Q11. Do you agree with Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

Showing comments and forms 61 to 90 of 129

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2499

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Urban Growth Company

Agent: ARUP

Representation Summary:

The Hub can contribute to meeting wider housing needs, including the consideration of a more innovative range of options for delivery, including custom and self-build.
The UGC will develop proposals for individual sites in the Hub and a specific approach to the planning and delivery of such sites might be required along with consideration of any proposals which offer different types of delivery models and potential house types and tenures aimed at specified and emerging market demands. Such demands could well be driven by the delivery of significant infrastructure, facilities and economic investment within the wider UKC area.

Full text:

see attached letter and supporting document (The UK Central Hub Growth and Infrastructure Plan)

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2559

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Solihull Ratepayers Association

Representation Summary:

Affordable housing policy for local needs on strategic sites in Dickens Heath Parish required.

Full text:

see attached response

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2628

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: NFU West Midlands

Representation Summary:

Support inclusion of rural exception sites.
Need policy on homes for rural workers, especially due to HS2 impacts.
Particular needs for farm workers not often met with off the shelf affordable homes.
Do not have option to move home if family grows.

Full text:

see attached letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2692

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Elizabeth Sands

Representation Summary:

The claim to be able to provide affordable housing in the area is false. Builders set the price of housing by reference to local levels. As an example, on the new development at Middlefield Springs, The cost of a very small 2 bedroomed house with no garage is advertised as £310,000.

Full text:

I have made a very late decision to respond within the consultation period. I had decided that as a resident of Knowle, any comments would be dismissed as "Nimbyism". However this decision is perhaps defeatism at its worst, so I request that you please give consideration to my views in the attached document.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2722

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Michael Cooper

Representation Summary:

The total proposed housing numbers are grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing community and will have a very significant detrimental impact on the size, shape, character and environment as a rural village. It is also noticed that whilst mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.

Full text:

Please find attached my response to your questionnaire which includes my personal concerns regarding my own land which appears to be included in the potential Barrett's Farm development but which has in fact never been offered by me for development.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2801

Received: 08/02/2017

Respondent: Elizabeth Yates

Representation Summary:

We build the smallest homes in Europe, to squeeze in as many homes as possible, It is well known that you would not be able to get a Fire Engine to homes in Dickens Heath because of traffic parked on the roads.

Full text:

Proposed planning for Shirley
SAY GOODBYE TO THE CUCKOO

I am writing to state my opposition to the 'proposed' building development in Shirley and the surrounding area.
To my heading: 'Say Goodbye to the Cuckoo'. Every year it is a complete and utter joy to hear the cuckoo when walking the fields. Many people come for miles to spot and listen to the cuckoo. This bird is on the official site for the most endangered species of bird and on the RED LIST, their numbers have decreased by 37% and we should be protecting these birds, not destroying their habitat.
Having attended the recent consultation meetings at various venues, not once have the council officers been able to give any information regarding the access to these developments, extra schools places, doctors surgeries, transport e.g. bus or train. I congratulate Solihull Council in their training of these officers in subterfuge.
For the past forty years, Shirley has been 'dumped' on by Solihull Council. We have seen our green open spaces eroded away on a systematic scale with Monkspath, Hillfield and Dickens Heath. Solihull Retail park was built in SHIRLEY. From the M42 the A3400 is one road of car dealerships leading into Shirley itself. Powergen was left derelict for more than twenty years when this could have been utilised in that time. Blythe Valley is now a Business Park. Now you proposed to fill in the remaining spaces, depriving the population of Shirley of many beautiful green open spaces full of wildlife, ancient oaks which will be chopped down and no doubt buildings will be demolished to make way for these homes.
It is a disgrace that you intend to build on football fields that our young people use, and what about the allotments that are within the area, will they be protected? I doubt it. I love to be able to say when walking the fields that I can go out in the summer months and see cows, sheep, goats, ducks and even reindeer. What about all the foxes, badgers, Muntjac dear, plus the numerous species of birds and the wonderful site of flocks of starlings swooping over the fields and hedge rows at dusk. We need these places for families to be able to take their children to learn to enjoy and protect their countryside, to know where their roast beef dinner comes from, not just a piece of meat on a plastic tray in the supermarket.
Where is the traffic supposed to go, what about the roads. It is a well known fact that people in Dickens Heath cannot get out of the village at certain times of the day, the traffic tailing back from as far as the Miller and Carter island because all of the traffic is heading towards the A3400 and on to Solihull. Commuters from Yardley Wood in Birmingham already make the journey to Whitlocks End Station to commute into Birmingham, because they are unable to park at Yardley Wood. Trains from Whitlocks End are very often only three carriages long and people are standing all the way to Birmingham having paid for a seat! It is obvious that more trains will be needed, more buses will be needed. Traffic from Tythe Barn Lane will have to come through Dickens Heath Village or along Haslucks Green Road and on to Bills Lane which is already congested in the mornings and evenings.
We build the smallest homes in Europe, to squeeze in as many homes as possible, It is well known that you would not be able to get a Fire Engine to homes in Dickens Heath because of traffic parked on the roads.
If the building development should go ahead, I can agree with the TWR site being utilised and reluctantly the Lighthall Farm site at least they would have a chance at travelling to the Stratford Road, being adjacent to it but I am opposed to all of this development. Solihull needs to look at the areas east of Shirley, Hampton in Arden, Knowle, Dorridge even the Green Burial Site has been given the go-ahead at Temple Balsall, was Shirley not considered for this? This would have been far more acceptable to the Shirley residents than the 6,150 homes. There is ample land on Widney Manor Road behind Solihull Sixth Form with direct access to Solihull and the M42. 'Urbs in Rure' Not for much longer.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2811

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Catesby Estates Limited

Agent: WYG

Representation Summary:

- Whilst amendments will be made to the NPPF to reflect White Paper comments on
repayment periods and the income caps as drafted, Policy P4 and the 20% Starter Homes requirement is considered to be premature and the policy should be amended to include flexibility and an allowance for site by site negotiation.
- In accordance with Paragraph 182 of the NPPF, Policy P4, as drafted in respect of Starter Homes provision,is not considered sound as it has not been justified and is not clear enough to be effective.
- Draft Policy P4(C) on housing mix is supported,

Full text:

see 3 separate letters
1) Land to the rear of Meriden C of E Primary School, Fillongley Road, Meriden
2) Land Hampton Lane, Solihull
3) Land Windmill Lane / Kenilworth Rd, Balsall Common

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2961

Received: 14/02/2017

Respondent: Mr F J Jackson

Representation Summary:

envisage affordable homes for local population rather than for private sale.

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3011

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross Road) Ltd

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

amendments to Policy 4(a) to change threshold to 11 units or more, is justified and consistent with PPG

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3150

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Michael & Lynda Beasley

Representation Summary:

Proposed housing numbers in Balsall Common are grossly disproportionate in respect to the size of the existing community.
Noted that while mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.

Full text:

Response to Solihull MBC 23 question extended consultation on the draft local plan
Question 1 are the right borough challenges identified
Will the impact of Brexit have a material effect on the total number of homes needed in the Borough?
Question 2 agreement with the Borough Vision
Only In a very small part yes, but it is clearly written from an urban Solihull-centric perspective, once more bringing into disrepute the belief that Solihull successfully combines a well-balanced combined Urban and Rural vision. Looked at from a holistic position, Solihull MBC in this draft proposal will not be satisfied with following their own policies until an urban jungle is built through the most vulnerable and narrow portion of the Green Belt between Balsall Common and Coventry City.
SMBC fought a huge battle at enormous cost to preserve this piece of land from a coal mine development; why is it now prepared to sacrifice this precious 'lung' between two major city conurbations?
Balsall Common is already a congested community with poor infrastructure and very poor public sector connectivity with the local economic centres which are primarily to the East and South ie NOT Solihull and this is the way traffic flows at peak times.
Further, no consideration has been given to considering sites to the South and West of the settlement toward the considerable economic development driven by JLR at their Fen End site, where they plan to site 2,000+ engineers. Many of these people will seek homes in Balsall Common and, therefore, to reduce cross-village traffic any major development should be on the West side of the village. Similarly, if a village bypass should ever be needed then consideration should be given to siting this on the West side.
Adding the proposed disproportionate housing and its resulting population to Balsall Common in sensitive and fragile Green Belt areas will simply make the problems worse and continue the belief that SMBC will ignore its own Policies when they do not suit political goals.
Question 3 agreement with Spatial Strategy?
The approach defined for sites being appropriate for development as written looks good with the right priorities, but unfortunately they have not been adhered to in this draft plan.
Barratt's Farm land is Greenfield land not Brownfield land and has significant drain off issues. Additionally, as stressed above, the village is virtually bereft of effective public transport.
The demolition of the Meriden Gap Green Belt and its impact on the local ecology of the green fields, ancient hedge rows and trees will directly affect the existing local residents and families who extensively use the area and its many crisscrossing footpaths for open air exercise and leisure activities. The additional traffic emanating from such a large increase in housing will add to the air pollution caused by poor control of the take-off and landing heights from Birmingham Airport, especially the northern turn over the settlement.
If this land is built on, then the drain off problem identified above will represent a risk to local adjoining properties to the north and south.
This area is already under severe threat of noise and Greenbelt erosion from HS2.
Piling in some 800 homes with shops, a school and other amenities with poor access to existing roads is a planning nightmare.
The site between Windmill Lane and the A452 Kenilworth Road to the South of the settlement is broadly a Brownfield site, BUT it is also proposed for a density of housing which is too high. This will generate traffic onto the narrow Windmill Lane that has poor visibility junctions at each end, or onto the A452 Trunk road with difficult North and South junctions.
Question 7 regarding sustainable Economic Development?
Good principles, but again not seriously considered in the draft plan with no consideration of the disproportionate building of houses on an already congested and ill planned village centre.
Question11 policy P2 providing homes for all
The total proposed housing numbers are grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing community and will have a very significant detrimental impact on the size, shape, character and environment of Balsall Common as a Rural Village. It is also noticed that while mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.
Question 15 appropriateness of draft proposed sites.
As mentioned throughout this response, Solihull MBC have failed to follow their own Policies in establishing the appropriateness of the chosen sites and yet proposals for a new village on a brown field site development to the north of the region have been ignored. This is also true of potential sites to the South/East of Solihull toward Hampton in Arden and Catherin de Barnes, these being closer to the proposed new High Speed HS2 interchange.
Question 16 completeness of required supporting infrastructure to complement the proposed draft development?
While Doctors and Schooling infrastructure is mentioned, no mention is made of shopping, banking etc and banks are currently withdrawing from Balsall Common. A lack of action on the site to the rear of the Co-op shop has caused it to be isolated from other retail outlets and has exacerbated the lack of any sense of a cohesive village centre. Car parking facilities in the Village are very limited and in some areas dangerous.
Question18 sustainable Travel
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport, apart from Birmingham focused rail, is very, very poor in the area.
Question 22 Delivery
CIL payments for local development should be focussed in the local area for locally requested and agreed infrastructure improvements.
Question 23 Any other comment
No explanation has been given to the fact that a grossly disproportionate number of houses are proposed to be built in Balsall Common in important and sensitive Green Belt land compared with elsewhere in Solihull Borough. Areas such as Dorridge, Knowle, Chadwick End and Fen End to the South are in less sensitive and less pressured areas of Green Belt land.
There is a very strong perception in the Balsall Common area that Solihull MBC have abandoned the Greenbelt and consciously discarded their own policies and values and have consequently lost what trust they had as a result.
It also appears from the draft local development plan consultation information booklet that land belonging to Lynda Beasley (Wyer) and Michael Cooper has been included in the proposed Barratt's Farm development. We assume this error will be rectified. In the event this development does proceed we would expect a barrier to be put in place to protect livestock on the above mentioned fields.

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3171

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Parish Council and Catherine-de-Barnes Residents' Association

Representation Summary:

Welcome the commitment in Policy 4 (B) for rural exception sites to focus on affordable housing for people with a local connection to the Parish.

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3197

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Karl Peter Childs

Representation Summary:

Agree with need to attract and retain younger people and families.
Concerned how these needs may be met.
Any significant concentration of affordable housing in one area would need to be closely examined.
Issue of retaining 'affordable' housing that is for sale in perpetuity.

Full text:

see written response attached

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3247

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Society

Representation Summary:

Welcome the commitment in Policy 4 (B) for rural exception sites to focus on affordable housing for people with a local connection to the Parish.

Full text:

Please find attached the response to the review of the Draft Local Plan from the Hampton-in-Arden Society. Representatives of the Society have attended a number of briefing events together with members of the Parish Council and this is therefore a joint response.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3284

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: J Maddocks & family

Agent: Nigel Gough Associates

Representation Summary:

Agree with need to provide affordable housing and housing for the elderly.
May require additional allocations for elderly, e.g. nursing homes.
Significant economic assets require suitable housing for future employees.

Full text:

see response by agent on behalf of J Maddock & family
Land fronting Dickens Heath Raod/Birchy Leasowes Lane & Tilehoue Lane

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3452

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Sheryl Chandler

Representation Summary:

Concerned about the nature of housing proposed in Shirley South area, as houses in the South of the Borough command extremely high prices. Do not believe that the houses built will be affordable by the young people. They will be 3, 4, 5 bed houses with a small contingent of affordable houses that will probably be purchased by buy to let landlords. The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses and will require less land.

Full text:

Objections and Comments on Shirley allocation plot 13

I 100% agree with what Shirley Heath has put. We won the battle years ago when they wanted to build a football stadium and will most certainly try our best to win this battle too. If there wasn't many people coming into this small country we would not have this housing crisis. I mean how many people per square mile in this country compared to other much larger countries than ours.
We can't just keep taking away our green belts. What's going to happen once they are all gone????


I am writing to register my objection to the development of Shirley South. Particularly Allocation number 13 which is designated green belt land.

Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of the new housing in the borough. This is disproportionate and unfair. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements".
I believe that there are numerous options yet to be explored and have yet to see the exhausted list of alternatives that have been investigated.

The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In this case HS2, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to the proposed developments.
The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter is like a racetrack. As are some of the local rat runs such as Stretton Road which constranly has drivers coming along the road at ridiculous speeds, in an area with two schools and a large elderly community.
The addition of thousands on new homes will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.

I drove down Marshall Lake Road today into the centre of Solihull and it took 35 minutes to travel just over a mile, the new traffic lights have made the situation worst the routes into the town centre are already creaking.

In terms of other public transport, the local rail stations are not fit for purpose, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations.

In addition to the problem of infrastructure, the area is not set up to facilitate a large number of potential new families. It is already veirtually impossible to get your child into the secondary school of your choice. What will happen to the catchment area of schools in the borough. In my particular area, residents have been bounced back from Alderbrook and Tudor Grange over the years by the Monkspath and Hillfield developments and latterly Dickens Heath. If this development were to go ahead, there would need to be provision for either school extensions or new schools. This again would require more space to be taken up.

Solihull hospital has been downgraded over the years and no longer has a paediatric department, the closest hospital being Heartlands. The trip to Heartlands is an absolute nightmare in traffic and can take over an hour.

In terms of Allocation 13. This is an area that has over the years has become a is a very popular recreation and amenity area, popular with families, dog walkers, ramblers etc.

The area has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land and even evergreen forest. There is a network of drainage ditches and well-established farm ponds and also a sink area which is effectively bog land. The area is very wet and for the most part of the winter is very boggy and forms a flood plain due to the very high water table and the constituent soil composition.
This results in heavy flooding across most of this low lying area. Many of the houses that back onto the fields in Langcomb Road experience flooding in their back gardens on a regular basis. A phenomenon that has reduced to an extent following the intensive planting of Christmas trees in the field adjacent to the gardens.
The network of ditches and ponds provides a varied eco system and I have seen frogs, toads and newts, along with Muntjac Deer, Cuckoo, Woodpecker and birds of prey. In addition in the meadowland and the marshy areas there are numerous wild flowers, I am not qualified to identify them but I feel you should carry out an in-depth wildlife and ecosystem survey at the correct time of year before a decision is made

In addition part of the area was granted to the stewardship of the Laker Centre on the completion of the Woodlands Estate. I am led to believe that the Layca Committee purchased the fencing around this area and also contribute to its upkeep. I would argue that the whole of area 13, by custom and practice over the last 40 years is by default a very important amenity area. On only has to look at the well-worn footpaths. This is indeed the lung of Shirley, the place to which people from many surrounding areas come to breath. Also, I am led to believe that any developments that affect a local communities quality of life should be offset. I feel that Allocation 13 should become a recognised conservation and public amenity area serving Shirley South. Shirley Park is woefully small and dog owners now are restricted to a tiny fenced in dog area.

I am also concerned about the nature of housing in this area. It is a well-known fact that houses in the South of the Borough command extremely high prices. I do not believe that the houses build will be affordable by the young people. They will be 3, 4, 5 bed houses with a small contingent of affordable houses that will probably be bought up by wealth buy to let landlords and exacerbate the issues with high rents etc.

The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses.

Slightly further south of allocation 13 the loss of a number of sports fields will deprive the local community of the opportunity of recreational activities and again reduce open space, this gives further argument to Allocation 13 being designated a conservation and amenity area.
In addition, the government states that the housing contracts should go to smaller companies using innovative methods, and promote self build and housing associations. Is this in the plan.

Alternatives to developing green belt sites are numerous and I am not convinced that all possibilities have been exhausted, both in smarter use of land and also locations

Thinking outside the box, flat areas of car park such as NEC and airport could be converted to multistory and the land save could be developed right on the door step of HS2 and also to compliment the recent resort World Complex.

This would alleviate pressure on south to north traffic flow. In addition, this would be the use of brownfield sites.
In addition to this, the proposed JLR site on Damson Lane, is purely a financial gain for the company to reduce freight costs. Why not build houses in that area instead. That would mean that the houses were in the right area. That is north of the town centre on the main arterial route of the A45, which has been developed to handle a large amount of traffic. The cost of JLR distribution is not the taxpayers concern. Or alternatively, why not build on the Land Rover Sports field as a trade off with the company, very few employees actually use the sports field.

There is also the possibility of buying larger houses in Solihull which have huge gardens and developing small estates with mews or flats as opposed to the exclusive developments that are cropping up along Blossomfield Road

Along with these ideas I have come up with a number of alternative areas which are more suitably located and are smaller pocket developments as per the governments' requirements. They are for the most part also in more affordable areas of the borough, see below

Land Pockets between
A452 / A45 / M42
A452 / Coleshill Heath Road / M42
Bickenhill Lane / B4438 / Westerly direction
B4438 / M42 / A45
Hampton Lane / A41 / M42

Finally, I am led to believe that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses from the Birmingham Allocation. This is regardless of the fact that there are many brownfield sites and public open spaces that should be used before greenbelt as per the previously mentioned government document. I would urge you to push back to Birmingham City Council on this matter.

As an example I walked along Fazeley Street last week, I saw a number of brownfield sites being used as cheap car parking and also overgrown areas with rubble etc and a large grassy area devoid of natural life Public space). Can you please ensure that Birmingham City Council fully research and address all of their brownfield sites before Solihull rolls over and gives away our green belt.

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3507

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: UK Land Development (UKLD)

Agent: Savills

Representation Summary:

Government published their response to Starter Homes Technical Consultation on 07.02.17. Concluded they will not make 20% Starter Homes compulsory.
Intended that NPPF will be amended to introduce clear policy expectation that 10% of new development is affordable housing.
50% target is 10% higher than existing policy. No Viability work been undertaken yet.
As not supported by Government expectations or viability testing then consider 50% is inappropriately high and should be revised to according to viability work.

Full text:

Draft Local Plan Representations - UKLD Smiths Lane Bentley Heath Knowle

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3533

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Hatfield

Representation Summary:

Alternative New Site.

Consider development a completely new area, such as Dickens Heath.
Would add affordable housing for young and old to meet the requirements.

Full text:


Draft Local Plan - Balsall Common
As a very concerned resident, I am asking you to look again at the housing developments proposed for this area.

We need to look at brownfield sites for new homes, not the green belt sites which have been put forward. As detailed in the recent Government white paper, green belt land should be protected.

We need to protect the Meriden gap and the countryside for future generations. I do appreciate that we have a housing shortfall, but surely we can allocate sites which current residents are happy with not just greedy landowners, who do not have a vested interest in the area they develop.

We are already facing a huge amount of construction traffic with HS2 and at present, we do not have anywhere near the required facilities or infrastructure such as school places and public transport.

Another option for Solihull is to look at developing a completely new area, perhaps similar to Dicken's Heath which is a lovely village development. Surely, this would provide affordable housing for young and old to meet the requirements.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3617

Received: 14/02/2017

Respondent: Peter Bray

Representation Summary:

In Balsall Common we feel that not all categories quoted in the Local Plan are catered for e.g. Aged persons Bungalows. Maybe this area needs to be re-thought.

Full text:

see attached written rep

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3712

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Hunter Page Planning

Representation Summary:

Increase to 50% affordable housing not justified in text.
SHMA states need is 26.9% of new development.
Viability assessment on policy not been carried out.
Government attaches great importance to flexibility on Section 106 negotiations.
Very strict mix for market housing proposals.
Needs more evidence than the SHMA.

Full text:

see detailed response to policies and 4 supporting documents supporting proposed sites

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3771

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Simon Taylor

Representation Summary:

Definition of affordable housing in the SPD is both subjective and questionable.
Proposed 50% target is unacceptable and entirely exceptional.
Cannot compare level of affordable housing in Solihull with national averages as it is a rural area.
Ratio of lower quartile house prices to lower quartile earnings in Solihull is lower than in Warwick, Stratford upon Avon and Bromsgrove.
2015 data is out of date.

Full text:

see attached letter and supporting annotated map

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3804

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Colchurch Properties Ltd

Agent: Richard Brown Planning

Representation Summary:

We are in agreement with Policy P4.

Full text:

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: 3825

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: John Parker

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The Affordable Housing figure of 50% is too high and a potential impediment to housing delivery.
The full implications of the housing white paper need to be assessed and would reserve judgement on a final policy.

Full text:

see attached

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3856

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Ron Shiels

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The Affordable Housing figure of 50% is too high and a potential impediment to housing delivery.
The full implications of the housing white paper need to be assessed and would reserve judgement on a final policy.

Full text:

see attached

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3926

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: The Knowle Society

Representation Summary:

No mention in DLP Site 9 proposal for the inclusion of any additional accommodation for older people.
Does not identify any future suitable provision for what is the largest sector of Knowle's population.
Pepper-potting affordable houses around sites has an adverse impact on all residents. Partly due to poor management by RSLs or Housing Associations.
Could resolve this by not pepper-potting homes, or by providing low cost market housing for rent or sale.
Proportion of shared ownership should be for local people only.
Densities are too high; need pre-1980s layouts. Would only require further 0.5% of Green Belt.

Full text:

Please find attached the Response of The Knowle Society to your Consultation of the draft Local Plan 2017 Review.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3949

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The Affordable Housing figure of 50% is too high and a potential impediment to housing delivery.
The full implications of the housing white paper need to be assessed and would reserve judgement on a final policy.

Full text:

see response and supporting documents

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3954

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Representation Summary:

Agree with Policy on the whole.
Comment that Meeting Housing Needs SPD 2014 will need to be updated, and at the earliest opportunity.
In setting out development briefs, the Council should be working proactively with the landowners/developers and not producing them in isolation.
This will ensure that developments are based on reliable and uptodate market evidence.
Would also note that SHMA should be uptodate to include guidance on relevant housing mix; to ensure the right developments are approved in the right locations to meet local demand.

Full text:

In accordance with the consultation deadline for the Draft Local Plan Review, please find attached the following sent on behalf of our clients Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd:

* Letter addressing our representations on behalf of our client Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
* Appendix 1 Proposed Allocation Plan Layout
* Appendix 2 Grove Road, Knowle Promotional Document

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4005

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The Affordable Housing figure of 50% is too high and a potential impediment to housing delivery.
The full implications of the housing white paper need to be assessed and would reserve judgement on a final policy.

Full text:

see attached response and supporting documents

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4049

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Stonewater

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

Agree in principle with the policy.

Full text:

see attached

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4092

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Persimmon Homes Central

Representation Summary:

Agree that definition of affordable housing should include social rented, affordable rented, intermediate tenure and Starter Homes.
Object to level of affordable housing.

Full text:

Please find attached Persimmon Homes Central's representations in response to the draft plan published November 2016. Also attached are our site specific representations regarding our site at Tythe Barn Lane, Dickens Heath, which forms part of the strategic allocation.

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4102

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Federated Scrap Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb Planning Consultancy

Representation Summary:

Accept that a range of housing will be need to be provided to meet the requirements of all those living in the plan area and the wider HMA.
Suggest Policy P4c is amended to include reference to provision for higher value housing sites to support the economic strategy.

Full text:

submission by agent on behalf Federated Scrap and proposal land at Jacobean Lane Copt Heath