Challenges
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 10815
Received: 12/12/2020
Respondent: Mr Stephen Harrison
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Site BL1 is in a very high performing green belt area. The sustainability appraisal does not take this into account.
Brownfield sites are not being developed ahead of the green belt which government policy is there to protect.
Why do we need to relocate sports clubs that are well established?
There is substantial wildlife and ancient woodland, this should be protected and not destroyed when there are areas for development that do not involve the demise of life and natural Beauty.
Green belt should mean just that. If we keep moving the goalposts, where will it end?
The plan in general for Solihull must be reviewed as a whole, it is important to understand that the world is changing and the answers to providing home quotas cannot be simply solved by building over green belt, supposedly protected land.
Other sites must be considered, ‘brown field sites’ - areas that are in need of regeneration and improvements.
There must be areas that are better served by existing traffic networks , schools and vital facilities.
There are areas that are not in flood planes and that do not require vast infrastructure and sustainable drainage to make them viable.
Site BL1 is in a very high performing green belt area. The sustainability appraisal does not take this into account.
Brownfield sites are not being developed ahead of the green belt which government policy is there to protect.
Why do we need to relocate sports clubs that are well established?
There is substantial wildlife and ancient woodland, this should be protected and not destroyed when there are areas for development that do not involve the demise of life and natural Beauty.
Green belt should mean just that. If we keep moving the goalposts, where will it end?
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 10912
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Local Plan does not properly recognise the strategically important Meriden Gap in the way that new housing allocations have been substantially located in that segment of the Borough. This is an important area of open countryside possibly destined to be a National Park area which should be generally protected from substantial development other than to meet the needs of the communities within it.
While there may be some merit in the Arden Cross development for economic reasons that should not be the thin end of a wedge to encourage release of so much additional land in the Green Belt.
The Local Plan should be prefaced by a Statement about the recognition of the Meriden Gap as a strategically important area that required continued protection from unnecessary development
Local Plan does not properly recognise the strategically important Meriden Gap in the way that new housing allocations have been substantially located in that segment of the Borough. This is an important area of open countryside possibly destined to be a National Park area which should be generally protected from substantial development other than to meet the needs of the communities within it.
While there may be some merit in the Arden Cross development for economic reasons that should not be the thin end of a wedge to encourage release of so much additional land in the Green Belt.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 10914
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Under Challenge J the Local Plan should also include the need to allocate land to accommodate facilities for the spiritual needs of the Community. Many expanding religious groups are desperate to find suitable sites that can accommodate their needs to serve their congregation and the wider community which they also serve in support of Solihull Council.
Land is not allocated or available in the Local Plan as most land is allocated for housing without proper thought as to what makes up a balanced community.
The Local Plan should make provision for land for expanding religious, social and cultural facilities
Under Challenge J the Local Plan should also include the need to allocate land to accommodate facilities for the spiritual needs of the Community. Many expanding religious groups are desperate to find suitable sites that can accommodate their needs to serve their congregation and the wider community which they also serve in support of Solihull Council.
Land is not allocated or available in the Local Plan as most land is allocated for housing without proper thought as to what makes up a balanced community.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 10916
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The Local Plan fails properly to consider sites for employment uses in expanding settlements of Balsall Common and Knowle. The emphasis of the Local Plan is largely only on Land Rover needs, some high tech development within Arden Cross . No provision is made for local employment uses which at a modest scale could be accommodated in those growth settlements. While some residents will have to travel distances by car to get to centres of employment, the provision of at least some land in those settlements would serve the needs of those who cannot or will not want to travel.
The Council should allocate sites around Balsall Common and in the Arden Triangle for employment uses.
The Local Plan fails properly to consider sites for employment uses in expanding settlements of Balsall Common and Knowle. The emphasis of the Local Plan is largely only on Land Rover needs, some high tech development within Arden Cross . No provision is made for local employment uses which at a modest scale could be accommodated in those growth settlements. While some residents will have to travel distances by car to get to centres of employment, the provision of at least some land in those settlements would serve the needs of those who cannot or will not want to travel.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 10992
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Challenge B is falsely stated. The Council has not applied, and has chosen not to make use of, the National Planning Policy Framework policy on sustainable development. This means that policies should provide for assessed needs for housing and other uses unless policies that protect areas of particular importance provide strong reasons for restricting the scale of development. The areas of particular importance in Solihull’s case are the areas of Green Belt. Green Belt designation covers all of Solihull’s countryside and is justification for not meeting the assessed need for housing. The Plan is not sound.
Revise Challenge B wording to make clear that the NPPF 2018 policy 'The presumption in favour of sustainable development' (para 11 (b) (i) and (ii) applies. And that the Council will not be altering Green Belt boundarires of allocating new housing sites on land that is now Green Belt.
Challenge B is stated to be meeting housing needs across the Borough, including the Borough's own needs and, where possible, assisting with accommodating the HMA wide shortfall.
This fails to make clear that Solihull does not have to meet all calculated or claimed needs.
1.1 The Solihull Local Plan Review proposes high levels of housing and removal of land from the Green Belt.
1.2 The Council states that it is meeting calculated housing needs and taking some housing from adjacent local authorities (Birmingham) as national planning policy requires it to.
1.3 The Council has not applied, and has chosen not to make use of, the National Planning Policy Framework policy on sustainable development. This means that policies should provide for assessed needs for housing and other uses unless policies that protect areas of particular importance provide strong reasons for restricting the scale of development. The areas of particular importance in Solihull’s case are the areas of Green Belt. Green Belt designation covers all of Solihull’s countryside and is justification for not meeting the assessed need for housing. See NPPF 2018, paragraph 11.
1.4 The Council has not in its Submission Draft Plan explained why it has disregarded this key national planning policy and is proposing the release of large areas of Green Belt to meet the assessed housing need, when the NPPF policy on sustainable development states that it is not required to do this.
1.5 Exceptional circumstances for changing Green Belt boundaries (and thus removing land from the Green Belt) cannot be demonstrated where the policy in the NPPF para 11(b) has not been applied.
1.6 The Plan is not sound because the NPPF’s policy has not been applied.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 11026
Received: 09/12/2020
Respondent: Inspired Villages
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Challenge B (p13-14) 1st bullet seeks “to ensure” the full OAHN for the Borough is met, however the 6th bullet in referring to housing for older people merely seeks to “wider the range of options”.
The Objective should similarly ensure the full needs for older persons housing need is met and this would then be consistent with Policy P4E(1) with the expectation that “new housing developments” “meeting the identified needs of older people”.
Challenge B 6th bullet to be amended to ensure housing needs for older people is met in full. Change to read “To ensure that the full housing needs for older people is met with a range of options including retirement housing, retirement communities / extra care and care homes.'
3 representations covering Challenge B, P4A and P4E - see attachment and Representations for detail
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 11099
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Central Schools Trust
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Plan correctly identifies the need for more school places and infrastructure for the new housing developments. However, it is unsound because it fails to evidence a full range of options for school provision over the long-term so does not demonstrate that it delivers best social value, not proven that that existing schools would be willing or able to increase places until new infrastructure is built, chosen option will exacerbate structural issues with all of the current school infrastructure serving the settlement and does not meet the objective of providing “sufficient and appropriate physical, social and green infrastructure to support inclusive growth for new and existing communities”
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity, to invest in schools’ provision for the whole settlement, to pay back the community for the disruption from HS2 and accepting significant growth in housing in the settlement. The plan should include an exercise to evaluate a full range of infrastructure options, (using a best practice approach e.g. HMT Better Business Case approach) starting with all the relevant strategies and policies and evaluating the individual infrastructure needs for the area and developing options for how those could be best delivered overall, e.g. looking at all gaps in provision, for schools, local community centre and, sports facilities and play areas, as identified in the Solihull Infrastructure Delivery Plan published alongside the local plan. We have previously (2016) set out an option that would provide a strategic approach to infrastructure that we believe will deliver greater social value.
Soundness
The local plan correctly identifies the need for more school places (both primary and secondary) and infrastructure as a result of the new housing developments. However, it is not sound because:
1. It fails to evidence a full range of options for school provision over the long-term have bene assessed, considering only a single option for incremental provisions and, therefore, it cannot be proven that the proposals meet the stated vision to promote and deliver best social value (a key building block you state in defining inclusive economic growth).
2. It cannot be proven, as providers have not been consulted on the detail of the plans, that existing schools would be willing or able (without an impact on existing provision) to increase places until new infrastructure is built and, therefore, the plan does not meet its objective to “Work with stakeholders and partners in infrastructure delivery…”
3. The chosen option will exacerbate structural issues with all of the current school infrastructure serving the settlement and does not meet the objective of providing “sufficient and appropriate physical, social and green infrastructure to support inclusive growth for new and existing communities”. All of the existing schools are old, cold, energy hungry, costly to maintain, on sites that are cramped and negatively impact on their neighbours due to parking, congestion and pollution.
For Reference: our points relate to these key parts of the Vision and Objectives set for the plan.
Page 22
Challenge O – Providing infrastructure and securing developer contributions:
• Providing sufficient and appropriate physical, social and green infrastructure to support inclusive growth for new and existing communities
• Objectives
• Set out strategic and local infrastructure needs in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan
• Work with stakeholders and partners in infrastructure delivery, including Transport for West Midlands, the CCG and NHS Estates, utility providers, statutory bodies and neighbouring authorities
• Allocate funding from developer contributions in the annual Infrastructure Funding Statement to enable timely delivery of infrastructure to support development and growth objectives.
Page 23
41. The basis of the Plan is that economic development, environmental sustainability and health and wellbeing must move forward together so that sustainable inclusive economic growth and opportunity for all can be realised.
42. The Plan identifies five building blocks of inclusive economic growth:
• Building a vibrant economy (including social economy)
• Promoting and delivering social value
• Enabling communities to thrive
• Actioning the Council’s climate change declaration
• Improving skills and access to good work.
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 11130
Received: 12/12/2020
Respondent: Natural England
Para. 38 - Challenges identified are generally supported.
See Attached Letter.
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 11131
Received: 12/12/2020
Respondent: Natural England
Challenge K - NE support. No further comments.
See Attached Letter.
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 11132
Received: 12/12/2020
Respondent: Natural England
Challenge L (water quality etc) - Welcome the inclusion of a recognised need to protect the water quality of the River Blythe (SSSI).
See Attached Letter.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 11133
Received: 12/12/2020
Respondent: Natural England
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
RECOMMENDATION
Challenge N - Disappointed to see no mention of green infrastructure or habitat linkages. This is sizeable development and the importance of securing quality green infrastructure for the needs of nature and people is vitally important. Would recommend inclusion of need to plan for and secure such environmental connections alongside the built form. (Cross ref p24 ‘Borough Vision – but not simply connect to wider GI but also embed within).
NE recommend:
Include reference to green infrastructure and habitat linkages, and cross reference with p.24 - Borough Vision.
See Attached Letter.
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 11134
Received: 12/12/2020
Respondent: Natural England
Challenge O (providing infrastructure) - Welcomed and supported. Clear delivery mechanism for GI provision via the IDF and annual IDS.
See Attached Letter.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 11176
Received: 12/12/2020
Respondent: Environment Agency
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
RECOMMENDATION
Challenge L - Improving water quality and flood risk.
We recommend this is amended to reflect the groundwater environment as we note there is no specific Challenge relating to brownfield land and/or legacy waste / landfill sites (of which there are a couple in your site allocations).
Add reference to groundwater environment in Challenge L - Improving water quality and flood risk.
See Attached Letter.
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 11257
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: SMBC Strategic Land and Property Team - Site S02
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
We agree with the key objective to ensure that the full objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is met for the plan period, consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO2 Moat Lane Depot submitted on behalf of SMBC Strategic Land and Property (as landowner).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 Moat Lane Depot
• Site SO2 Moat Lane Depot - Preferred Concept Masterplan (attached)
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 11263
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: SMBC Strategic Land and Property - Site S01
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
We agree with the key objective to ensure that the full objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is met for the plan period, consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO1 East of Solihull submitted on behalf of the joint landowner group (see representation letter attached).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 East Solihull
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Preferred Concept Masterplan (ref. 19029-BDS-XX-00-DR-A-1006-P01, attached)
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Stage 1 Brief Document
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 13776
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Ellandi LLP
Agent: Williams Gallagher Town Planning Solutions
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
In summary, the focus of the spatial strategy is very much on the objectively assessed need for housing and major economic (Use Classes E(B)/(G), B2 and B8) development schemes with less regard for the integral spatial planning requirements for retail and leisure uses. The evidence underpinning the retail and leisure requirements of the Plan are out of date and need to be updated and incorporated within the body of the Plan to inform site allocations.
It was recognised in the 2015 consultation that the Solihull Retail, Leisure and Office Study 2009 (refreshed 2011) is out of date. There has been no update despite the significant structural changes affecting the Borough including accommodating Birmingham housing overspill and the inclusion of Arden Cross. Without an up to date retail and leisure evidence base, the full quantitative and qualitative needs for the Borough are unknown. It is therefore not possible for the Plan to identify how and when these needs will be met in full and whether these will be delivered sustainably. This is a clear requirement of the NPPF
The plan does not identify the primary shopping areas in defined centres in line with the NPPF needed to inform sequential and impact tests. The Council has not assessed whether a locally set threshold for impact assessment is required but defers to the NPPF threshold of over 2,500 sqm. Such a quantum of floorspace is of concern as retail schemes of this size would impact significantly on more vulnerable centres such as Chelmsley Wood.
Policies on Blythe Valley and the HS2 interchange require clarity on the scale and type of retail that will be permissible as uncertainty will put investment in centres at risk.
The term ‘commercial development’ and ‘employment uses’ is used throughout the emerging Local Plan and seems to be used interchangeably to describe a number of different uses.
The key deficiencies can be summarised as follows:
1. The Solihull Retail, Leisure and Office Study 2009 (refreshed 2011) is out of date. This was recognised by the Council at page 115 of the November 2015
consultation but no work has been undertaken to bring the Study up to date, which is necessary owing to the significant structural changes planned within the Borough. This includes accommodating a proportion of the Birmingham overspill housing numbers and the iunclusion of Arden Cross.
Expenditure data and retail need will now be fundamentally different to that previously identified.
2. Without an up to date retail and leisure evidence base, the full quantitative and qualitative needs for the Borough are unknown. It is therefore not possible for the Plan to identify how and when these needs will be met in full and whether these will be delivered sustainably. This is a clear requirement of the NPPF.
3. The emerging Plan does not deal with the requirements of the NPPF to clearly define on a plan(s) the primary shopping areas for defined centres.
This is required to inform the application of the sequential and impact tests.
4. The Council has not assessed whether a locally set threshold for impact assessment is required. At present the Local Plan defers to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which sets a substantial threshold of 2,500 sqm over which an impact assessment should be undertaken. This is sufficient floorspace to accommodate a full range foodstore or an entire neighbourhood centre. Such a quantum of floorspace is of concern as retail schemes of this size would impact significantly on more vulnerable centres such as
Chelmsley Wood. A lower threshold should be explored and incorporated into the Local Plan – this threshold should have regard to the economic disparities in the Borough and as such could be set at different levels to
reflect local markets.
5. The emerging policies covering Blythe Valley Business Park and HS2 Interchange require far more clarity on the scale and type of retail that will be
permissible. Uncertainty as to the scale of retail floorspace to be delivered in these locations will put investment in established town centres and regeneration
areas at risk. Any allocations for retail in these locations should be guided by updated retail evidence that also factors in timescales for delivery of anticipated growth.
6. The term ‘commercial development’ and ‘employment uses’ is used throughout the emerging Local Plan and seems to be used interchangeably to describe a number of different uses. The Local Plan should be clear what
is meant by commercial development in the context of the Local Plan to avoid confusion and potential unintended consequences.
In summary, the focus of the spatial strategy is very much on the objectively assessed need for housing and major economic (Use Classes E(B)/(G), B2 and B8)
development schemes with less regard for the integral spatial planning requirements for retail and leisure uses. The evidence underpinning the retail and leisure
requirements of the Plan are out of date and need to be updated and incorporated within the body of the Plan to inform site allocations.
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 13798
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Summix (FHS) Developments Ltd
Agent: Framptons Planning
Support Challenge A - Mitigating and adapting to Climate Change and the associated objectives identified. Do not agree with the final sentence of para 38 “The challenges are not set out in any priority order” - Challenge A should be the highest priority.
Dear Sirs,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
LAND AT FULFORD HALL FARM, TIDBURY GREEN, SOLIHULL
SOLIHULL LOCAL PLAN REVIEW DRAFT SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION
DECEMBER 2020
REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF SUMMIX FHS DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
I make the following submission to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation on behalf of Summix FHS Developments Limited, which comprises:
• Representations to the Solihull Local Plan Publication Version Consultation
• Appendix 1 - Vision Statement
• Appendix 2 - Green Belt, Landscape and Masterplanning Report
• Appendix 3 - Transport Mobility Strategy
• Appendix 4 - West Midland Rail Aspiration Study
• Appendix 5 - Economic Benefits
• Appendix 6 - GB Assessment Appendix F Overall Score Plan
• Appendix 7 – Network Rail email (14.12.20)
• Appendix 8 - Fulford Hall Farm Site Assessment
• Appendix 9 – Location Plan
• Representation Form - Borough Vision Overview
• Representation Form - Spatial Strategy
• Representation Form - Challenge A
• Representation Form - LP Foreword paras 2, 5, 12 and 13
• Representation Form - para 51 and 52
• Representation Form - Policy P9
Please could you confirm receipt of the above stated documents.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 13896
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: IM Land - Land at Jacobean Lane, Knowle
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Challenge B – Bullet point 6 should be split into separate points with the housing needs for older people, including the need for a range of typologies, as a separate bullet point. This is in order to not conflate two separate issues that the plan will have to address.
Challenge E - Should reference meeting other types of development beyond just meeting housing needs.
Challenge J -should reference the requirement for high quality housing and accommodation require for elderly people within its objectives.
Reference to meeting the housing needs of older people should be made more explicit, and not conflated with other issues.
See attachments. LAND AT JACOBEAN LANE, KNOWLE
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14031
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Caroline Elizabeth Clifton
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
We agree with the key objective to ensure that the full objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is met for the plan period, consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO1 East of Solihull submitted on behalf of the joint landowner group (see representation letter attached).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 East Solihull
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Preferred Concept Masterplan (ref. 19029-BDS-XX-00-DR-A-1006-P01, attached)
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Stage 1 Brief Document
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14032
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: John Ernest and Gillian Parker
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
We agree with the key objective to ensure that the full objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is met for the plan period, consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO1 East of Solihull submitted on behalf of the joint landowner group (see representation letter attached).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 East Solihull
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Preferred Concept Masterplan (ref. 19029-BDS-XX-00-DR-A-1006-P01, attached)
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Stage 1 Brief Document
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14033
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: John Leslie Cox
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
We agree with the key objective to ensure that the full objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is met for the plan period, consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO1 East of Solihull submitted on behalf of the joint landowner group (see representation letter attached).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 East Solihull
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Preferred Concept Masterplan (ref. 19029-BDS-XX-00-DR-A-1006-P01, attached)
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Stage 1 Brief Document
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14034
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: John Parker
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
We agree with the key objective to ensure that the full objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is met for the plan period, consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO1 East of Solihull submitted on behalf of the joint landowner group (see representation letter attached).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 East Solihull
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Preferred Concept Masterplan (ref. 19029-BDS-XX-00-DR-A-1006-P01, attached)
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Stage 1 Brief Document
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14035
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: John Patrick and Mary Patricia Maguire
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
We agree with the key objective to ensure that the full objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is met for the plan period, consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO1 East of Solihull submitted on behalf of the joint landowner group (see representation letter attached).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 East Solihull
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Preferred Concept Masterplan (ref. 19029-BDS-XX-00-DR-A-1006-P01, attached)
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Stage 1 Brief Document
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14036
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Jonathan David and Simon Nicholas Hillcox
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
We agree with the key objective to ensure that the full objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is met for the plan period, consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO1 East of Solihull submitted on behalf of the joint landowner group (see representation letter attached).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 East Solihull
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Preferred Concept Masterplan (ref. 19029-BDS-XX-00-DR-A-1006-P01, attached)
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Stage 1 Brief Document
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14037
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Jonathan Patrick James and Barnaby Desmond Sheridan
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
We agree with the key objective to ensure that the full objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is met for the plan period, consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO1 East of Solihull submitted on behalf of the joint landowner group (see representation letter attached).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 East Solihull
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Preferred Concept Masterplan (ref. 19029-BDS-XX-00-DR-A-1006-P01, attached)
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Stage 1 Brief Document
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14038
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Stephen Anthony and Annette Maria Scott
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
We agree with the key objective to ensure that the full objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is met for the plan period, consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO1 East of Solihull submitted on behalf of the joint landowner group (see representation letter attached).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 East Solihull
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Preferred Concept Masterplan (ref. 19029-BDS-XX-00-DR-A-1006-P01, attached)
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Stage 1 Brief Document
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14051
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Halford Holdings Limited
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
We agree with the key objective to ensure that the full objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is met for the plan period, consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO1 East of Solihull submitted on behalf of the joint landowner group (see representation letter attached).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 East Solihull
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Preferred Concept Masterplan (ref. 19029-BDS-XX-00-DR-A-1006-P01, attached)
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Stage 1 Brief Document (link due to file size – https://we.tl/t-iFZDphuUPT)
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14055
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Spread Trustee Company Limited and BGL Reads Trust Company Limited
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
We agree with the key objective to ensure that the full objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is met for the plan period, consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO1 East of Solihull submitted on behalf of the joint landowner group (see representation letter attached).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 East Solihull
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Preferred Concept Masterplan (ref. 19029-BDS-XX-00-DR-A-1006-P01, attached)
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Stage 1 Brief Document (link due to file size – https://we.tl/t-iFZDphuUPT)
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14073
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Trustees of The Joseph Frederick Harold Wiseman Trust
Agent: Cushman and Wakefield
We agree with the key objective to ensure that the full objectively assessed housing need for the Borough is met for the plan period, consistent with the achievement of sustainable development and the other objectives of the Plan.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see attached representation in support of Policy SO1 East of Solihull submitted on behalf of the joint landowner group (see representation letter attached).
Submitted are the following:
• Representation Form
• Representation – Site SO2 East Solihull
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Preferred Concept Masterplan (ref. 19029-BDS-XX-00-DR-A-1006-P01, attached)
• Site SO1 East of Solihull - Stage 1 Brief Document (link due to file size – https://we.tl/t-iFZDphuUPT)
I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
We are happy to combine this submission into a single document if helpful for publication.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Clare
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14101
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mr Andrew Freeman
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Consequential modification to Challenge I, Paragraph 38, resulting from objection to Policy P12, as managing an equivalent tonnage to the waste arising in the Borough is not an appropriate aim
Replace “Providing sufficient waste management facilities to meet an equivalent tonnage to the waste arising in the Borough.” with “Providing waste management facilities of an appropriate tonnage to meet the needs of the Borough at the right time and in the right place.”.
See attached