Q13. Which option for delivering self and custom housebuilding do you favour and why? If neither, do you have any other suggestions?

Showing comments and forms 31 to 46 of 46

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3806

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Colchurch Properties Ltd

Agent: Richard Brown Planning

Representation Summary:

We are in agreement that a percentage of self and custom housebuilding should be included in development proposals.

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

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3958

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Representation Summary:

Option 1 is most appropriate.
Would allow for such custom development to be delivered in the most appropriate location which is agreeable to the Council.
Would object to the progression of Option 2 as this would place an unnecessary burden on major developments from coming forward; fail to see how this could reasonably be attained.

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

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4067

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Charlotte Street

Representation Summary:

Preferable to Site 4 in Dickens Heath, but only if suitable infrastructure was provided to prevent exacerbating traffic etc issues in Dickens Heath village.

Full text:

site 4 objection

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4094

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Persimmon Homes Central

Representation Summary:

Consider it is more appropriate to allocate specific sites for new build, rather than obliging developers to provide 5% of their open market dwellings as self-build.
We would advise that smaller sites accommdoting ca. 20 self-build homes would be more appropriate.

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.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4104

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Federated Scrap Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb Planning Consultancy

Representation Summary:

Concerned about suggested figure of 5% of self-build on development sites.
Would be detrimental to relase of land and could cause problems in terms of delivering the oeverall erquirement.
Suggested that the reference to a % of self-build sites be deleted.

Full text:

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

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4112

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: The Home Builders Federation Midland Region

Representation Summary:

HBF preference is for Option 1.
HBF would be opposed to alternative.
If the Council decides to pursue this alternative option then it should be justified by robust evidence.

Full text:

Please find attached the HBF response to the above mentioned consultation for your consideration

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4258

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Representation Summary:

Levels of need identified by Council's self-build register have not been outlined.
Formal requirement that sites of 100+ dwellings provide 5% self/custom build is likely to be problematic, and could allocate far more land than is required.
Potential negative impact on site delivery, build-out rates and overall viability.
Suggest allocating specific sites, e.g. on public sector land.

Full text:

Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Plan Consultation
Please find attached a representation from Gladman into the above referenced consultation

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4280

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr J Allen

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

Both options have merit and it is suggested that a combination of both approaches would allow for the most flexibility in delivering housing for this part of the market. It is submitted that the land to which this representation relates could be suitable for allocation to Solihull's custom house building register.

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4364

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Arden Academy & Mr V Goswami

Representation Summary:


Option 1 is the preferred as this is felt to be the more appropriate route for delivering the types of dwellings needed.

Full text:

joint submission by Arden Academy & Mr Ved Goswami re: Arden Triangle site 9 Knowle
see attached documents

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4800

Received: 17/02/2017

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

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

Advise Option 1.
5% significant proportion of larger sites.
Renders delivery more difficult in masterplanning process. Less efficient use of land. Less design consistency.
Sites currently being promoted have been negotiated on existing planning policies and values.
Proposed policy change of Option 2 would have an impact on values and potentially affect the deliverability of the site.

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

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4862

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: St Francis Group

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

Advise Option 1.
5% significant proportion of larger sites.
Renders delivery more difficult in masterplanning process. Less efficient use of land. Less design consistency.
Sites currently being promoted have been negotiated on existing planning policies and values.
Proposed policy change of Option 2 would have an impact on values and potentially affect the deliverability of the site.

Full text:

see submission and supporting documents from agent - Pegasus

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4953

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Representation Summary:

Support option 1.
Object to the requirement that developers will be expected to supply 5% of dwelling plots for sale to self-builders for of more than 100 dwellings as this wouldn't enable a comprehensive and holistic development in terms of delivery and design. It would also provide numerous health and safety issues trying to work with numerous individuals and their associated contractors which would ultimately slow down delivery.

Full text:

see attached - site 12 land south Dog Kennel Lane

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 5036

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Ann Parker

Representation Summary:

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?

Full text:

Objections and Comments on Allocation 13 (without prejudice)

I write to register my objection to the development of Shirley South.
Allocation number 13.

The effect will completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.

Under the governments 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".

There are numerous options still yet to be explored exhausted and 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.

The addition of hundreds of new homes will compound congestion and traffic to a catastrophic level.

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 virtually impossible to get children into the secondary schools of 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.

The infrastructure won't allow for these additional families, lack of school places, unable even now to get a doctors appointment as it is. 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 become 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.

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. One 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 now part of it has been developed 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 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 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.

Please bear these valid points points when making your final decision.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 5225

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: John Robbins

Representation Summary:

The government states that housing contracts should go to smaller companies using innovative methods, and promote custom build and rural housing sensitive to their settings, which would help to deliver smaller more affordable homes. Is this in the plan?

Full text:

Objections and Comments on Allocation 13 (without prejudice)
Dear Sirs,

I wish to register my objection to the development of Shirley South - particularly Allocation number 13 which is designated green belt land.

I gather that Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of proposed new housing in the Solihull borough, this seems disproportionate and unacceptable given the size of the borough. 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'
"The National Planning Policy Framework is already clear that Green Belt boundaries should be amended only "in exceptional circumstances""
"authorities should amend Green Belt boundaries only when they can demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements, including: - making effective use of suitable brownfield sites and the opportunities offered by estate regeneration; - the potential offered by land which is currently underused, including surplus public sector land where appropriate; - optimising the proposed density of development"

I understand that there were numerous options given to the council that have yet to be fully explored as also referred to in the paper:-
"Supporting small and medium sized sites, and thriving rural communities 1.29 Policies in plans should allow a good mix of sites to come forward for development, so that there is choice for consumers, places can grow in ways that are sustainable, and there are opportunities for a diverse construction sector. Small sites create particular opportunities for custom builders and smaller developers. They can also help to meet rural housing needs in ways that are sensitive to their setting while allowing villages to thrive"

I do not see the current proposals as sustainable due to the high volume of houses in one focused area.

The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In this case of HS2 which is referred to in the current plans, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to these proposed Shirley developments - therefore more congestion would be caused by people driving to the proposed HS2 station as there is inadequate public transport to that area of the borough.
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, Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. The main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter has a constant flow of traffic for the rush hour stopping any traffic flow from Tanworth Lane. Stretton Road can be very dangerous with drivers cutting through due to the main routes being busy - this is an area with two schools and a large elderly community.

The addition of hundreds of new homes will compound this issue and there is not enough space for the road infrastructure to be improved enough to overcome this higher volume of traffic.

Driving into the centre of Solihull can take around 30 minutes at certain times to travel just over a mile, new traffic lights have made the situation worse - all of 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.

The proposed sites also take away football fields that are used several times a week - where will these people go then? Not to mention the hundreds of new families and children who will need amenities like these to have a balanced life.

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. In fact it is part of the reason we bought our house on the badgers estate so we were close to the countryside. I personally regularly run in this area and go walking with the family.

The area has grass land, marsh and heath land. There are well-established farm ponds providing 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, an in-depth wildlife survey should be carried out before any decision is made.

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.
I have seen there is a proposal for development on the door step of HS2 and around the NEC, also to compliment the recent resort World Complex, this seems logical as traffic and infrastructure would be easier to resolve.

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 - 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.

I am not a town planner but there really must be many more options than simply carving up the Green Belt in large swathes as this proposal seems like it is taking an easy option to put a lot of houses up in 'one hit'.
I understand we need more houses to accommodate the growing population - I have two children who will need houses in a few years - however I do not believe this current proposal is the right answer - there needs to be a balance of smaller sites across the borough.

Finally, I am led to believe that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses from the Birmingham Allocation. There are many brownfield sites and public open spaces in Birmingham that could 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.

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 6310

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

Representation Summary:

Variant of Option 2 would be preferable.
Variation recommended by IM would be for developers of allocated sites to make a 5% contribution to Self and Custom Build on larger residential sites of 500+ units or via voluntary agreement between developer and SMBC on sites falling below this threshold.
Only 91 people on register.
5% of larger units would yield 109 plots, i.e. a 20% buffer.
More practical to deliver serviced plots on larger sites. Where impractical could supply commuted sum.
Should prepare viability evidence for policy.
Plots should be marketed for 12 months, but returned to developer if unused.

Full text:

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Land.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 6463

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: IM Properties

Agent: Turley

Representation Summary:

Variant of Option 2 would be preferable.
Variation recommended by IM would be for developers of allocated sites to make a 5% contribution to Self and Custom Build on larger residential sites of 500+ units or via voluntary agreement between developer and SMBC on sites falling below this threshold.
Only 91 people on register.
5% of larger units would yield 109 plots, i.e. a 20% buffer.
More practical to deliver serviced plots on larger sites. Where impractical could supply commuted sum.
Should prepare viability evidence for policy.
Plots should be marketed for 12 months, but returned to developer if unused.

Full text:

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.