Q4. Do you agree with Policy P1? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2102
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council
Support for Policy 1 and 1A but planning rules should be used to discourage distribution or warehousing in UK Central area because of the negative impacts this will have on the road network. Development should be focussed on high productivity, high talent enterprise.
see attached response
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2106
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Birmingham Airport Ltd
Generally support but could be strengthened to reflect role as a key economic driver.
Should be additional support for the growth of BHX outside its current boundary on clearly identified land that is either currently owned by BHX or could be made available.
Green Belt should be released to the South West of the A45 to allow future growth of the airport.
Provision should be made for a combined HS2/ BHX Terminal on the Triangle Site.
The wider Green Belt to the South West of the A45 should be released for airport related uses and other economic and infrastructure uses.
see letter and appendices
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2107
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Coventry City Council
Support in principle for HS2 to ensure the benefits are realised. Whilst it will result in a reduction in the gap between the western edge of Coventry and the eastern edge of Solihull being reduced, this is acceptable in the context of the economic benefits of the region as a whole.
see response
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2110
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Lendlease
Agent: dp9 Ltd
Growth around the HS2 interchange should be properly planned to ensure the area does not become a new defacto town centre by virtue of its cumulative size and floorspace.
The scale of retail developments at UKC should be more tightly defined to reflect its out of centre location.
The town centre first approach should not be circumvented either by virtue of failure to identify and plan to meet capacity in appropriate town centre sites, or by allowing a large quantum of retail floorspace, which could be proportionately significant when compared to the scale of the Town Centre and other centres.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2153
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: SMBC - Public Heath & Commissioning Directorate
UK central
As well as encouraging 'improved public transport' there needs to be 'improved opportunities for walking and cycling'.
HS2
Make a significant contribution to the transport issues associated with HS2 with a transport infrastructure that maximises the forms of active travel to and within the site creating a more sustainable and healthier development.
I've reviewed the proposed plans from a public health - improving health through physical activity perspective and I make the following comments:
Challenges A, C, H, J, K
Are acknowledged with infrastructure that promotes physical activity, a key facet of a healthy lifestyle, that addresses the health inequalities, values the built and green infrastructure and that supports the creation of a health led environment will be crucial to creating a whole system that encourages activity rather than mitigate against it.
To this end Public Health has identified in the draft WM combined authority physical activity strategy supports the adoption of the Sport England and Public Health England 'Active by design' principles and specifying the Lifetime Homes standard in housing.
With respect to the specific policies or options further comment is offered as follows:
P15
We would advocate the adoption of the Sport England/Public Health England Active Design principles as a means of creating the environment to help get people active and sustain that activity creating the health benefit required in the Borough.
P7
Remove '/or' from first sentence after bullet iv) and the following paragraph on the basis that both forms of active travel need to be promoted in order to maximise take of these sustainable forms of transport that also promote health.
P15
The specification of Lifetime homes standard is supported. There needs to be a reference to 'the creation of civic spaces that promote physical activity'.
P18
i) By including 'that promote' sport and 'the differ needs of the diverse population that may use a development'
And rather than 'contribute' in ii and iii 'deliver'.
The reference needs to be to 'accessible' open spaces.
P20
There is a needs to make explicit reference the playing pitches as part of the sports & recreation provision and the playing pitch strategy as evidence.
UK central
As well as encouraging 'improved public transport' there needs to be 'improved opportunities for walking and cycling'.
HS2
Make a significant contribution to the transport issues associated with HS2 with a transport infrastructure that maximises the forms of active travel to and within the site creating a more sustainable and healthier development.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2185
Received: 13/02/2017
Respondent: Bickenhill & Marston Green Parish Council
Agent: Richard Cobb Planning
Additional development at the NEC should be within its boundaries. There should be a stated protection for Bickenhill Plantations as a buffer to residential development in Marston Green.
Any reduction in car parking should not be detrimental to the local area.
Birmingham Airport development must maintain and enhance the living environment around the airport and development should be within its boundaries.
Development at Birmingham Business Park should minimise environmental impact on surrounding residential properties.
The Garden City approach at Arden Cross should not be compromised. Retail and other development should be of an appropriate scale the site, not large scale.
see attached letter from Agent
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2216
Received: 12/03/2017
Respondent: Jenny Woodruff
I am very pleased to see some of the items in this policy, particularly diversifying the visitor offer at the NEC and the incorporation of low carbon and renewable energy principles as a general objective.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2261
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Meriden Parish Council
Policy P1 - Central Hub Area. There is no mention of the effect of Brexit or US politics especially in relation to car development (JLR expansion)? If US decide to reduce imports of JLR, economic growth significantly affected including all service industries and airport, 'Arden Cross' and Birmingham Business Park. There is no agreed impact of HS2.
We agree with the challenges and objectives addressed by the policy on page 47.
When did Arden Cross become the name referenced for the new Garden Village? Who decided this. There will be confusion as lots of 'Ardens' already exist in the Borough
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2286
Received: 06/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs A Wildsmith
Agent: John Cornwell
Strongly supported.
Para. 134-137 justify release of Green Belt land to support Policy P1 aims.
Should include some residential development to ensure sustainable development of JLR.
see letter from agent on behalf of landowner
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2437
Received: 16/03/2017
Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council
Neither the Local Plan nor the associated HS2 Growth Strategy adequately explain how existing stations such as Solihull and Dorridge will integrate with the new rail infrastructure.
There is no rail connectivity indicated from these stations to the HS2 link, driving traffic to these stations - hardly "...an integrated approach to movement through the Hub area...". As plans for Birmingham International are not clear from the evidence base it is uncertain how the development will allow commuters to reach HS2 from within Solihull borough. Insufficient detail to ensure the Policy is compatible with P8.
original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2496
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Urban Growth Company
Agent: ARUP
Supportive of the overall principles of the policy and opportunities to realise significant economic growth in order to maximise the full potential of the wider UK Central and specific Hub area.
The HGIP demonstrates a larger capacity for growth than is outlined in the Draft Plan.
The overall number of dwellings (1000) should be greater and the HGIP sets out a figure of at least 1500 homes over the plan period, rising to 3-4000 beyond 2032.
The HGIP outlines the overall growth ambition plan and sets out development outputs and infrastructure requirements to support the level of growth.
see attached letter and supporting document (The UK Central Hub Growth and Infrastructure Plan)
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2527
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
Agree with objective to contribute towards the strategic green infrastructure network across the Hub area.
see attached response
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2605
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Extra MSA
Agent: Pegasus Group
Need for comprehensive upgrade to Junction 6 to support UKC ambitions.
Requires a MSA to support this.
Should be recognised in text.
see attached response by agent on behalf of Extra MSA group
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2682
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Mr M Ali
Agent: Planning Design & Build
Support in principle for the designation of site 20 as employment land, but would like to see the site continue to deliver mixed use/commercial uses, such as the hotel owned by the representor on the site.
see letter re: site 20 and alternative commercial use as hotel for part of site
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2883
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: IM Land
Agent: Stansgate Planning LLP
Over-reliant on housing numbers to be delivered in UKC Hub Area.
Lack of evidence provided to support delivery or supporting infrastructure.
Timescales of HS2 delivery still uncertain.
see attached documents
LPR Draft - Representations IM Land Meriden - this is the overarching document
LVA & Green Belt Review Feb 2017
Access and transport Appraisal 161208
Land North of Main Road, Meriden - The Vision
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3000
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross Road) Ltd
Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd
Generally agree with the policy.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3067
Received: 09/02/2017
Respondent: Ellandi LLP
Agent: Williams Gallagher Town Planning Solutions
Object to lack of suitable guidance to define appropriate scale for retail and leisure elements identified for Arden Cross and Birmingham Business Park to ensure they do not compete with existing or planned facilities elsewhere. The policy should set a suitable threshold beyond which an impact assessment is required to test the consequences of proposals, to be informed by an updated Retail and Leisure study, and ensuring that development is delivered only when the development itself requires it. It should ensure no standalone or destination retail or leisure development beyond that required for the primary function.
see representation on behalf of Ellandi LLP
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3070
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Transport for the West Midlands
Policy P1 supported by TfWM and is in alignment with the WMCA's SEP.
Vital that Solihull MBC and TfWM work together to focus on securing the necessary
TfWM (part of the West Midlands Combined Authority) infrastructure, connectivity and infrastructure improvements to create the optimum environment for investment, new jobs and homes.
see letter
"Overall we are very supportive of the plan and its in alignment with our Movement for Growth and SEP. But we have raised some points concerning parking policy, and more promotion of walking and cycling. "
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3134
Received: 13/03/2017
Respondent: Birmingham City Council
Supportive of the UK Central proposal and the recognition of the importance of Jaguar Land Rover, the NEC and Birmingham Airport as key economic assets.
Support work of the Urban Growth Company in assisting delivery of development in this area.
Welcomes the approach set out in the Plan with regard to the NEC and the general support for the expansion of the airport to maximise use of the existing runway.
Concern that the plan does not recognise the potential to relocate passenger facilities to the Arden Cross site. This should be considered in the next version of the Local Plan.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3190
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Karl Peter Childs
Agree in principle.
Proposed housing development south of Shirley will be remote from economic activity.
see written response attached
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3607
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Peter Bray
Agree with Policy P1 but lack the faith to achieve it. There is dependence on the fortunes of a small number of enterprises of which SMBC has no control. It is not particularly clear that any are flourishing although headlines are upbeat. It is understandable why HS2 gets the headlines but there is no guarantee that it will be successful when built, too much faith is put into it.
Agree that if HS2 becomes reality Meriden Garden City is a step forward to the vision if it takes the pressure off Balsall Common.
see attached written rep
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3803
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Colchurch Properties Ltd
Agent: Richard Brown Planning
We are in agreement with the Council's policies relating to economic growth.
Please find attached a response to the Solihull Local Plan Review consultation on behalf of Colchurch Properties Limited who are promoting land to the south of Station Road, Balsall Common.
This response comprises a 'Vision Document' which includes the following sections,
Foreword (inset)
1. Introduction
2. The Vision
3. Planning Background
4. Draft Local Plan 2016 Consultation Response
5. The Concept Masterplan (not including figures which are within the hard copy and CD issued separately)
6. Transport and Access
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3820
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: John Parker
Agent: DS Planning
Lack of confidence that level of residential development will come forward within the plan period.
No certainty on timeframe of HS2 development, UK Central Hub Area in general and precise uses and percentages of different land uses in Hub.
Concern about effects of future Airport plans and its land requirements to expand.
see attached
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3830
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd
Generally support.
Arden Cross, Site 19:
Support release of Green Belt land.
Would like to see housing numbers increased back to 2,000 to enable a sustainable vibrant urban quarter.
Emphasis should be placed on early development opportunities in line with Government and WMCA aims.
Birmingham Airport:
Recognise importance of a successful regional Airport.
Prefer Site 20 area for expansion to east of A452.
Jaguar Land Rover:
Recognise importance of JLR to regional economy.
Development expansion should not be considered in isolation from Airport aspirations.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3851
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Ron Shiels
Agent: DS Planning
Lack of confidence that level of residential development will come forward within the plan period.
No certainty on timeframe of HS2 development, UK Central Hub Area in general and precise uses and percentages of different land uses in Hub.
Concern about effects of future Airport plans and its land requirements to expand.
see attached
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3891
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: IM Properties
Agent: Turley
DLP correctly identifies the significant economic assets captured within UK Central, including UKC Hub, NEC, Airport, Birmingham Business Park, JLR and HS2 Interchange site.
ELR does not specifically set out any 'land requirements' associated with supporting growth, but does acknowledge that job growth will be additional to the baseline forecasts 'because it was considered as something that was not anticipated by the forecast i.e. supergrowth.'
In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Properties and IM Land.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3919
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Stoford Properties
Agent: Barton Willmore
Agree with principles of Policy P1 (UKC Hub Area) and approach to release Green Belt to the north east of Damson Parkway.
Responsd to economic development needs and ambitions of UKC Hub area, and the lack of non-Green Belt sites available.
Review of GB boundary provides opportunity to shape sustainable future sustainable development in order to meet the longer-term needs of the Borough, in a coherent and logical manner which support the aims on Policy P1.
Have submitted a Landscape and Visual Appraisal and Green Belt Review undertaken in 2016.
We would like to submit a formal response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation on behalf of Stoford Properties. As part of our response, please find attached our Representations Letter.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3946
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land
Agent: DS Planning
Lack of confidence that level of residential development will come forward within the plan period.
No certainty on timeframe of HS2 development, UK Central Hub Area in general and precise uses and percentages of different land uses in Hub.
Concern about effects of future Airport plans and its land requirements to expand.
see response and supporting documents
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 4001
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd
Agent: DS Planning
Lack of confidence that level of residential development will come forward within the plan period.
No certainty on timeframe of HS2 development, UK Central Hub Area in general and precise uses and percentages of different land uses in Hub.
Concern about effects of future Airport plans and its land requirements to expand.
see attached response and supporting documents
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 4043
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Stonewater
Agent: DS Planning
Lack of confidence that level of residential development will come forward within the plan period.
No certainty on timeframe of HS2 development, UK Central Hub Area in general and precise uses and percentages of different land uses in Hub.
Concern about effects of future Airport plans and its land requirements to expand.
see attached