Q8. Do you believe the right scale and location of development has been identified? If not why not?

Showing comments and forms 31 to 35 of 35

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4795

Received: 17/02/2017

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

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

Concept of Policy P2 is worthy, but difficult to deliver mixed use and high density residential. E.g. apartment development requires significant capital as entire development must be completed prior to completion and occupation.
Advise surplus contingency housing sites are identified due to risk of delivery in town centre.
LPEG recommends 20% surplus.

Full text:

I am instructed by my client Gallagher Estates to submit representations to the Draft Local Plan Review consultation (December 2016).

The representations comprise of the following submissions:

* Representations to the Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan comprising of Pegasus Group Report with accompanying appendices:
o Site Location Plan (Appendix A); o Review of SHELAA (Appendix B); o Review of SMHA (Appendix C);
o Un-met Housing Need and the Duty to Cooperate (Appendix D)
o Chelmer Model Papers (Appendix E)

* Separate Background Documents relating to :
o Land at Damson Parkway , Solihull;
o Land at Four Ashes Road, Dorridge;
o Land off Bickenhill Road, Marston Green and;
o Land off Berkswell Road, Meriden

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4829

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Kler Group - Gentleshaw Lane

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

It is considered that the right scale and location of development has been identified for the main centres considered within Policy P2.

Full text:

see attached documents

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4857

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: St Francis Group

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

Concept of Policy P2 is worthy, but difficult to deliver mixed use and high density residential. E.g. apartment development requires significant capital as entire development must be completed prior to completion and occupation.
Advise surplus contingency housing sites are identified due to risk of delivery in town centre.
LPEG recommends 20% surplus.

Full text:

see submission and supporting documents from agent - Pegasus

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4884

Received: 17/03/2017

Respondent: Persons with an interest Site 9

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

It is considered that the right scale and location of development has been identified for the main centres considered within Policy P2.

Full text:

see attached documents

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4911

Received: 16/04/2017

Respondent: Teresa Meredith

Representation Summary:

Opposed to moving Solihull Station, as costly, totally unnecessary and money better spent on social care/education.

Full text:

I realise I have missed the formal consultation, but wanted to voice my opposition to moving the railway station. It is a costly proposal, totally unnecessary and wrong given the lack of funding in areas such as social care and education. PLEASE DO NOT TO THIS.