Policy SO1 - East of Solihull

Object

Representation ID: 14696

Received: 05/11/2020

Respondent: James Smith

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Development will result in an adverse impact on Catherine-de-Barnes village community.
Adverse impact on wildlife due to increase in traffic
Area is already suffering due to motorway improvements
Adversely impact the historic character of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 14713

Received: 12/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Jagbir Sanghera

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Support views put forward by the Parish Council

Object

Representation ID: 14853

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Pargan Singh Gill

Agent: Satbinder Kaur Gill

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Considers the site will have a negative impact and will be detrimental to the area, the residents and the natural habitat of the green belt.
it will add pollution, traffic, noise and cause harm to animals and environment.
Impact on social behaviour, constraints on already shortage of services such as education schools, GP's, Community health services

Object

Representation ID: 14861

Received: 13/12/2020

Respondent: Mr David Sandall

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The plan incorrectly places the proposed site within the Borough of Solihull, namely the Town Centre and urban suburbs.
The misrepresentation detracts from the impact the proposed Plan has on Catherine-de- Barnes and the Parish of Hampton-in-Aden.
The application site is within the designated Green Belt Consequently, the proposed
development will introduce an urban landscape causing detrimental harm to the openness of the existing Green Belt.
The Application should be rejected on the grounds of the environment impact on the Parish.
There are no local GPs, post office or schools.
The proposed Plan will add to the already increased flow of traffic.
Increase surface run off and flooding.
Would add to current traffic congestion.
The diverse range of plant life in hedges can even help combat climate change by storing carbon in its vegetation

Object

Representation ID: 14913

Received: 11/12/2020

Respondent: West Midlands Police

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

- West Midlands Police has a statutory duty to secure maintenance of efficient and effective police force for its area
- Council statutorily required to consider crime, disorder and community safety in exercise of its duties, with aim to reduce crime.
- NPPF and PPG refer to designing out crime, supporting safe communities, working with police and security agencies, importance of considering and addressing crime and disorder, and fear of crime.
- PPG provides for planning obligations in policy requirements, understanding infrastructure evidence and costs and guidance for CIL.
- Vital that Police are not deprived of legitimate sources of funding so they’re not under-resourced
- If additional infrastructure for WMP is not provided, then Police’s ability to provide a safe and appropriate level of service will be seriously impacted by level of growth in the DSP.
- Important to note that increase in local population or number of households does not directly lead to an increase in central government funding or local taxation.
- Viability Assessment shows that police contributions are viable.
- Considered therefore contributions to policing are essential for delivery of DSP, and should be expressly stated in site policies and P21, not just Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
- Site policies should include more social infrastructure, such as ‘emergency services’ within likely infrastructure requirements, as within 2013 Local Plan.
- Site policies are unsound without reference to need for financial contributions to police infrastructure in list of ‘likely infrastructure requirements’
- Site policies are unsound without cross-referencing need to comply Policy P15
- Site policies are contrary to the requirements of NPPF Para.’s 34, 91, 95 and 127f) and PPG Para: 004 ID: 23b-004-20190901, Para: 017 ID: 25-017-20190901, and Para: 144 ID: 25-144-20190901.

Object

Representation ID: 14969

Received: 11/12/2020

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

- Support Council in recognising areas of high ecological value on site
- Object to low density development at rear of Hampton Lane on loss of biodiversity

Object

Representation ID: 15023

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Kier Living Ltd - Coleshill Road

Agent: Mr Hywel James

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Site has several constraints that will compromise deliverability and capacity as set out in DSP:
- Site Assessment document concludes
that development on this site would result in an indefensible GB boundary to the east.
- SA states that there are several constraints including:
i. loss of more than 20 ha of agricultural land;
ii. proximity to a listed building;
iii. within a medium landscape sensitivity area with low capacity for change;
iv. overlaps a local wildlife site.
Developability of site constrained by heritage assets and local wildlife site and multiple site owners.
Consider unrealistic that site can 400 homes in first five years of new local plan period is indicated in SHELAA.

Object

Representation ID: 15167

Received: 11/12/2020

Respondent: David Cuthbert

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I believe the inclusion of site SO1 in the above Plan to be unsound on the grounds that it breaches a number of conditions as detailed in the NPPF:
- location of this site breaches the openness of the greenbelt
- no evidence of exceptional circumstances being put forward as justification why this particular site should be included within the Plan.
- Damson Parkway defines a clear any physical boundary between the existing urban area and the Green Belt

Object

Representation ID: 15215

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Archaeology Warwickshire

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

As highlighted on pg. 19 of the 2020 Archaeological Assessment undertaken by the Warwickshire County Council Archaeological Information and Advice team on behalf of SMBC*, this site has significant archaeological potential. This potential, and the need for further archaeological assessment in advance of the submission of any planning application is not referenced in this policy. As the results of the assessment may influence the final form of the development across this area, it should be.

*Warwickshire County Council, 2020. 'Archaeological Assessment to Inform the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Local Plan. Additional Sites, 2020'. Warwick: Archaeological Information and Advice

Object

Representation ID: 15223

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Catesby Estates - Hampton Lane

Agent: Terence O'Rourke

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Site SO1 is supported in principle, but has complex land ownership and assembly issues. Given the overreliance on large sites, there is a need to select reserve sites. This area could provide additional housing as lower performing Green Belt with defensible boundaries and attached to settlement edge close to town centre.
Land south of Hampton Lane Solihull (Site 20) performs similarly to Site SO1 and should be identified as a reserve site. Site is bounded by ribbon development and forms a logical defensible extension to the urban area close to Solihull town centre. It is accessible, could provide an opportunity to address traffic congestion at Hampton Lane/Bypass, is urban in character with no significant constraints, is well-contained with defensible Green Belt boundaries to south and east and accords with the Plan's Spatial Strategy. A Vision Framework is submitted