in an appropriate manner to elicit valuable contributions. The wording is confusing, and I expect there will be fewer responses, though with greater inconsistency.
If so, this will raise questions over the contribution that responses to this section make to the consultation. This can be addressed, in future, with an explanation that would adhere to the Crystal Mark standard of Plain English. Mapping alongside the questions is a simple addition that would elicit clearer and more indicative responses.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9119
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Colin Davis
How can anyone comment when there are no maps of the new boundaries. Green belt status should be retained and a more transparent process of consultation on the green belt undertaken before any changes are made.
How can anyone comment when there are no maps of the new boundaries. Green belt status should be retained and a more transparent process of consultation on the green belt undertaken before any changes are made
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9123
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Russell Blake
Washed over status of the areas listed can be removed. I am not able to state where new boundaries should be.
Washed over status of the areas listed can be removed. I am not able to state where new boundaries should be.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9147
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Councillor M Wilson
I find that this question will prove quite confusing and should be scaffolded so the average resident could understand the terminology. The terms need to be explained clearly. Maybe these be mapped alongside questions, to make it more clear what is required in the answer.
I find that this question will prove quite confusing and should be scaffolded so the average resident could understand the terminology. The terms need to be explained clearly. Maybe these be mapped alongside questions, to make it more clear what is required in the answer.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9217
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: F D Muntz
Agent: Hancock Town Planning
CFS ref: 328 Land at and r/o 84, 86 & 90 School Road, Hockley Heath Supports removal of site from green belt. Unless the change were made, site 49 would be an isolated 'island' of Green Belt land surrounded by built development. However believes it should be removed irrespective of whether the allocation of land south of School Road is confirmed. Land is bounded by extensive built development to the west and east and partially to the north. Is a small gap within otherwise largely built up area. site does not extend beyond current extent of Hockley Heath. Is not within open countryside, bounded on three sides. Row of trees on the frontage would be retained. Would not conflict with green belt purposes of preserving the historic setting of towns or assisting in urban regeneration. Site should be specifically allocated for residential development due to its accessibility and lack of site specific constraints. Has no viable use as part of an agricultural holding and would assist in diversifying housing supply in accordance with the NPPF.
See Letter
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9245
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Dickens Heath Parish Council
we accept the logic of removing washed over green belt status on these settlements particularly so on the Whitlock's End site back through to the Park & Ride with indications that local residents would support this.
See attached letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9366
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Summix (FHS) Developments Ltd
Agent: Framptons Planning
Concern over the way Fulford Hall Farm has been assessed within the site assessment report in relation to its contribution to the green belt and visual sensitivity. Significant errors in site assessment for Site 313. Step 1 should be priority 6 as accessibility high and moderately performing in Green Belt Assessment. Step 2 important judgements on green belt/landscape not based on robust evidence.
Assigning Broad Areas score of 3 for Purpose 3 in GBA is flawed/unsound and artificially inflates score. Evidence provided demonstrates site has limited impact on Purpose 3 and would not undermine remaining green belt.
Methodology to establish visual sensitivity in LCA muddled/poorly justified with no explanation how classification criteria assessed/judged. High classification based on ancient woodland not evident within site, whilst sub-urban influences in/around settlement ignored. Detailed robust evidence provided to show site well-contained, capable of accommodating development with limited visual impacts.
Please see attached representation
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9399
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr M Trentham
YES I welcome the Council's approach in para 376 to revise some parts of the Green Belt boundary to make it more logical, and to open up windfall development opportunities. I support the removal from Green Belt of the areas listed in para 378 together with those referred to in Q10 and Q21, and any others referred to in later chapters. It is highly desirable that Green Belt boundaries are logical, up to date, likely to be permanent, and where at all possible follow firm physical features, such as roads, rail lines, motorways, etc.
see letter of response re: Knowle sites
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9543
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Richard Lloyd
The new boundaries should be drawn tightly around the currently-developed
curtilages, and Local Green Space designation should be used to provide continued
protection of valued areas within the settlements.
see letter
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9576
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Bloor Homes
Agent: Savills
Support removal of Tidbury Green from the Green Belt to provide opportunities to deliver additional development and make better use of land which is currently constrained. Support the Council's recognition that Tidbury Green "does not have an open character that makes a contribution to the openness of the Green Belt". The Council should revisit the strategic position that Tidbury Green holds in terms of supporting future housing growth and connections to Whitlocks End station via Site Allocation 4. A strategic allocation and a removal of Green Belt wash should determine the boundary revisions that should be made to the settlement.
Please see attached representations and a detailed promotion document on behalf of my client, Bloor Homes, in response to the Solihull Local Plan Supplementary Consultation document.
Land East of Tilehouse Lane Tidbury Green
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9604
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Dickens Heath Residents Association
The Residents Association support the policy proposals at Whitlock's End and Cheswick Green subject to careful assessment of flooding issues at Cheswick Green sites.
Ref. Solihull Draft Local Plan Review - Supplementary Consultation January 2019
The Dickens Heath Residents Association welcomes the reduction in planned housing numbers on site 4 and deletion of site 13 with its access onto the B3102 Tanworth Lane Traffic Islands.
However based on the feedback from residents and the lack of information on addressing the existing traffic and infrastructure issues plus very widespread strong objections by the village to the Masterplan proposals to site 4 West of Dickens Heath we are objecting to the inclusion of this site.
In terms of the questionnaire we would respond to the relevant Questions as follows.
Scope of the consultation and overall assessment - while this indicates the objectives of the review when viewed in context it does not address the concerns raised by residents over existing well known traffic congestion issues and an inadequate rural highway network.
Dickens Heath Residents Association therefor strongly object to the Masterplan proposals for site 4.
A petition is being submitted to Solihull Council by Councillor Hawkins indicating some 1150 residents have lodged objection to site 4 in addition to a significant number of Emailed objections submitted to the Parish Council. We have also attended recent meetings at which the proposals have been presented and discussed and noted the level of objection and lack of any public support for the proposal at site 4.
Q 4 Blythe Infrastructure - its indicated highway improvements are only likely to be needed and off-street parking improvements at Dickens Heath only may be needed which does nothing to reassure residents that if site 4 were to be approved and included the council would provide the necessary infrastructure.
On sports and recreation lost provision is indicated as would be replaced but there are no sites indicated in the site 4 Masterplan.
The residents association regard it as a key priority that any future redevelopment ensures the existing sports grounds are retained within site 4
Q12 Site 4 Land West of Dickens Heath - while noting the councils laudable intentions to protect landscape features residents cannot be expected to support the inclusion of site 4 by writing a blank cheque for the proposed housing numbers given the experience of the totally inadequate highway infrastructure provided for the original Dickens Heath village as against its concept plan.
While it is understood that issues of highways and parking will be brought forward it is not possible to envisage how any satisfactory highway scheme could be implemented that would address both the proposed housing and ameliorate the existing congestion issues.
In respect of relocating the long established sports grounds for Old Yardleians Rugby Club, Highgate United FC, and Leafield FC these clubs have significant local support and the Residents Association would require alternative provision to an adequate standard within site 4.
The Residents Association is strongly opposed to an alternative more remote location into green belt countryside elsewhere.
Q14 Site 12 Land South of Dog Kennel Lane - this is adjacent to our Parish and impacts onto the main Dickens Heath traffic access. This site if included would need significant traffic attenuation measures.
Q34 Washed over green belt settlements - the Residents Association support the policy proposals at Whitlock's End and Cheswick Green subject to careful assessment of flooding issues at Cheswick Green sites.
Q38 Amber Sites - the Residents Association support the review and inclusion of all the Amber Sites as proposed.
Q40, 41, 42 & 43 Affordable Housing Policy - the Residents Association supports the retention of the existing unit number policy for measuring affordable housing provision.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9639
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: David Wilson Homes
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
Support proposal.
Significant areas of growth are now proposed for these settlements with the likely result being small pockets of land which no longer fulfil a Green Belt function.
For this reason, we do not consider it appropriate to remove just the built-up areas of the settlements themselves but to review the Green Belt boundaries as a whole in this area. Green Belt is a function and if adjoining parcels of land no longer serve that function then they should be removed from the Green Belt - adequate protection can be provided without the need for a formal Green Belt designation.
Given this is a non-statutory consultation, any review should occur with the identification and allocation of sites.
We are instructed by our client, David Wilson Homes Ltd, to submit representations to the supplementary consultation on the Draft Local Plan Review in relation to their interests at their site at Tidbury Green Golf Club (known as Arden Green).
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9661
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Michael & Marion Joyce
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Appropriate to consider whether washed over settlements should be retained in green belt.
On behalf of our Client Mrs M Joyce, we now formally submit on her behalf representations in connection with the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation.
The key question raised in the DSLPRSC is Question 39, which offers
an opportunity for our client to confirm she wishes her site to be included and the
reasons for that. In addition, this representation also addresses the following
questions: 2, 7, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 39 and 44.
see letter attached
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9694
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Belle Homes Ltd
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Agree appropriate to consider. Washed over designation for Whitlock's End should be removed and new boundaries defined. Settlement does not make an 'important
contribution' towards the openness of green belt, as the Green Belt Assessment of lower performing parcel indicates.
Introducing settlement boundaries provides opportunity for small or medium sized windfall sites, such as Call for Sites reference 116 rear of 146-152 Tilehouse Lane, which should be removed from the green belt.
We write on behalf of our Client, Belle Homes Limited in respect of Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Numbers 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green, Solihull B90 4JE. This letter is submitted in response to the current Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation (DSLPRSC
See detail in attached letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9710
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Landowners Wootton Green Lane
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Appropriate to consider whether washed over green belt is still in line with strategic policies. I t is inappropriate to include settlements that do not make an important contribution towards the openness of the green belt.
We write on behalf of our various Clients, who jointly own land described below:
Proposed Allocated Housing Site 22 - Trevallion Stud, Wootton Green
Lane, Balsall Common CV7 7BQ
Also including consideration of land west of No. 32 Wootton Green Lane Site
Reference 160
see detail in attached letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9713
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: NaCSBA
NaCSBA consider there is a strong opportunity to use the green belt designation to promote the types of homes needed within the borough. For example, the green belt designation could remain but the emerging plan could contain a policy which states that on infill sites and within villages in the green belt starter homes, affordable homes and self/custom build homes will be supported. This will prevent unrestricted urban sprawl as per the purpose of the green belt whilst allowing modest, small-scale developments of the type for which there is greatest need. An example is Policy H3 in Coventry City Local Plan. Washed over area of green belt should not be removed however a policy should be included stating Custom, self build, starter and affordable homes will be considered acceptable as part of limited infill within existing ribbon developments within the Green Belt where it is demonstrated that they do not have an adverse impact upon the openness and integrity of the wider Green Belt.
See attached document
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9899
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Jeanette McGarry
Concerned over the proposal to remove the green belt status of the land to the east of the Berkswell Windmill within the line of proposed new Balsall Bypass road. it is stated that it is not intended to release this land for housing. if that is so, why is it necessary to remove it from the Green Belt? It would be far better to retain both areas east and west of Windmill Lane within the Green Belt and take action to enhance their green belt status, rather than dismiss them offhand as low quality green belt as the proposals do.
See Letter
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9933
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Generator (Balsall) & Minton
Agent: DS Planning
Agree that the settlements/areas should be removed from the Green Belt
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