Question 34 - Washed Over Green Belt Settlements for Potential Removal
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9980
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land
Agent: DS Planning
Yes the washed over status of these settlements should be removed
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.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10020
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Stonewater
Agent: DS Planning
Agree that the settlements/areas should be removed from the Green Belt
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: 10060
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr T Khan
Agent: DS Planning
The proposed removal from the Green Belt of the settlement of Tidbury Green and the properties along Widney Manor Road would be fully supported providing:
a) The properties along Norton Lane up to Rumbush Lane were to be included within the new inset area, Norton Lane providing the southernmost Green Belt Boundary
b) All the properties along Widney Manor Road being taken out of the Green Belt with the eastern boundary of the Green Belt being relocated from the railway line to Widney Manor road.
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
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10102
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd
Agent: DS Planning
Agree that the settlements/areas should be removed from the Green Belt
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
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10183
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr P Benton and Mr T Neary
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.
See Letters
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10269
Received: 13/03/2019
Respondent: Brian Henry Garman
I am responding to the Consultation regarding the proposed downgrading of the Green Belt land in Widney Manor Road, that includes my property.
My view is that there appears to be no need to change the status of this relatively small area of land and leave it open to possible development. I strongly believe that the Planning Inspector's decision (Appeal Ref: App/Q4625/A/10/2133554) to dismiss the appeal in respect of an outline application for residential development on land r/114-118 Widney Manor Road and the reasons for it in 2011 still apply. The protection of Green Belt status should stand.
I am responding to the Consultation regarding the proposed downgrading of the Green Belt land in Widney Manor Road, that includes my property.
My view is that there appears to be no need to change the status of this relatively small area of land and leave it open to possible development and I strongly believe that the Planning Inspector's decision and the reasons for it in 2011 still apply and the protection of Green Belt status should stand.
Copies of relevant documents are enclosed, which include the letter of objection by many local residents, which has my full support.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10347
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Susan Roberts
Widney Manor Road
- Strongly object to the possible removal of the Green Belt Status of Widney Manor Road.
- Not clear if the land proposed to be removed is just site 134 or sites 205 and 308 too.
- Do not see how r/o 114-118 Widney Manor Road could provide any compensation provision given its size and shape.
- Paragraph 378 of the consultation document is in contrast to the Solihull Strategic Green Belt Assessment (July 2016). This evidence base has been ignored in the assessment.
-Removal of the Green Belt status would be contrary to: the Solihull LDF Core Strategy Assessment of Green Belt Submission (October 2011); the previous planning application that was refused on the site r/o 114-118 Widney Manor Road in July 2010 and the Appeal decision (APP/Q4625/A/10/2133554)that was dismissed on the site in 2011. The position has not changed since these assessments.
- the embankment and wildlife corridor adjacent to the 'Spinney development' may be adversely affected.
- Proposal would not create a logical roll back of the Green Belt boundary as land to the north and south would remain in Green Belt.
- Exceptional circumstances required by paragraphs 135 and 136 of the NPPF (2019) do not exist.
- Previously developed land excludes residential gardens (paragraph 138 in the NPPF (2019).
Reference Sites 134, 205 and 308
I strongly object to the removal of these areas from the Green Belt. Site 134 was the subject of a refused Planning Application (2010/2) and the Appeal which followed was dismissed at the Inquiry. I can see nothing which has changed to now justify the removal of these sites from the Green Belt.
see supporting letter and appendices
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10352
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Ivan Lewis
Widney Manor Road
- I would like to register my strongest objection to the possibility of the Green Belt status changing.
- Widney Manor Road is a unique road within Solihull and indeed has been referred to well outside the borough for its charm and character despite being so close to Solihull Town Centre.
- Back garden development(s)would change character of area
Few people on Widney Manor Road have been consulted on this.
- Whole topic of changing green belt areas across Solihull is not just for people living within a small distance of said sites it is for everyone living in the borough.
- Council's should assess alternatives to giving up Green Belt. ie.'brownfield sites'.
- Land in question includes a wildlife corridor which has seen significant improvement in the numbers of badgers, deer etc since the last applications for back garden devt was submitted some 9 years or so ago.
- Please keep me informed regarding the next stages of the consultation process.
Regarding the possibility of Solihull Council changing the status of green belt land on Widney Manor Road I would like to register my strongest. objection.
Widney Manor Road is a unique road within Solihull and indeed has been referred to well outside the borough for its charm and character despite being so close to Solihull Town Centre.
For the Council to even consider the risk of changing the character of the road by allowing the possibility of back garden development(s) is concerning to say the least.
What is also concerning is that so few people on Widney Manor Road have been consulted on this.
The whole topic of changing precious green belt areas across Solihull is not just for people living within a small distance of said sites it is for everyone living in the borough.
Whilst understanding that the Council has obligations regarding housing I would want to be convinced by the Council that no stone has been left unturned to look at alternatives to giving up Green Belt. What is being done to develop 'brownfield sites' for instance?
The land in question includes a wildlife corridor which has seen significant improvement in the numbers of badgers, deer etc since the last applications for back garden devt was submitted some 9 years or so ago.
Please keep me informed regarding the next stages of the consultation process.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10354
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Jon Sellars
GREEN BELT MUST BE PROTECTED AT ALL COSTS!!!
Why are you insisting on destroying green belt land - this must be protected. When it is gone - it is gone forever!
What provisions are you making to replace any that you are destroying
GREEN BELT MUST BE PROTECTED AT ALL COSTS!!!
Why are you insisting on destroying green belt land - this must be protected. When it is gone - it is gone forever!
What provisions are you making to replace any that you are destroying?
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10529
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Jean Walters
Tidbury Green should be retained as a "washed over" Green Belt status as there has more an excess of recent development which has adversely affected the character of the settlement. Widney Manor, Whitlocks End and Cheswick Green should be removed from the "washed over "allocation to allow for some smaller developments that would not affect the openness of the Green Belt and add to the housing land supply.
see letter attached
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10554
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: The Home Builders Federation Midland Region
The status of Cheswick Green, Millison's Wood, Tidbury Green, Whitlock's End and Widney Manor Road should be determined in accordance with the 2019 NPPF (para 139).
See Letter