Policy BC3 - Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane, Balsall Common
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14260
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: F B Architecture Ltd
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
> Emphasis on spreading Balsall common to the southeast has too many issues to be suitable.
> Fewest sites to make up housing numbers does not meet the NPPF guidance on the expected mix of variety and sites.
> Puts forward 3 smaller sites seen as better locations to the South West, West, and North West, balancing the sites proposed to the East, and within similar distances from the centre of the village.
> The SLP Inspector may well have concluded that “the area was not so remote that it would justify the omission of the two sites in this parcel....” as it now extends no further South than the existing housing (Para 556), but that housing is also too far from the “key economic assets”.
> Remaining land is clearly of significant ecological value and this provides a further reason why it should therefore remain undeveloped.
> The remaining land is clearly of significant ecological value and therefore should be undeveloped.
> Sustainability and Green Belt issues do not appear to comply with the NPPF, the question of the setting of the extremely rare Grade 2* Listed Building adjacent to the site and the extent of any mitigation for this and the local ecology need not have been further researched.
Alternative sites put forward;
- Site 82 Land at the rear of 152 to 172 Kenilworth Road, (including 166 and 170).
This site is capable of taking up to 70 dwellings.
- Site 421 Silver Tees Farm, Balsall Street.
This site could take up to 16 dwellings.
- Site 422 Rose Bank Balsall Street.
This site could take up to 25 dwellings.
I write to you as a Solihull resident for 66 years, a qualified architect for 47 years, who's first residential commission was a 5 bedroom detached house in Hampton in Arden designed in 1967. I have been a principal in private practice specializing in residential projects from 1 to 520 houses for 45 years, and having operated from offices in Balsall Common for over 12 years, feel that I understand the village and have added to it's variety of housing stock over the years, and continue to do so.
I do appreciate that the decisions that need to be made when preparing Local Plans are not easy, and that you have prepared robust arguments for the cases that I have looked at, however, I do feel strongly that the emphasis on spreading Balsall Common still further to the South East has too many issues to be suitable. I also feel that the easy option of involving the fewest sites to make up the numbers does not meet with the NPPF guidance on the expected mix and variety of sites is not met in your latest proposals, so draw your attention to three smaller sites with which I have been involved, and know that they are currently still available, suitable, likely to be viable and be brought forward for development within the first 5 years of your Plan without unnecessary delay. This is despite the original owner of Rose Bank, giving it's name to Site Reference 422, having sold and the new Owner, Mr Goodfellow, agreeing to join with the Owners of the other properties to put the land forward for consideration.
In the Supplementary Consideration documents this appears to be the only site considered in the Commentary as 'may be suitable for consideration as a windfall site' that was not classified as Amber in the Site Selection Step 2.
Policy BC3 – Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane, Balsall Common.
1. The latest version of the Council's Local Plan appears to cover most topics sufficiently well, with
the exception of allocating so much of the housing land proposed in Balsall Common to site BC3
2. In his foreword Councillor Courts referred in item 3 to the need to release Green Belt land, albeit
reluctantly, due to a shortage of suitable brown field sites.“However, we have looked to minimise
this and in doing so ensured the continued integrity of the significant Green Belt that remains”.
3. The centre of the village, already well to the North of the area within the development boundary,
would be further from this proposed site which extends down down to the Windmill Lane,
Kenilworth Road junction to the South East.
4. The suggestion that the southern portion of BC3 should accommodate some open space for
development is insufficient, and the dwellings intended here should be provided elsewhere.
5. There are better locations to the South West, West, and North West, balancing the sites proposed
to the East, and within similar distances from the centre of the village.
6. Although Coventry City Council have approved around 2,400 new homes at Eastern Green, and
infilling open space directly between the centres of Solihull and Coventry, affecting the heart of
the Meriden Gap, this is not a good example to follow.
Justification for Promotion of Policy BC3
7. Despite the reduction in numbers following the Draft Local Plan and Supplementary Consultation
indicating that the 200 dwellings originally intended would have a significant adverse impact on
the ecological quality of the site and the setting of the adjacent very important Heritage Asset (in
the form of Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill) the reduced number at 120 dwellings is still
too many in a poor location (see Para 555).
8. Believed to be the oldest Georgian Windmill in existence, it's relatively remote setting has
already been eroded too far by the expansion of Balsall Common towards the Windmill.
9. The SLP Inspector may well have concluded that “the area was not so remote that it would
justify the omission of the two sites in this parcel....” as it now extends no further South than the
existing housing (Para 556), but that housing is also too far from the “key economic assets” .
10. The argument in Para 557 that the area is a poorer portion of the Green Belt partly due to “the
development and encroachment that has already taken place in the parcel” is no reason to make
a poor situation even worse. The remaining land is clearly of significant ecological value and
this provides a further reason why it should therefore remain undeveloped.
2
11. The admission is then made that “the site does not perform well in the Sustainability Appraisal,
with twice as many negative effects as positive, including one significant negative effect due to
the distance to the key economic assets...” (Para 558).
12. Since the sustainability and Green Belt issues do not appear to comply with the NPPF, the
question of the setting of the extremely rare Grade 2* Listed Building adjacent to the site and
the extent of any mitigation for this and the local ecology need not have been further researched.
It is difficult to understand the reasons why the site has been retained in the Local Plan at all.
Alternative Sites
13. With the Government's intention of increasing both housing numbers and speed of delivery,
there are several other sites that have been put forward that between them could more than
satisfy both of these objectives. The better mix of parcel size and locations, to the North West
and West of the village centre, coming forward where it is needed and capable of development
without unnecessary delay would comply with Para 59 of the NPPF.
14. If the Council did reconsider the following sites which would offer an alternative location to
retain a sufficient supply and mix, taking into account their availability, suitability, and likely
viability NPPF Para 67, they should also prove more capable of early delivery than the larger
sites which often take far longer to complete. This would inevitably help with the 5 year supply
of deliverable sites, a major issue set out in Para 74 of the NPPF and one which trips up many
Local Authorities when their Local Plans are tested in practice.
Site 82 Land at the rear of 152 to 172 Kenilworth Road, (including 166 and 170).
This site is capable of taking up to 70 dwellings.
Site 421 Silver Tees Farm, Balsall Street.
This site could take up to 16 dwellings.
Site 422 Rose Bank Balsall Street.
This site could take up to 25 dwellings.
There are several other similar sites that may be similarly available to make up the shortfall.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14271
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: L&Q Estates - Land North of Balsall Street, Balsall Common
Agent: Avison Young
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy BC3 is not considered justified or effective. Disagree with Green Belt Assessment as refined parcel 57 performs a more important Green Belt role for Purposes 1 and 3. Site should be categorised as 6 blue in site hierarchy. Site performs poorly in Sustainability Appraisal and has significant ecological and heritage constraints which will restrict the area for development in terms of building height, capacity and access.
See attached
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14339
Received: 12/12/2020
Respondent: Mark Taft
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
• Houses are being built close to the Windmill in Balsall Common, a national monument. The outlook and site should be cherished not trashed by excessive building development.
Draft Solihull Local Plan Response - objections and points to be considered
From Mark Taft Dec 2020
44 Langocmb road
Shirley , Solihull
West Midlands B90 2PR
• 5 % of green belt to be built on when there are other options
• Only 3000 housed planed for development on Hs2 Site - Could be treble this number.
• Not only helping to mitigate the road traffic congestion, but also saving valuable green belt, providing breathing space in the Blyth valley areas
• Little housing allowance has been considered in Solihull town Centre, where unwanted office accommodation could be repurposed.
• Little housing allowance has been considered in Chemsley wood area, which is classed as an urban renewal area and has better transport links.
• Site BL3 is designated as green belt of the highest value – why is it being built on?
• Doctors Services in Shirley are already not coping due to the high number of retirement home projects; indirectly causing doctors surgery’s to become unviable business units.
• Roads are already to capacity, making too difficult to get to the M42 for work travel.
• Houses are being built close to the Windmill in Balsall Common, a national monument. The outlook and site should be cherished not trashed by excessive building development.
• Blyth valley area is a known flood plain on mainly clay soil, while little of no recognition of this is given in the plan.
• Solihull should not have extra houses from Birmingham – this has not properly been addressed.
• National government guidelines state that Natural wildlife sites should have interconnecting routes, so why is site BL3, Bl2 allowed to be included.
• Alternate locations such as the Tisbury green golf course should be considered as its nearer the Station, and would allow preservation of the gaps between Shirley , Dickens heath and Cheswick green.
• There seems to be no sustainable assessments contained in the plan.
• On page 180 of the plan, it states it is expecting addition traffic to be feed through Haslucks green road and Bills lane. This is already highly congested already it is difficult to leave the local estates to get to work in the morning.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14430
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Daniel Aldersley
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
Objection to Site BC3 - Fails 3 out 4 Tests of Soundness
I wish to formally object to Site BC3 Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road and ask that it is removed from the Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan.
The Draft Submission Local Plan is not sound, in proposing the allocation of Site BC3 for housing, as it fails to comply with 3 of the 4 tests of Soundness:
1) Positively Prepared:
The plan has not been positively prepared in that it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units on Green Belt Land (greenfield) and 1195 in the Meriden Gap is not required in order to comply with planning policy. Moreover, it is demonstrated that Site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the Council’s own criteria.
2) Justified:
The allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. There are omission sites both within Balsall Common and in the wider borough which either should have been allocated, based on merit, or for which the omission has not been justified. Moreover, the findings from the final version of the masterplan for Solihull Town Centre are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
3) Consistent with National Policy:
There are inconsistencies with the NPPF. Specifically paragraphs 11; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. As such, the enabling of sustainable development will not be delivered should Site BC3 remain in the Draft Local Plan.
I wish to protect the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and I also wish to protect the setting and character of the Grade II * Listed Berkswell Windmill.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14432
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Paula Johnston
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Wishes for site BC3 to be removed.
The plan has not been positively prepared in that it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units)
The allocation of site BC3 has not been justified.
There are inconsistencies with the NPPF.
Remove site BC3
Objection to Site BC3 - Fails 3 out 4 Tests of Soundness
I wish to formally object to Site BC3 Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road and ask that it is removed from the Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan.
The Draft Submission Local Plan is not sound, in proposing the allocation of Site BC3 for housing, as it fails to comply with 3 of the 4 tests of Soundness:
1) Positively Prepared:
The plan has not been positively prepared in that it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units on Green Belt Land (greenfield) and 1195 in the Meriden Gap is not required in order to comply with planning policy. Moreover, it is demonstrated that Site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the Council’s own criteria.
2) Justified:
The allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. There are omission sites both within Balsall Common and in the wider borough which either should have been allocated, based on merit, or for which the omission has not been justified. Moreover, the findings from the final version of the masterplan for Solihull Town Centre are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
3) Consistent with National Policy:
There are inconsistencies with the NPPF. Specifically paragraphs 11; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. As such, the enabling of sustainable development will not be delivered should Site BC3 remain in the Draft Local Plan.
I wish to protect the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and I also wish to protect the setting and character of the Grade II * Listed Berkswell Windmill.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14442
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Richard Bridge
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Wishes for site BC3 to be removed.
The plan has not been positively prepared in that it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units)
The allocation of site BC3 has not been justified.
There are inconsistencies with the NPPF.
Remove site BC3
Objection to Site BC3 - Fails 3 out 4 Tests of Soundness
I wish to formally object to Site BC3 Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road and ask that it is removed from the Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan.
The Draft Submission Local Plan is not sound, in proposing the allocation of Site BC3 for housing, as it fails to comply with 3 of the 4 tests of Soundness:
1) Positively Prepared:
The plan has not been positively prepared in that it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units on Green Belt Land (greenfield) and 1195 in the Meriden Gap is not required in order to comply with planning policy. Moreover, it is demonstrated that Site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the Council’s own criteria.
2) Justified:
The allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. There are omission sites both within Balsall Common and in the wider borough which either should have been allocated, based on merit, or for which the omission has not been justified. Moreover, the findings from the final version of the masterplan for Solihull Town Centre are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
3) Consistent with National Policy:
There are inconsistencies with the NPPF. Specifically paragraphs 11; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. As such, the enabling of sustainable development will not be delivered should Site BC3 remain in the Draft Local Plan.
I wish to protect the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and I also wish to protect the setting and character of the Grade II * Listed Berkswell Windmill.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14448
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy BC3- the site is the least sustainable of the Balsall Common sites, as it is located furthest away from the train station. The requirement of 3 train services per hour, is only met in 1 hour of the day at the station at Berkswell.
Policy BC3 Criteria 2 i- protection of the setting of heritage assets adjacent to the site is not possible with development on any portion of the site.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14497
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Catesby Estates Limited
Agent: Terence O'Rourke
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Site BC3 is, in principle, supported, but should not be overly prescriptive. Should be allocated for ‘approximately’ 120 dwellings as opposed to a set figure to provide flexibility. Policy BC3 2vi requirement for self and custom build plots is onerous and unjustified.
Site performs poorly in the Green Belt Assessment and has defined boundaries so removal from Green Belt is justified. Site is accessible to village centre and schools, with good connectivity with Meeting House Lane for walking/cycling.
A full assessment of the extent of harm to the setting and significance of Berkswell Windmill, and whether it can be acceptably mitigated should be undertaken at the time of a planning application in accordance with the NPPF tests. The reduction in area/capacity from the Supplementary Consultation is supported.
Whilst the ecological evidence contains errors and the existence of ‘areas with significant habitat value’ is disputed, the north-south and east-west ecological corridors are accepted and any potential constraints can be mitigated
Policy BC3 1 should be amended so that the allocation is for ‘approximately’ 120 dwellings as opposed to a
set figure which wouldn’t allow the required flexibility.
Policy BC3 2 (vi) requirement to provide Self and Custom Build Plots should be removed.
See attached
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14644
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Sheila Cooper
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This site should be removed from the Plan as it is totally unsustainable. The site is within the Green Belt, the protected Meriden Gap and Arden landscape. It is an important wildlife site of National Ecological Significance.
The proposed site does not enjoy public transport and is outside the scope of most residents to walk or cycle to local schools, shops, facilities, the doctor’s surgery or
Berkswell Station.
Remove site from plan
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14707
Received: 11/12/2020
Respondent: James Langton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
I do not consider the Local Plan to be sound for the reasons set out in the report submitted by the BARRAGE action group in response to the Local Plan Review:
Wilson, W. McGarry, J. Wilson, J. “PART A: Objection to the proposed allocation of Site BC3 Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road Balsall Common.” 29/11/2020
As such, I am objecting to the allocation of Site BC3 for housing
Remove Site BC3 as a proposed site for allocation
I do not consider the Local Plan to be sound for the reasons set out in the report submitted by the BARRAGE action group in response to the Local Plan Review:
Wilson, W. McGarry, J. Wilson, J. “PART A: Objection to the proposed allocation of Site BC3 Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road Balsall Common.” 29/11/2020
As such, I am objecting to the allocation of Site BC3 for housing
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14797
Received: 13/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs Francis Smith
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objects to BC3
I object to BC3
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14805
Received: 30/11/2020
Respondent: Mrs Elspeth Hamilton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Does not believe the local plan to be sound for the reasons set out in the report submitted by the BARRAGE action group in response to the Local Plan review: Wilson, W McGarry, j. Wilson, J. "Part A: Objection to the proposed allocation of Site BC3 Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road Balsall Common" 29/11/202.
As such is objecting to the allocation of site BC3 for housing
Remove Site BC3 as a proposed site for allocation
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14808
Received: 02/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs Pam Marsden
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Does not believe the local plan to be sound for the reasons set out in the report submitted by the BARRAGE action group in response to the Local Plan review: Wilson, W McGarry, j. Wilson, J. "Part A: Objection to the proposed allocation of Site BC3 Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road Balsall Common" 29/11/202.
As such is objecting to the allocation of site BC3 for housing
Remove site BC3 as proposed site for allocation
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14809
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs G Tomkys
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14811
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs C Cavigan
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14812
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mr Derrick Walker
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14813
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Anna Waters
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14814
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mr Ronald A Smith
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14817
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs June E Smith
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14819
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mr D Perks
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14820
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs Rita Perks
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See atachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14821
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs H Brookes
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14822
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs L Keene
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14823
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mr H Keene
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14824
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs J A Gledhill
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attahment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14825
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mr Clifford Gledhill
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14827
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mr S C Howles
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14828
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs J A Howles
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14829
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Terry & Bridget N/A
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14832
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mr T N Walton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection (Wants site BC3 removed from Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan): Fails 3/4 tests of soundness.
> Not positively prepared as it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units (Greenfield) and 1195 units (Meridian Gap) is not required to comply with planning policy. Furthermore, site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the council’s own criteria.
> Allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. Omission of sites within Balsall common and in the wider Borough which should have been chosen based on merit or for which the omission has not been justified. Final findings from Solihull Town Centre Masterplan are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan.
>Inconsistencies with the NPPF, specifically para 1; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. Sustainable development will not be complied with if site BC3 remains in the Draft Local Plan.
>Wishes to preserve the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and protect the character of the Grade II Listed Berkswell Windmill.
See attachment