Q6. Do you agree with Policy P1A? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

Yes

Representation ID: 3002

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross Road) Ltd

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

have no detailed comments on this policy but agree that the policy will allow the council to make meaningful contributions towards achieving objectives and meeting the needs of its population.

Yes

Representation ID: 3192

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Karl Peter Childs

Agree in principle.
Could include objective K.
Should consider SSSI and floodplain issues.

No

Representation ID: 3511

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: J Maddocks & family

Agent: Nigel Gough Associates

Concerns that adequate housing is being provided around Blythe Valley Park to meet their economic needs.

Yes

Representation ID: 3608

Received: 14/02/2017

Respondent: Peter Bray

Mixed development is a good step forward for major technical companies; I have to support this provided big names can be encouraged to put roots in Solihull.

Yes

Representation ID: 3831

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd

Largely supportive of policy and recognise contribution this area could play in development of wider UKC Hub.

Yes

Representation ID: 4352

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Arden Academy & Mr V Goswami

no specific comments in response to this question

Yes

Representation ID: 4385

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr J Allen

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Agree that the policy will enable the Council to make a meaningful contribution to meeting obvious objectives and provide sustainable mixed use development to meet the needs of its population.

Yes

Representation ID: 4827

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Kler Group - Gentleshaw Lane

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

No detailed comments to make in relation to this policy but would agree that the policy will enable the Council to make a meaningful contribution to meeting obvious
objectives and provide sustainable mixed use development to meet the needs of its
population.

Yes

Representation ID: 4882

Received: 17/03/2017

Respondent: Persons with an interest Site 9

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

We have no detailed comments to make in relation to this policy but would agree that the policy will enable the Council to make a meaningful contribution to meeting obvious objectives and provide sustainable mixed use development to meet the needs of its population.

Yes

Representation ID: 6326

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Maxine White

Blythe Valley development is essential to Solihull and its residents.

No

Representation ID: 6495

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: IM Properties

Agent: Turley

In principle do not object to separate Policy P1A for BVP, but should not overlook its importance and role in Borough and wider region. Support wording around mixed use community and primary economic asset.
BVP has secured mixed use planning permission.
Note there are inconsistencies between Table at Para. 230 and footnote 34. Should state BVP can accommodate up to 1000 dwellings (assuming Council includes C2 and C3 uses in housing figures).
Request that anomaly between UDP and Solihull Local Plan boundaries for BVP are addressed through DLP.

No

Representation ID: 6496

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: IM Properties

Agent: Turley

Concerned that land holdings at BVP not fully addressed and considered as part of DLP evidence base.

SHLEAA Ref. 146 does not include any additional land submitted by ILM as part of Call for Sites. Land only considered in terms of housing; not housing and employment. Request that full land holdings at BVP are reassessed for these purposes during DLP.

ELR confirms important economic function and attractiveness of M42 corridor for business; Solihull therefore has potential to capture demand far beyond the TTWA geography. ELR conclusion that BVP is 'site for expansion' has not been reflected in DLP.