North of the Borough

Object

Representation ID: 14233

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: L&Q Estates - Land at Bickenhill Road, Marston Green

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land at Bickenhill Road, Marston Green is available, developable and would deliver 137 – 176 dwellings depending upon density. There are no known constraints that would prevent development. Evidence demonstrates that in Green Belt terms the site is suitable for consideration as a ‘Green Site’, development would have a minimal impact upon the Green Belt. The proposals would support the delivery of the Council’s preferred approach that focuses development towards the most sustainable locations.

There are exceptional circumstances to justify the release of the site from the Green Belt to deliver housing growth for which there is a need. As a very minimum the site should be safeguarded to provide flexibility for future needs although the unmet need means that it should be brought forward now.

Object

Representation ID: 14517

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: St Philips - Coleshill Heath Road

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Land east of Coleshill Heath Road and adjacent to Birmingham Business Park could deliver up to 135 dwellings within the first five years of plan period.

The Supplementary Submission made in January 2020 proposed a new green belt boundary that could be set by the alignment of the pipeline, rather than the whole site being taken out of the green belt. This would retain separation between Birmingham Business Park and Coleshill Heath Road, and retain a link between the parcels of green belt that lie to the north and south of the site.

St Philips has demonstrated their willingness to work collaboratively to ensure the Metro is incorporated into the proposed development scheme.

Object

Representation ID: 14520

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: St Philips - Coleshill Heath Road

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Step 2 of the site selection process relied on planning judgement in respect of various ‘Factors in Favour’ and ‘Factors Against’. No guidance has been given on how the judgment was applied.

‘Land at Coleshill Heath Road’ (Site 131) was relegated from a ‘yellow’ site to a ‘red’ site. This was not supported by the data and evidence base.

The Site Selection Process Topic Paper does not confirm whether any second ‘checking’ assessment has been carried out. Our assumption is the Site Assessments that supported the Supplementary Consultation continue to be relied upon. The Topic Paper excludes ‘amber’ sites, but this would have allowed participants to understand which sites are considered ‘less harmful’.

The Council’s conclusion that the site should be excluded and designated as a ‘red’ site is not justified. Evidence does not demonstrate that effects of development would be “severe or widespread”. Our assessment against the ‘Step 2’ Criteria concludes the site performs positively.

Object

Representation ID: 15017

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Kier Living Ltd - Coleshill Road

Agent: Mr Hywel James

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Alternative Site to be considered, CFS 193:
Performs well in accordance with Council's evidence base:
SHELAA - Site performs well except for achievability. Can confirm that site owned by national Housebuilder, Kier Living, who have delivered housing immediately to west. Site achievable and available at earliest opportunity.
SA - Site identified as Ref. 341 for SA. Scores well against SA objectives, achieves 8 positives (2 of which are significant), 10 neutrals and 1 negative.
Green Belt Assessment - Concludes site only contributes to one of GB purposes, therefore has negligible contribution to GB.
Site Assessment Document - Only negative raised is site’s development would narrow the gap between Marston Green and Chelmsley Wood, contrary to conclusions in GBA. No robust reasoning for site to be excluded from Step 2 in site selection process.
Following sites have much greater constraints and deliverability concerns that CFS 193: BL2, BC1, BC3, BC4, KN2, SO1.