Policy P12 Resource Management

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 44

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10587

Received: 08/11/2020

Respondent: Mr Adrian Court

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The moving of the Household Waste and Recycling Centre to Damson Parkway is seriously flawed. The detriment to local residents health and well being due to the impact on amenity and health, including visual intrusion, noise and vibration, litter, odour, vermin and bird attraction and increased traffic in the immediate vicinity in addition to the new JLR logistic centre and proposed local housing. Solihull is supposed to be 'Urbs in Rure' and placing this additional facility so close to local housing/conurbation would have huge impact on the immediate local area.

Change suggested by respondent:

I think the council should seriously consider extending the current site as expansion of this site has the least impact on local housing, greenbelt, local transport infrastructure etc. Also if Damson Parkway is going to be considered it would be good to have a plan of the proposed development, size, access etc as currently there is no indication?

Full text:

The moving of the Household Waste and Recycling Centre to Damson Parkway is seriously flawed. The detriment to local residents health and well being due to the impact on amenity and health, including visual intrusion, noise and vibration, litter, odour, vermin and bird attraction and increased traffic in the immediate vicinity in addition to the new JLR logistic centre and proposed local housing. Solihull is supposed to be 'Urbs in Rure' and placing this additional facility so close to local housing/conurbation would have huge impact on the immediate local area.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10591

Received: 09/11/2020

Respondent: Mr Tony Rogers

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

There is already severe congestion on Damson Parkway at certain times of the day, which will doubtless become even worse when the new JLR LOC opens. To consider adding to this congestion by re-siting the Household Waste and Recycling Centre, as well as potentially the Moat Lane Depot, to Damson Parkway would be a great mistake, severely impacting the quality of life of local residents and creating more traffic congestion thus adding to air pollution.

Change suggested by respondent:

I would request that alternative sites (or site) are identified for the relocation of the Household Waste and Recycling Centre and Moat Lane Depot. They should not be moved to Damson Parkway. Without residents being informed of the alternative sites available it gives the council an unfair advantage especially when appearing to bulldoze acceptance of any new site.

Full text:

There is already severe congestion on Damson Parkway at certain times of the day, which will doubtless become even worse when the new JLR LOC opens. To consider adding to this congestion by re-siting the Household Waste and Recycling Centre, as well as potentially the Moat Lane Depot, to Damson Parkway would be a great mistake, severely impacting the quality of life of local residents and creating more traffic congestion thus adding to air pollution.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10606

Received: 13/11/2020

Respondent: Mr Tom Davis

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

This site is not fit to house a relocated Household Waste and Recycling Facility as the area has already been heavily built on. It will cause highways and safety problems, adding more traffic to the roads in an area that has already seen the JLR expansion approved and has plans for 700 homes on Damson Parkway. The cumulative effect of this is traffic chaos on a key transport corridor in and out of Solihull, blocking access to and from the motorway. The site is not condjucive to this as it is a residential area.

Change suggested by respondent:

Another location.

Full text:

This site is not fit to house a relocated Household Waste and Recycling Facility as the area has already been heavily built on. It will cause highways and safety problems, adding more traffic to the roads in an area that has already seen the JLR expansion approved and has plans for 700 homes on Damson Parkway. The cumulative effect of this is traffic chaos on a key transport corridor in and out of Solihull, blocking access to and from the motorway. The site is not condjucive to this as it is a residential area.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10614

Received: 17/11/2020

Respondent: Mr Mike Davis

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This site is not fit to house a relocated Household Waste and Recycling Facility as the area has already been heavily built on. It will cause highways and safety problems, adding more traffic to the roads in an area that has already seen the JLR expansion approved and has plans for 700 homes on Damson Parkway. The cumulative effect of this is traffic chaos on a key transport corridor in and out of Solihull, blocking access to and from the motorway. The site is not condjucive to this as it is a residential area.

Change suggested by respondent:

Another location

Full text:

This site is not fit to house a relocated Household Waste and Recycling Facility as the area has already been heavily built on. It will cause highways and safety problems, adding more traffic to the roads in an area that has already seen the JLR expansion approved and has plans for 700 homes on Damson Parkway. The cumulative effect of this is traffic chaos on a key transport corridor in and out of Solihull, blocking access to and from the motorway. The site is not condjucive to this as it is a residential area.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10619

Received: 22/11/2020

Respondent: Mr Joe Holyoake

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

With the government initiatives towards a Zero Waste economy, I find it difficult to believe that the waste for Solihull is going to increase by 52%. This suggests that any initiatives the government has, will fail, especially in Solihull.

1. Household waste increase by 25% equates to 13,000 new households, WHERE?
2. Commercial & industrial waste increase by 44% and Construction and demolition waste by 59%. WHERE?
I can only surmise that JLR will make up the majority of this increase in waste, and if so, why was the planned expansion agreed upon without a clause to manage waste responsibility.

Change suggested by respondent:

I think the expectations for waste increases in Solihull need to be reassessed in full in line with my comments above and in line with Government initiatives to reduce waste.
The position of the waste site should also be reassessed away from existing houses in the area.

Full text:

With the government initiatives towards a Zero Waste economy, I find it difficult to believe that the waste for Solihull is going to increase by 52%. This suggests that any initiatives the government has, will fail, especially in Solihull.

1. Household waste increase by 25% equates to 13,000 new households, WHERE?
2. Commercial & industrial waste increase by 44% and Construction and demolition waste by 59%. WHERE?
I can only surmise that JLR will make up the majority of this increase in waste, and if so, why was the planned expansion agreed upon without a clause to manage waste responsibility.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10639

Received: 24/11/2020

Respondent: Mr John Bailey

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This site is not fit to house a relocated Household Waste and Recycling Facility as the area has already been heavily built on It will cause highways and safety problems adding more traffic to the to the roads in an area that has already seen the JLR expansion approved and has plans for 700 homes on Damson Parkway . The cumulative effect of this is traffic chaos on a key transport corridor in and out of Solihull, blocking access to and from the motorway. The site is not conducive to this as it is a residential area.

Change suggested by respondent:

Another location

Full text:

This site is not fit to house a relocated Household Waste and Recycling Facility as the area has already been heavily built on It will cause highways and safety problems adding more traffic to the to the roads in an area that has already seen the JLR expansion approved and has plans for 700 homes on Damson Parkway . The cumulative effect of this is traffic chaos on a key transport corridor in and out of Solihull, blocking access to and from the motorway. The site is not conducive to this as it is a residential area.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10640

Received: 24/11/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jean Dalton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The plan doesn't take into account the disruption local residents have already suffered with building works for JLR on Damson Parkway, especially regarding the volume of traffic. This plan would further impact disruption to our daily lives. The plan is ill thought out with no regard or concern for residents.

Change suggested by respondent:

The relocation needs to be further away from residential areas.

Full text:

The plan doesn't take into account the disruption local residents have already suffered with building works for JLR on Damson Parkway, especially regarding the volume of traffic. This plan would further impact disruption to our daily lives. The plan is ill thought out with no regard or concern for residents.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10675

Received: 03/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Robert Doody

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

There has been no consultation with residents about the possibility of relocating the existing HWRC site and Moat Lane depot to the UK2 site in Damson Parkway until this Draft Submission Plan was issued. The proposed site is already congested and will also result in significant increase to traffic using the residential part of the Parkway.

Change suggested by respondent:

Inclusion of the possible relocation of the existing HWRC to land in Damson Parkway be removed from the Plan until full consultation with the public has been carried out.

Full text:

There has been no consultation with residents about the possibility of relocating the existing HWRC site and Moat Lane depot to the UK2 site in Damson Parkway until this Draft Submission Plan was issued. The proposed site is already congested and will also result in significant increase to traffic using the residential part of the Parkway.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10719

Received: 09/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs mary holyoake

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

It seems that no consideration has been made to the impact on the residents of the area. Increase in noise, smell, rats and excessive traffic would OF COURSE happen. If we are working on reducing waste (as government policy) why make a bigger site. Effective recycling etc would have a greater impact on the environment without the need for a new tip.

Change suggested by respondent:

It is stated that around 16 acres of land would be used. The Government has committed to reducing waste and recycling more. The money allocated to the move of the tip would be better spent on finding ways to reuse waste, reducing the need for such a large area. Also, not decimating the area proposed which houses wildlife. More could be done to reduce waste (encouraging shops to not use plastic). There is already a problem with rats in the area this would get worse. It would create a problem with the sale of houses/house prices. Which would fall, creating a deficit unproductive to the area. The expansion of the A45 and JLR have already made an impact on the area, more disruption is unnecessary.

Full text:

It seems that no consideration has been made to the impact on the residents of the area. Increase in noise, smell, rats and excessive traffic would OF COURSE happen. If we are working on reducing waste (as government policy) why make a bigger site. Effective recycling etc would have a greater impact on the environment without the need for a new tip.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10764

Received: 11/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Kay Phipps

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The proposed move of the Bickenhill Waste Centre closer to the recently built JLR Logistics Centre will undoubtedly add more vehicles to the already excessively high traffic volume A45 and surrounding roads.
It is totally unacceptable to consider moving a Waste Management function closer to the large residential area of Damsonwood and Damson Parkway.
It is yet another planned infringement on existing precious Green Belt land where the Council has already demonstrated its lack of care in its stewardship of local Green Belt land by permitting the hideous development of the JLR Logistics Centre at the Damson Parkway site.

Change suggested by respondent:

The proposed move of the Waste Centre closer to residential housing in the Damson Parkway area needs to be totally reassessed on the grounds of dilution of the quality of the environment and unwarranted use of Green belt land.
Greater effort needs to be expended in identifying a suitable existing Brownfield site, away from a centre of population.
Alternatively, expansion of the current Bickenhill site, which meets existing traffic infrastructure dynamics, should be properly examined.

Full text:

The proposed move of the Bickenhill Waste Centre closer to the recently built JLR Logistics Centre will undoubtedly add more vehicles to the already excessively high traffic volume A45 and surrounding roads.
It is totally unacceptable to consider moving a Waste Management function closer to the large residential area of Damsonwood and Damson Parkway.
It is yet another planned infringement on existing precious Green Belt land where the Council has already demonstrated its lack of care in its stewardship of local Green Belt land by permitting the hideous development of the JLR Logistics Centre at the Damson Parkway site.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10793

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Mr John Outhwaite

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Proposed relocation of the tip is not legally compliant because the proposal hasn't been consulted upon in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement.
The proposal is not positively prepared or justified because insufficient evidence ( options to improve current facility, alternative site information, traffic assessment) provided or consulted upon.
The "need" for a relocated waste/recycling site has been artificially generated by lumping together improved waste/recycling facilities plus the Moat Lane Depot operation on a single site for ulterior and unstated motives.

Change suggested by respondent:

Due to the inadequate information provided and the failure to consult on this proposal then the Plan should be confined to stating /justifying the need for improved waste/recycling facilities and then state what the identified options are, i.e. 1) alter existing site, 2) relocate to Damson Parkway (and identify exactly where) and 3) relocate to the other site the Council have referred to (the not preferred option) and identify where that site is. The plan should state what consultation will be undertaken in order to inform a decision as well as state what evidence base will be published prior to such consultation. No preference as to the solution should be expressed in the plan.

Full text:

The proposed relocation of the Bickenhill tip is not legally compliant because this has not been consulted upon, this is the first time this proposal has been put into the public domain, so it does not comply with the statement of community involvement. No information about the alternative (but not preferred) site that it turns out has been considered and rejected have been provided, no details about the possibility of expansion of the current site have been provided. It is stated that there is sufficient space for queuing vehicles, but no evidence has been provided. Relocation of the site to land adjacent to Damson Parkway would significantly increase traffic/congestion on Damson Parkway, Damson Lane and Rowood Drive and at shift change times at JLR plus traffic from the new logistics facility would likely result in traffic gridlock. No traffic assessment/sustainability assessment appears to have been undertaken. Thus there is inadequate information provided/available to support the "exceptional circumstances to justify the the potential use of the site" as referred to in para 354.
The need for improved facilities for waste/recycling can probably be met by changes at the existing site, in this plan the Council is joining this need togehter with a desire to develop a new site which includes both the waste/recycling centre and the operations currently at the Moat Lane Depot, for which there is no actual requirement. I consider that these two items have been lumped together in this way so that it would be shown that the existing waste/recycling site cannot be expanded to also accomodate the Moat Lane operation as well, thus generating a "false" requirement for a relocated waste/recycling site. The real, but unstated, reason for this is so that the Council can release the Moat Lane Depot site for housing development and make money from that. Thus the plan for this is not sound and is not legal.
Other options to co-operate with other local authorities, in particular Birmingham Council, have not been explored thus the duty to co-operate has not been met.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10795

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Councillor Laura McCarthy

Number of people: 1218

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

- The proposal to move the HWRC to Damson Parkway has not been made public prior to this draft of local plan publication. Local Councillors were not notified or consulted, and neither was the public.
- Environmental Impact and Traffic Assessments have not been shared. I understand they have not been undertaken.
- This development would be close to housing and the Traveller Site. This is already an area of pollution concern and the new JLR development will add to traffic pollution. The HWRC will add more, contrary to national policy.
- Supporting evidence published after consultation started.

Change suggested by respondent:

All references to Damson Parkway need to be removed. No consultation has been undertaken with Councillors or the public and so it is inappropriate to include. Over 1,200 residents have signed a petition in objection. No assessments undertaken or shared. Residents have found it difficult to respond to the consultation and some have been excluded due to not having digital access.

Full text:

- The proposal to move the HWRC to Damson Parkway has not been made public prior to this draft of local plan publication. Local Councillors were not notified or consulted, and neither was the public.
- Environmental Impact and Traffic Assessments have not been shared. I understand they have not been undertaken.
- This development would be close to housing and the Traveller Site. This is already an area of pollution concern and the new JLR development will add to traffic pollution. The HWRC will add more, contrary to national policy.
- Supporting evidence published after consultation started.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10808

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:


The Council have not seriously considered proposals submitted for this site as a site for employment purposes which is already well established.

The development of the Arden Cross site directly to the north has emhasised the need to make decisions as to the future development of the site. Arden Eco Park is already recognised as a site for waste management. Developing an Energy from Waste facility on this site would directly meet the needs of Arden Cross.

Change suggested by respondent:

Allocate Arden Eco Park as an employment site and for an Energy from Power facility

Full text:

The wider former Arden Brickworks site, now called Arden Eco Park, covers a total area of around 38.6 hectares (95.4 acres). The Eco Park site is accessed from the A45 via a one-way service road running on the south side of and parallel to the A45 between Stonebridge Island to the east, at the junction of the A45/A452, and M42/J6 to the west.

The Arden Eco Park lies within the M42 Solihull Economic Gateway with additional expansion proposed to this gateway. It is located in the West Midlands Green Belt in the Meriden Gap which separates Birmingham from Coventry and is largely surrounded by agricultural land apart from a large Kennel complex – Top Hat Kennels - on the frontage which is likely to be directly affected by HS2, and Pasture Farm to the east. The HS2 line is due to pass just to the east of Arden Eco Park leading into the new Interchange Station north of the A45.

Birmingham International Airport, the National Exhibition Centre and Birmingham International Station are located around 2 miles to the north west accessed off the A45 to the west of the M42.

Future development of the site

As such Arden Eco Park is a major previously developed site in a strategic position and already operates a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) at the rear of the site alongside the remaining areas of clay extraction. The Local Plan recognises the clay extraction operation as well as the MRF as established facilities.

The major frontage part site comprises a Civic Amenity Facility which has operated for many decades to service the wider Solihull community but is proposed to be relocated to a site near Damson Parkway which for many is likely to be less accessible that the present facility at Bickenhill.

Behind the Civic Amenity site lie a large number of business units used by utility and civil engineering companies for offices and ancillary facilitate as well as open storage (B8) with ancillary facilities mainly covered by a Certificate of Lawful use granted by the LPA in 2007 (ref 2007/ 1171). The site comprises a large area of hardstanding a range of buildings in brick or profiled steel buildings which have largely replaced the former brickwork buildings.

The owners of the land have ambitions to establish a major Power from Waste facility on this site which would make a major contribution to the energy needs of the area around including the Arden Cross development area around the HS2 Interchange with over 5000 new houses as well as business development.

The Arden Eco Park site has been submitted under the Council’s Call for Sites in relation to the Local Plan as land for business and employment uses given into extensive past history. The Local Plan has not recognised that submission and no provision is being made in the plan for the site to contribute positively to needs of the Solihull Economic Gateway which it is well placed to do.

No provision is made in the Plan for dealing with major brownfield sites in the Solihull Local Plan which are included within many other local plans. Leaving it to the development management process is not sufficient to give a proper and appropriate policy framework for considering proposals. In the future.

The Arden Eco Park site should be allocated as a site for energy from waste and other related development.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10819

Received: 13/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Alan Weeks

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The proposal to locate a new waste site on Damson Parkway fails the criteria as “justified with clear evidence” as there is no consideration of the impact of relocation or any reasonable consideration of alternative locations.

It also fails on “consistent with national policy” as it proposes to develop on precious green belt land that is adjacent to an existing heavily developed area with high density residential housing. There are existing waste related sites that could be further developed and thus protect the precious green belt.

Change suggested by respondent:

The plan must describe why existing waste sites cannot be extended and any new facility can't be located adjacent to the final destination of the waster or processing site. The specific impact on traffic, conflict with other nearby developments, risk of fly tipping, needs and wants of local residents and the avoidance of further loss of green space and green belt land need to be addressed.
Where was the prior consultation before the draft plan was issued?

Full text:

The proposal to locate a new waste site on Damson Parkway fails the criteria as “justified with clear evidence” as there is no consideration of the impact of relocation or any reasonable consideration of alternative locations.

It also fails on “consistent with national policy” as it proposes to develop on precious green belt land that is adjacent to an existing heavily developed area with high density residential housing. There are existing waste related sites that could be further developed and thus protect the precious green belt.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10830

Received: 13/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Garry Foster

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This plan further encroaches on what is and always has been a residential area
It would further turn the area into an industrial / commercial area which we will all be living on the edge of suffering a lesser quality of life that is brought with it e.g. additional traffic, pollution, noise, fly tipping (when people don’t want to queue at the tip)
This is another example of disregard for residents in favour of industry and commercial settings l

Change suggested by respondent:

This plan needs reconsider the use of land in or close to residential properties e.g. the current Bickenhill site is “out of town” accessible and has little or no impact on residents

Full text:

This plan further encroaches on what is and always has been a residential area
It would further turn the area into an industrial / commercial area which we will all be living on the edge of suffering a lesser quality of life that is brought with it e.g. additional traffic, pollution, noise, fly tipping (when people don’t want to queue at the tip)
This is another example of disregard for residents in favour of industry and commercial settings l

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10836

Received: 13/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Michael Lock

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Justification for the Damson Lane site has not been substantiated

Change suggested by respondent:

I would like the Council to take into account the impacts on residents who have seen the area change significantly due to JLR developments.

Full text:

Re354 Council states large numbers of visitors will be attracted to the site and accepts that there will be queuing at peak times. Council accepts a Damson Lane site will impact the locality, Council has not detailed how other sites for genuine consideration would be best able to mitigate these issues nor given sufficient data that supports/justifies the Damson Lane site as being labelled exceptional. All of the above indicate how residents in the area will be impacted. This proposed development together with the extensive ongoing JLR development and possible extensions in the future change the landscape considerably and not for the better.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10871

Received: 13/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Whitney

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Not fit for purpose.
Highway and safety problems

Change suggested by respondent:

Another location

Full text:

Not fit for purpose.
Highway and safety problems

Support

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10880

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: The British Horse Society

Representation Summary:

Broadly accept the policy.
8. Protection of and opportunities for extension ofPublic Rights of Way should be included within the criteria.

Full text:

Broadly accept the policy.
8. Protection of and opportunities for extension ofPublic Rights of Way should be included within the criteria.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10887

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Richard Long

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The identification of site UK2 for the relocation of HWRC is illegal. Its allocation for use as a waste site does not accord with the very special circumstances that led to it being removed from green belt (I.e to support JLR). The review of potential sites by Cushman in June 2019 states that this site should be discounted because of this being contrary to strategic planning policy; 3 other sites were determined as more suitable. It was only retained as a backup option. It appears the current Bickenhill site has only been relegated due to concerns about the lease/purchase costs.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Plan must remove reference to this specific site (UK2) since it was not a preferred solution (with a recommendation in the consultant assessment to discount it). Inclusion in the Plan appears an attempt to reallocate it prior to more detailed site assessment analysis. Moreover, there has been no consultation to date - residents and councillors were not advised.

Instead the plan should state that “relocation options will be subject to further evaluations, which will be subject to consultation and planning considerations “.

Full text:

The identification of site UK2 for the relocation of HWRC is illegal. Its allocation for use as a waste site does not accord with the very special circumstances that led to it being removed from green belt (I.e to support JLR). The review of potential sites by Cushman in June 2019 states that this site should be discounted because of this being contrary to strategic planning policy; 3 other sites were determined as more suitable. It was only retained as a backup option. It appears the current Bickenhill site has only been relegated due to concerns about the lease/purchase costs.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10933

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Bradley Tucker

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I object to the plan as there has been a lack of consultation in Elmdon ward, neither residents or councillors were informed about the potential relocation of a Household Waste and Recycling Facility to the Site UK2 Land at Damson Parkway. I understand that this land is not in Elmdon ward, but it is immediately adjacent and it will largely be Elmdon residents who will be affected by the relocation. Pollution levels are already unacceptably high in this area and relocating to UK2 Site will only increase them further, which I believe is against national policy.

Change suggested by respondent:

There seems to be little explanation in the plan for why Site UK2 Land at Damson Parkway is specifically mentioned as a location for a relocated Household and Waste Facility. There are no specific mentions of any other alternate sites and this leads to a concern that there are few if any other sites being considered. Also, no surveys have been made publicly available for residents to scrutinise.

Full text:

I object to the plan as there has been a lack of consultation in Elmdon ward, neither residents or councillors were informed about the potential relocation of a Household Waste and Recycling Facility to the Site UK2 Land at Damson Parkway. I understand that this land is not in Elmdon ward, but it is immediately adjacent and it will largely be Elmdon residents who will be affected by the relocation. Pollution levels are already unacceptably high in this area and relocating to UK2 Site will only increase them further, which I believe is against national policy.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10949

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Neil Gavin

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Developing a whole new waste management depot at the proposed site near Damson Parkway does not protect gaps between settlements because it is in a gap between residential areas and on Green Belt. Accessibility is actually reduced as access will be by smaller roads when currently it is major A road. the current site, if developed and managed properly, can meet the needs of the borough and the additional purposes outlined in the proposal. The new site will decrease the air quality around the area, increase the amount of vermin and create noise pollution.

Change suggested by respondent:

Develop the existing site at Bickenhill or identify appropriate brownfield land away from residential areas. If the site has to be relocated, find a site that is not near residential areas or areas already proposed for new housing.

Full text:

Developing a whole new waste management depot at the proposed site near Damson Parkway does not protect gaps between settlements because it is in a gap between residential areas and on Green Belt. Accessibility is actually reduced as access will be by smaller roads when currently it is major A road. the current site, if developed and managed properly, can meet the needs of the borough and the additional purposes outlined in the proposal. The new site will decrease the air quality around the area, increase the amount of vermin and create noise pollution.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10954

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Reynolds

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The tip should not be put in a housing estate. The travel is far to heavy already with Land Rover. Damson Parkway could not take anymore traffic for a tip. The queuing would completely block the area

Change suggested by respondent:

The tip should be relocated somewhere else

Full text:

The tip should not be put in a housing estate. The travel is far to heavy already with Land Rover. Damson Parkway could not take anymore traffic for a tip. The queuing would completely block the area

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10955

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mr keith reynolds

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I object to the plan to move the tip to Damson Parkway because Damson Parkway is a residential road and area already blighted by noise from the airport and from Land Rover. The traffic along Damson Parkway is already too high at peak times due to Rover traffic add to this Tip traffic we can expect to have difficulty even getting out of our road due to queuing traffic.
Not to mention the smell and vermin associated with the tip that will again blight the area.

Change suggested by respondent:

Leave the tip exactly where it is an area which has great road access and a road that queues dont cause any issues to any residents.

Full text:

I object to the plan to move the tip to Damson Parkway because Damson Parkway is a residential road and area already blighted by noise from the airport and from Land Rover. The traffic along Damson Parkway is already too high at peak times due to Rover traffic add to this Tip traffic we can expect to have difficulty even getting out of our road due to queuing traffic.
Not to mention the smell and vermin associated with the tip that will again blight the area.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10983

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Elmdon Church

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The proposal to situate the HWRC at the top of Damson Parkway is ill-considered. The traffic in this area is becoming increasingly congested any way, partly as a result of the new JLR logistics centre - this proposal will make it much worse.

Change suggested by respondent:

A site should be selected which is further away from houses and businesses.

Full text:

The proposal to situate the HWRC at the top of Damson Parkway is ill-considered. The traffic in this area is becoming increasingly congested any way, partly as a result of the new JLR logistics centre - this proposal will make it much worse.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10991

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mr james wood

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The proposed relocation of the waste site has been done with every effort to fly "under the radar", and avoid the scrutiny of local residents who will be adversely affected. The hearing that took place gave every impression the plan had been decided upon and the raising of the topic, and subsequent dodging of questions, clearly indicated a true lack of interest in changing the location to lessen the impact.

Change suggested by respondent:

The consultation process should be re-run, it should invite local residents to speak and be in attendance, and take every possible step to be inclusive in the collateral that is circulated in the community. Previous hearings were not publicised, made no attempt to raise the profile of the relocation, which is in direct contrast to the way local residents have been kept informed of changes at JLR (for example). Local residents adjacent to the proposed site are in direct opposition to the relocation, and were only made aware of this by a video circulated on local social media sites, there is no democratic decision being made here. The decision has been made, that is clear, and the uneasiness of the people responsible was clear during the "consultation" that was circulated. This is not a plan that should be allowed to proceed in it's current form. To be clear, I am referring to the proposed relocation of the waste site to Damson Parkway.

Full text:

The proposed relocation of the waste site has been done with every effort to fly "under the radar", and avoid the scrutiny of local residents who will be adversely affected. The hearing that took place gave every impression the plan had been decided upon and the raising of the topic, and subsequent dodging of questions, clearly indicated a true lack of interest in changing the location to lessen the impact.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11003

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Ade Adeyemo

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Re. Item 7 in this section - the Household Waste recycling Centre (HWRC):

Not Legally Compliant - By inserting this section at the last minute into the Local Plan without information or consultation, SMBC has failed in its duty to local residents.

Not Sound - No consultation with local residents. Not given the opportunity to challenge. Alternative sites considered by SMBC are not listed.

Does not comply with the Duty to Cooperate - Local residents and Councillors not informed or consulted. Not given the opportunity to comment or object during the preparation process. Other sites on SMBC shortlist not listed.

Change suggested by respondent:

For fairness and openness, ALL potential sites currently on SMBC's shortlist for relocation of the Household Waste and Recycling Facility, and their locations, should be included within the Local Plan.

Otherwise reference to the relocated Household Waste and Recycling Facility being located in this area (Land within Site UK2 Land at Damson Parkway) should be removed from the Local Plan.

Full text:

Re. Item 7 in this section - the Household Waste recycling Centre (HWRC):

Not Legally Compliant - By inserting this section at the last minute into the Local Plan without information or consultation, SMBC has failed in its duty to local residents.

Not Sound - No consultation with local residents. Not given the opportunity to challenge. Alternative sites considered by SMBC are not listed.

Does not comply with the Duty to Cooperate - Local residents and Councillors not informed or consulted. Not given the opportunity to comment or object during the preparation process. Other sites on SMBC shortlist not listed.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11186

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Plan does not seem to reference need to transition to a Circular Economy, although mentioned in Hendecca Waste Needs Assessment.
Waste will need to be embedded in economic landscape, rather than treated as a separate activity, or continue with linear economy approach of flow of raw materials to waste generation.
Future planning will need to consider far more the use of secondary and recovered materials, and the creation of jobs. Conversely, traditional waste disposal requires constant funding to run dedicated logistics and infrastructure, with the associated emissions.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy should recognise the need to transition to a Circular Economy, where waste is utilised as far as possible as an economic resource, rather than treated as a separate issue to be 'managed.'

Full text:

See Attached Letter.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13689

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Part 1 - appears difficult to measure easily.
Should consider the metrics to be applied.
May be possible to quantify carbon reduction as well as waste reduction (link to climate change policy). Recommend consideration is given to Circular Economy thinking, where necessary, appropriate low carbon development also supports the demand for recovered and sustainable waste materials as far as possible.
Advocate the requirement for a “Whole Life” plan for any new buildings, -covering the design, construction, maintenance, refurbishment and end-of-life, to minimise waste production at each stage.
Consideration should be given to extending the obligation to refurbishment activities on existing buildings, rather than just on new development, although we acknowledge the loosening of controls over changes of use through permitted development regulations reduces the scope of controls over this.

Change suggested by respondent:

Part 1 - should consider the metrics that can be applied to measure this part of the policy.
Part 1 - Advocate requirement for a Whole Life Plan for any new buildings, covering the design, construction, maintenance, refurbishment and end-of-life, to minimise waste production at each stage.

Full text:

See Attached Letter.

Attachments:

Support

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13690

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

Part 2 - Query how the obligations will be monitored and if necessary enforced.
The first sentence does not specifically mention a circular economy, but this is implied.
It may be necessary to start to differentiate between potentially recoverable, reusable waste that could still offer economic value, and residual or other contaminated wastes (e.g. hazardous or clinical wastes) that will still require “disposal” arrangements. It also seems to be inferred that the reprocessing facilities will need to be located nearby, to reduce transport emissions, however the “direction of travel” has been for waste to travel longer distances. Hence the need for the provision of local reprocessing and remanufacturing capacity for both useful materials and for any necessary “disposal” as far as possible. This should be covered in Part 3, again differentiating between Circular Economy recovery/remanufacturing capacity and traditional residual “waste management” facilities.

Change suggested by respondent:

Need for provision of local reprocessing and remanufacturing capacity for useful materials and for any necessary 'disposal' should be covered in Part 3.

Full text:

See Attached Letter.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 13691

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Safeguarding -
Recommend that the general issue of safeguarding regulated activity (such as AD plants, landfill, composting and other waste processing facilities) from proposed new sensitive receptors is considered within this policy as it is becoming an increasing concern. This is partly touched on in sections 8(x) 8(xiv) and 9.
Issues can include housing development close to waste operating facility.
‘Safeguarding’ can also refer specifically to providing for appropriate future expansion of existing infrastructure, by preventing conflicting developments. We are seeing increasing pressure on waste facilities especially in urban areas, largely due to housing developments which result in an increase in complaints to ourselves as the regulator of those facilities. Changes to planning system now allow commercial properties to be converted to residential use, such as offices on industrial estates.
It should be made clear that the Environmental Permitting Regulations do not demand ‘zero impact’, so conflict situations become inevitable.
Para. 182 of NPPF now makes reference to placing obligations onto the “Agent of Change” (i.e. the developers/applicants,) requiring them to ensure appropriate mitigations are put in place to protect neighbouring users from impacts.

Change suggested by respondent:

Recommend that the general issue of safeguarding regulated activity from proposed new sensitive receptors is considered within this policy as it is becoming an increasing concern.
Should be made clear that the Environmental Permitting Regulations do not demand ‘zero impact’, so conflict situations become inevitable.

Full text:

See Attached Letter.

Attachments: