Question 44 Are there any other comments
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8650
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Birmingham City Council
As a key stakeholder in the development of the UK Central Hub, Birmingham City Council support the approach being taken particularly in relation to land at Arden Cross and at the NEC and the promotion of the site for high quality, high density mixed use development.
The delivery 2,500 dwellings at the NEC within the plan period will be subject to market conditions.
As a key stakeholder in the development of the UK Central Hub, Birmingham City Council support the approach being taken particularly in relation to land at Arden Cross and at the NEC and the promotion of the site for high quality, high density mixed use development.
The delivery 2,500 dwellings at the NEC within the plan period will be subject to market conditions.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8651
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Urban Growth Company
Agent: Mott MacDonald
Reiterates commitment and position of the UGC with regard to the UK Central Hub which should be taken into account in preparation of the pre submission version of the local plan. UGC is supportive of the commitment to the UKC Hub in the Draft Plan and supplementary document particularly regarding the sites contribution towards the delivery of homes.
Welcomes recognition of development potential of The Hub particularly overarching vision and set of place making principles which will create a distinct place. UGC is developing a framework that will allow landowners to invest and develop their sites but also contribute towards the infrastructure costs. Would welcome recognition of this and findings of updated HGIP and Framework Plan within the pre-submission plan.
Is supportive of increase in housing to be accommodated on site. Site selection methodology has been reviewed the UGC agrees with methodology in relation to The Hub.
Principles of Policy P1 in Draft are supported and requests that policy provides enough flexibility to develop in a phased manner. Further clarity in the policy on the range of uses to be accommodated would be welcomed. UGC is working with landowners and key stakeholders and would like to provide further information to SMBC to support the development of the policy in relation to this.
Requests that the timetable for the pre-submission draft is confirmed to allow UGC to input.
Seeks further clarity in P1 on the need to provide high quality place making across The Hub respecting the uniqueness of each economic asset.
Please see attached Cover Letter prepared by Mott MacDonald (agent).
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8657
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Cooper
Agent: Roebuck Land and Planning Ltd
Please see attached representation and plan.
We wish the Land East of Nailcote Farm to be considered through the Draft Local Plan for allocation to meet the needs of the wider HMA.
The Site should be included within the SHELAA going forward.
Please see attached representation and plan.
We wish the Land East of Nailcote Farm to be considered through the Draft Local Plan for allocation to meet the needs of the wider HMA.
The Site should be included within the SHELAA going forward.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8659
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: ms Babs Gisborne
When looking at the whole plan, it is shocking to see how much Green Belt the Council is prepared to give up. I feel the old URBS IN RUR moto for Solihull will be lost as every pocket of green will be eaten up. I am a very disappointed citizen of Solihull.
When looking at the whole plan, it is shocking to see how much Green Belt the Council is prepared to give up. I feel the old URBS IN RUR moto for Solihull will be lost as every pocket of green will be eaten up. I am a very disappointed citizen of Solihull.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8686
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Greig File
I do have concerns that most of the dwellings proposed seem to be at extreme limits of the borough, in areas that could potentially be "cut adrift" into other boroughs or authorities.
I sincerely hope this is not a ploy to palm off undesirable developments into places that may get reassigned away
I do have concerns that most of the dwellings proposed seem to be at extreme limits of the borough, in areas that could potentially be "cut adrift" into other boroughs or authorities.
I sincerely hope this is not a ploy to palm off undesirable developments into places that may get reassigned away
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8711
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Michael Harper
All important in the development of the area is the maintenance of the village character and nobody is going to argue with that. A key factor in this objective is to break the sizes of the individual sites down - lots of small sites rather than one or two big ones - and there is the opportunity to do this in KDBH. There are lots of smaller plots in the area which are suitable for development; these have already been assessed and some already successfully developed - a good example is off Four Ashes Road.
Comments from MICHAEL HARPER 64 Grove Road Knowle B93 0PJ ( Retired Architect).
Amber Sites. Golden End Farm/Kixley Lane. Blue Lake Road/Oak Green.
I favour Golden End Farm site - it is well related to the village and has contained boundaries. The Blue Lake Road site worries me. Taken together with The Arden Triangle, it would bring too much weight of housing to that part of Knowle and would destroy the village character. At present it has some housing but the general appearance and feel is rural or semi rural and this should be retained at all costs.
The Arden Triangle.
There is a section of the site running alongside and adjacent to Grove Road, specified on the plan to be "Low Density". This is highly desirable but I would suggest that it is taken one step further and left as open space - if considered appropriate I would suggest Public open space.
Dispersed Sites.
All important in the development of the area is the maintenance of the village character
and nobody is going to argue with that. A key factor in this objective is to break the sizes of the individual sites down - lots of small sites rather than one or two big ones - and there is the opportunity to do this in KDBH. There are lots of smaller plots in the area which are suitable for development; these have already been assessed and some already successfully developed - a good example is off Four Ashes Road.
I hope these comments are helpful.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8716
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Andrea Baker
When Solihull has a lot of brownfield, derelict sites bartering for new customers and standing empty, building on our limited green belt and removing rural features from the semi-rural villages should not be a viable option.
When Solihull has a lot of brownfield, derelict sites bartering for new customers and standing empty, building on our limited green belt and removing rural features from the semi-rural villages should not be a viable option.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8787
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Paul J Dufrane
- Quite frightening is that the HSR report into the historic past of Blyth Valley has not been acknowledged by Solihull Council. A Report that could have considerable bearing on future housing.
- Shirley and Blyth Valley has 38% of the proposed housing which is a higher percentage than any other area and would link surrounding areas together.
- This will turn into an urban mass with a lack of open space which is a requirement for health and wellbeing.
I would like to register my concerns and objections to the current draft local plan.
What is quite frightening is that the HSR report into the historic past of Blyth Valley has not been acknowledged by Solihull Council, A report that was widely available and already printed. A Report that could have considerable bearing on future housing.Shirley and Blyth Valley has 38% of the proposed housing which is a higher percentage than any other area and would link surrounding areas together i.e. Cheswich Green, Dickens Heath, & Tidbury Green. This will turn into an urban mass with a lack of open space which is a requirement for health and well being.I believe the council has based it's calculation on the 2014 Office of National Statistics figures and there is a clear case that the 2016 figures could be used.There are no plans in the current draft for extra GPs and schools
There has been no consideration of increase of traffic on the current road system and public transport system, the Mott Macdonald plan was not obtained. The council state that public transport will be improved, however if there is no public transport now how can that be improved.There is already a lack of local GP's and pupils are already travelling far and wide due to lack of schools in the appropriate areas..Site 4 an extension of Dickens Heath, proposed as it is near a station. The council has asked for alternative sites, if being near a station is a requirement, have the fields to the east of Widney Manor Station been considered. Widney Manor Station is much better linked. Dickens Heath which won best village was based on all houses being within a 10 minute walk to shops, this is something that no longer can be claimed . Site 4 states that improvements will be made to the infrastructure however roads cannot be improved as there are ancient hedgerows, which again the council appear to have neglected.
Site 26 I have no objections providing that the level of housing is kept as per the plan however the increase in traffic on Bills Lanes would need the Mott Macdonald plan being obtained prior to any permissions being granted.
However with this development then site 13 is the mitigation against the loss of green belt and would be beneficial for the community if this was designated a Village Green/ Nature Reserve.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8923
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Sport England
The Council's Playing Pitch Strategy identifies that there is a current and future shortfall in playing pitch provision. In line with NPPF paragraph 96 the Plan should seek to accommodate the need identified though this is not apparent within the proposed allocations.
The Council's Playing Pitch Strategy identifies that there is a current and future shortfall in playing pitch provision. In line with NPPF paragraph 96 the Plan should seek to accommodate the need identified though this is not apparent within the proposed allocations.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9009
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin
Some questions unclear.
Some questions unrealistic.
Number of questions excessive for some residents.
Breaking down into segments is good approach.
Though can be restrictive.
Some residents would rather write in.
Solihull masterplan should have been included.
Thank you again.
This is a huge undertaking for any organisation, let alone a Local Authority. The efforts of Officers should be commended and I extend my personal thanks for their efforts, especially with regards to removing Site 13.
It is important to think about what the purpose of the consultation is. It should be to beneficially shape future development in the Borough, rather than achieve consent for the inevitable.
In that regard, the drop-in sessions have been beneficial. However, these are informative for residents, rather than for planners. These should be happening with blank pages, not full proposals.
I can understand any reluctance to follow such an approach as it would seem to discount work already undertaken. That is not the case though. Any evidence base will always remain, but there is an evidence base in our own community that should be tapped at the beginning, not last stage.
I do feel that there are improvements with how the council consults. The length of the document is more approachable for many residents. That said, the site masterplans and amber sites are located in separate documents.
It should be noted though that some feel that the portal approach has been too restrictive. Many would rather send a letter. Some have no access to a computer. Others found the portal confusing. I feel that 44 questions is a considerable number of questions to expect residents to respond to. I am sure even some members of the Council wold struggle to respond to all (though hopefully only once).
A few questions were unclear or unrealistic in the expectations for respondents. As such I have flagged these in my responses.
This is a learning process for all parties involved and I have confidence in the Officers involved to work to improve the process of delivering beneficial future development. I thank Officers for their time and diligence in reviewing the responses and improving the Plan by the next stage.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9016
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Natural England
Natural England comments apply to all of the sites and infrastructure requirements.
Green Infrastructure - Our comments to Q3 Balsall Common applies to all sites
SSSIs and Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) the following should be considered:
- does the site allocation make management of nearby SSSI/LWS less viable. e.g. via urbanisation, or lead to severance or isolation of that SSSI/LWS or preclude making future links between the SSSI/LWS and other sites, and whether there are likely to be any air or water related impacts.We encourage allocation of alternative sites if adverse effects cannot be overcome.
- Have impacts on protected species been considered? Appropriate mitigation measures should be identified to reduce impacts.
Does the allocation enhance biodiversity, delivering net gains where possible in particular:
* Enhancement of existing features, especially on-site hedges, wetlands, woods, aged and veteran trees, watercourses and any geological features.
* New habitat creation measures.
* Proportion of green roofs on commercial buildings.
* Bird and bat boxes.
* Biodiversity plan for site (or biodiversity incorporated into any scheme for GI/open spaces).
* Measures to protect/enhance/link neighbouring/nearby SSSIs or local sites.
* Maximise the biodiversity contribution of any SUDS.
Natural England is not going to submit comments on each individual location as most of our comments are generic and apply to all sites and infrastructure requirements.
Green Infrastructure - Our comments to Q3 Balsall Common applies to all sites
Protected Sites (SSSIs) and Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) - We note that consideration is given to important sites such as SSSIs e.g. River Blythe. Factors to consider include whether the allocation will make management of nearby SSSI/LWS less viable e.g. via urbanisation, or lead to severance or isolation of that SSSI/LWS or preclude making future links between the SSSI/LWS and other sites, and whether there are likely to be any air or water related impacts. We encourage allocation of alternative sites if adverse effects cannot be overcome.
Protected Species - Have impacts on protected species been considered? Appropriate mitigation measures should be identified to reduce impacts.
Does the allocation enhance biodiversity, delivering net gains where possible? In particular consider:
* Enhancement of existing features, especially on-site hedges, wetlands, woods, aged and veteran trees, watercourses and any geological features.
* New habitat creation measures.
* Proportion of green roofs on commercial buildings.
* Bird and bat boxes.
* Biodiversity plan for site (or biodiversity incorporated into any scheme for GI/open spaces).
* Measures to protect/enhance/link neighbouring/nearby SSSIs or local sites.
* Maximise the biodiversity contribution of any SUDS.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9042
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Christopher McDermott
please mandate improved leisure facilities (both indoors and outdoors)
please mandate improved leisure facilities (both indoors and outdoors)
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9069
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Jennifer Archer
There has been a large amount of development in South Shirley/Blythe including a large number of retirement residences. This will have freed up family homes. This does not appear to have been taken into account. Placing 38% of the housing in an already built up and congested area would be a flawed decision.
The Call for Sites and the sites selected has caused a disproportionate amount of housing being allocated to the South Shirley/Blythe area ie 38% of the housing allocation.
There has been a large amount of development in South Shirley/Blythe this includes a large number of retirement residences. This will have freed up "family" homes. This does not appear to have been taken into account. Also in the Blythe area the proposed developments are within established road networks this reduces the scope of being able to redesign the road network. Please consider the transport and the local facilities before allowing further development. Placing 38% of the housing in an already built up and congested area would be a flawed decision.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9104
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Debbie Hatfield
Homes have to be allocated fairly across the borough. The Meriden Gap must be protected. Once it is developed, we will never get it back. Landowners should not be allowed to influence decisions which will destroy our Green Belt. Surely, new areas of development similar to Dicken's Heath are far more acceptable than ruining the areas of current Solihull residents.
The council also need to utilise the empty homes in the borough before new homes are built.
Homes have to be allocated fairly across the borough. The Meriden Gap must be protected. Once it is developed, we will never get it back. Landowners should not be allowed to influence decisions which will destroy our Green Belt. Surely, new areas of development similar to Dicken's Heath are far more acceptable than ruining the areas of current Solihull residents.
The council also need to utilise the empty homes in the borough before new homes are built.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9130
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Russell Blake
Review spatial strategy. This Plan update / review is characterised by a slow eating up of the green-belt by piecemeal identification of sites for housing. If council want to meet new build targets and they recognise that it is difficult to find land within the Borough which is suitable for development, but which is not green belt what is the council doing, for example as suggested by NPPF in conjunction with others, to identify ways to meet these targets in other locations, rather than lose greenbelt in this way.
Para 215 of this document regarding Knowle is not explained. Infrastructure concerns could put severe constraints on Knowle's ability to support large-scale housing development. At the same time these may conflict with the green belt & heritage aims of SMBC's Plan to preserve certain of the characteristic aspects of this village and its physical separation from other parts of Solihull borough.
1. I support the comments of the KDBH forum neighbourhood plan response dated 12.02.19.
2. Additionally I believe in particular spatial strategy needs updating. This Plan update / review is characterised by a slow eating up of the green-belt by piecemeal identification of sites for housing. If council want to meet new build targets and they recognise that it is difficult to find land within the Borough which is suitable for development, but which is not green belt what is the council doing, for example as suggested by NPPF in conjunction with others, to identify ways to meet these targets in other locations, rather than lose greenbelt in this way.
3. Para 215 of this document regarding Knowle states "as such it is well placed to accommodate growth in excess of just its own local needs". This statement is not explained. Comments elsewhere by myself and the KDBH forum neighbourhood plan response suggest that for example infrastructure concerns could put severe constraints on Knowle's ability to support large-scale housing development. At the same time these may conflict with the green belt & heritage aims of SMBC's Plan to preserve certain of the characteristic aspects of this village and its physical separation from other parts of Solihull borough.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9152
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Karen Allen
I object to development on green belt land. There are many brown field and derelict sites in Birmingham that should be developed before requiring Solihull to share their housing requirement. Solihull council should make forceful representations on this point.
The majority of the roads around the surruounding areas of Solihull are inadequate to cope with additional traffic.
The whole character of the area is under threat by the scale of the proposed developments.
The preferences specified in the Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Plan must be taken into account when determining the proposals for this area.
I object to development on green belt land. There are many brown field and derelict sites in Birmingham that should be developed before requiring Solihull to share their housing requirement. Solihull council should make forceful representations on this point.
The majority of the roads around the surruounding areas of Solihull are inadequate to cope with additional traffic.
The whole character of the area is under threat by the scale of the proposed developments.
The preferences specified in the Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Plan must be taken into account when determining the proposals for this area.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9180
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Julian Knight MP
Thankful for the omission of site 13.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9205
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Sylvia Walton
Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2. Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9209
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Anna Waters
Balsall Common of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers.This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2. Brown field sites are being developed in addition to greenfield sites rather than instead of. Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement
See Letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9236
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: National Motorcycle Museum
Agent: Framptons Planning
Although consultation focuses on housing numbers/updating proposed allocations, important to re-iterate views that the National Motorcycle Museum should be included in the UK Central Hub Area and that Site 19 should be extended south to include NMM site. NMM with major investment planned has substantial synergy with the Hub Area/HS2, as will support business tourism/local economy, safeguard existing and provide additional employment, provides educational/socio-economic opportunities, and optimise the existing cultural asset. There is a lack of land available for development within the urban areas and NMM is brownfield and suitable for development. GBA demonstrates that land lower performing green belt.
The attached representations are submitted on behalf of the Trustees of the National Motorcycle Museum.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9257
Received: 19/03/2019
Respondent: Councillor T Hodgson
Number of people: 3
On balance, we conclude that the Draft Local Plan does not meet the needs of the whole population, sacrificing our Green Belt without sufficient compensatory provision demanded from the new NPPF. Shirley is targeted with too high a number of new homes without the infrastructure to sustain this, whereas other parts of the borough are not taking a fair share of the housing targets the government has set. Council should challenge WMCA to do more to develop derelict/brownfield sites and reduce pressure on green belt.
Please find attached the response from the Green Party team in Shirley West ward to the Draft Local Plan supplementary consultation.
For the avoidance of doubt, our specific concerns relate to the 3 Shirley wards, Blythe and the sites mentioned in the letter.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9325
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Strategic Land and Property Team SMBC
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
Site 20 - land at Damson Parkway
Due to the sites close proximity to other established commercial areas and existing road network to major A roads and motorways it is deemed that this site is in a sustainable location for commercial development.
See Letters 1-5
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9352
Received: 21/03/2019
Respondent: Halford Holdings
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
St. George and Teresa School, site 155, is currently in educational use therefore an alternative site for would need to be found before this site could be released for residential redevelopment.
Safeguarded land should be identified and removed from green belt to meet future need and avoid need to alter green belt boundaries in review.
Evidence behind Review flawed, no detailed landscape assessments of preferred/amber sites, no revision to IDP, and no feasibility/masterplanning of SGS growth location recommendations.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9356
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Christine Allen
Objection to SHLAA site 54 Clopton Crescent Depot
Whilst I am supportive of the redevelopment of brownfield sites in order to meet housing demand, I cannot support the loss of this facility, comprising the Family Tree Club, a memorial and a grass cutting area, which is so well used by the community. Loss would conflict with NPPF/Local Plan policies to promote healthy and safe communities/health and well-being. It should be improved by the Council rather than taken away from the community. I hope you decide to remove the allocation from you Draft Local Plan.
Issues regarding Clopton Crescent.
I write to you in response to your Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation (January 2019). In particular, I wish to raise my concerns and object to the proposed allocation of site, Clopton Crescent Depot (site ref: 54). It is understood, that this allocation is now for justthe "depot" and not open space section of land. I have previously objected to the redevelopment of Clopton Crescent and I am pleased to see that the open space/greenfield part of the site is not being taken forward for a housing allocation, due to it being a valued community asset. Should this change, and the open space becomes a consideration for a housing allocation, then I wish to be consulted regarding the inclusion of this part of the site. Myt objection now relates to the proposals to take forward the brownfield part of the site ("The Depot") as a housing allocation. The site, which comprises the Family Tree Club, a memorial and a grass cutting area, are all very well used community facilities.
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) (as amended) states that local planning authorities, in preparing their development plans, must have regard to national planning policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), renewed in 2019. The NPPF therefore provides the direction of travel for Local Plans and advises, among other things, that the capacity of existing infrastructure and the need for community facilities should be taken into account in the preparation of them. Whilst I understand that it is also the Government's intention to make effective use of land in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or 'brownfield' land" (National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019). It is important to note that footnote 44 to Paragraph 118 states that this is: "except where this would conflict with other policies in this Framework".
The loss of this brownfield land, would conflict in particular with section 8 of the NPPF 'Promoting healthy and safe communities'. Paragraph 91 of the NPPF highlights the importance of achieving healthy, inclusive and safe communities. Part a) of the section advises that policy should aim to: "promote social interaction, including opportunities for meetings between people who might not otherwise come into contact with each other". Part c) goes on to state that policies and decisions should aim to"enable and support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs".
Paragraph 92 goes on to state that policy should provide the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs. In doing so, planning policies should:
"- plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces, community facilities;
- take into account and support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well-being for all sections of the community;
- guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community's ability to meet its day-to-day needs; and
- ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise, and are retained for the benefit of the community".
Community facilities play an intrinsic role in the life of local communities and are crucial for economic, social and environmental sustainability of localities. The safeguarding of community facilities is particularly important in view of factors such as ageing and deprived populations. Researchers continue to demonstrate how important meaningful relationships with others are to our mental, emotional and physical health.
Chelmsley Wood is in the most 10% deprived of neighbourhoods in the country with an increasing ageing population. Community facilities, such as The Family Tree Club and Memorial, where people go to meet one another and interact have been proven to be important to the health and well-being of the local community. The building is used for Remembrance Day and hosts lots of weekend events for families. It is an important social aspect for the community. Should this site be allocated for housing, it would not only conflict with Government health policy, but also Solihull Councils Draft Local Plan, which also promotes health and well-being, as any subsequent Health Impact Assessments produced alongside the Local Plan.
Whilst I am supportive of the redevelopment of brownfield sites in order to meet housing demand, I cannot support the loss of a facility, which is so well used by the community. It should be improved by the Council rather than taken away from the community. I hope you decide to remove the allocation from you Draft Local Plan
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9369
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Summix (FHS) Developments Ltd
Agent: Framptons Planning
Non statutory consultation under Regulation 18 contradictory. Seeks to pre-determine spatial strategy via settlement categorisation/site selection matrix.
SCI indicates Review should be subject to formal Regulation 18 consultation, which should be next stage, not Regulation 19. SEA process fails to comply with guidance/regulations. Addressing HMA shortfall likely to result in further alternatives that need to be appraised which could have implications for spatial strategy and SA should be undertaken as part of Stage B/Regulation 18.
Formal SA Report should have been prepared/consulted on at this stage. Further deficiencies relating to lack of consideration of alternatives to Local Housing Need, reasonable site options not assessed, deficiencies at DLP stage not addressed, fails to evaluate significance of impacts against appropriate evidence, cumulative effects/mitigation not considered, green belt land not considered, no flood risk sequential test of proposed allocations, no explanation for selection/rejection of options or overall conclusions of sustainability of different alternatives. no explanation how SA informed SDLP in integrated way, fails to show how representations from statutory consultees/neighbouring authorities taken into account. Fails to assess 75 sites of which 15 identified as green and 9 as amber sites. SA fails to appraise all reasonable alternatives, demonstrate that strategy is appropriate or take into account alternatives. Appendix 1 attached as additional supporting information in connection with this site undertakes a review of the SEA process.
Please see attached representation
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9389
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr. James McBride
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
St. George and Teresa School, site 155, with an identified capacity of 31 dwellings,
is currently in educational use therefore an alternative site for education use would
need to be found before this site could be released for residential redevelopment.
Safeguarded land should be identified and removed from green belt to meet future need and avoid need to alter green belt boundaries in review.
Evidence behind Review flawed, no detailed landscape/ecological assessments of preferred/amber sites, additional/smaller parcels require assessment for GBA, no revision to IDP, no viability assessment, and no feasibility/masterplanning of SGS growth location recommendations.
See letters 1-4
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9393
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Christopher Fellows
Comments on green sites:
Site 1: Springhill, 443 Station Road Balsall Common. Step 1 priority 5 in Methodology and despite commentary indicating limited size and existing constraints meaning site may more suitably come forward if wider alterations to green belt pursued, rated green in Step 2.
see full details in attached response
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9408
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr M Trentham
I understand that other LPAs in the HMA have already rejected the offer of 2000. It would be prudent to allocate sufficient extra sites in this Plan Review to provide additional capacity, to ensure that the Plan is sound, and there is no repeat of what happened last time
see letter of response re: Knowle sites
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9412
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr K Millican
Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9420
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs J A Howles
Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.
See Letter