Q19. Do you agree with the policies for protecting the environment? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

Showing comments and forms 61 to 90 of 108

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2169

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association

Representation Summary:

Amongst other issues policy P14 deals with the development of electronic communications etc. We are disappointed to see that there is no statement of ambition/policy to ensure the residents of SMBC have access to a speedy broadband internet service without which communities will not be able to function effectively in the future.

Full text:

see attached response

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2238

Received: 12/03/2017

Respondent: Jenny Woodruff

Representation Summary:

I am very pleased to see the commitment to reducing carbon and protecting the environment given in the green policies. I agree with the policies.

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2277

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Meriden Parish Council

Representation Summary:

No joined up thinking regarding cumulative effect on local residents. Meriden already has a problem identified by the Quarry Liaison group of dust particles emanating from several operations. Extraction is inevitable but must be strongly regulated by the council in order to minimise impacts on local roads, residents and the environment. Meriden has been affected by minerals extraction for many years and it is evident that at times regulation and monitoring has been ineffective as impacts have been significant. Another key factor is ensuring the necessary mechanism and financial security is on place for restoration once the extraction has ceased.

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2309

Received: 06/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs A Wildsmith

Agent: John Cornwell

Representation Summary:

Support.

Full text:

see letter from agent on behalf of landowner

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2345

Received: 16/01/2017

Respondent: Julie Betts

Representation Summary:

There are steel Pylons through the land south of Shirley, surely that is not suitable building land?

Full text:

Good evening,

I have just heard that there has been an interest in the land opposite Miller and Carter, Solihull. The planning application I believe is to build 2000 houses on green fields. Unfortunately I could not make tonight's meeting (copy of minutes please).

I was under the impression there may be some development on Dog Kennel Lane too, so if these developments are agreed, this will mean that the whole of Shirley South will be engulfed with further housing instead of the lovely countryside which drew me to coming from Shirley East.

I live just off Stretton Road and come across traffic queues from Tanworth Lane to Blackford Road/Dog Kennel Lane on my daily commute to central Solihull. This will be much worse once this development is erected. Currently we have the excess traffic from the existing Dickens Heath village plus new developments, Dickens Manor, The Paddocks and Cheswick Place which has definitely increased.

I understand there has been a willingness to sell land from the Christmas Tree farm owners and the Football Ground which I am very surprised.

We have lots of dog walkers, joggers and cyclists go through this area, where will they go now? Also there are steel Pylons through this land, surely that is not suitable building land?

I am very concerned about the old people living round this area and the extra houses and noise.

What you should be concentrating on is flattening the speed bumps on Tanworth Lane, Stretton Road and Hathaway Road and reducing the amount of noise from motorbikes and them using our roads like a race track.

What is going to happen to the pressure on school places with our schools bursting at the seams already? Both Dickens Heath and Woodlands cannot be expanded due to space, no one has thought about this. Why not build at Blythe Valley, right by motorway access? LEAVE SHIRLEY ALONE

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2454

Received: 16/03/2017

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Little mention of Hockley Heath within the need to protect the natural environment. HHPC would welcome more reference to the canal infrastructure and to more alternative transport links such as cycle lanes to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
With the frequent dumping of household and other waste in the roads around
our village, the plan's requirement to address the waste capacity in Solihull is welcomed.

Full text:

original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2509

Received: 07/02/2017

Respondent: Councillor Mark Wilson

Representation Summary:

Broadly agree.
Policy P9 - could be more explicit about Council's expectations and role of spatial policy in reducing GHG emissions. Will the Council set up a renewable energy services company?
Policy P10 - welcome.
Policy P11 - Need greater scrutiny of development in flood risk areas, e.g. near Rivers Cole and Blythe. Set out specific measures and legal requirements. Requires ongoing surveillance.

Full text:

see letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2543

Received: 14/02/2017

Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

Recommendchange to the paragraph on Biodiversity and Geodiversity (see full response).
Disagree with paragraph on LWS, LNR and Geological Sites. Should not be differentiated in terms of avoidance (see full response).

Full text:

see attached response

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2631

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: NFU West Midlands

Representation Summary:

Policy P9 - Many farmers are considering opportunities for investing in renewable energy production. This could include; roof mounted solar panels, wind, Anaerobic digestion or growing Biomass (for local heating etc). These farms represent a significant opportunity for the borough to produce renewable energy.

Full text:

see attached letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2632

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: NFU West Midlands

Representation Summary:

Policy P10 - Farmers and landowners must be fully engaged with discussions on the natural environment as they own and manage many of the areas key green and blue infrastructure assets.
Should acknowledge that for many farmers environmental management is a core business activity. Routine investment in e.g. hedging, tree planting, cutting and grazing. Farmers who do not participate in agri-environment schemes also make valid contributions. The work of the Campaign for the Farmed Environment has shown that these farms use a range of voluntary techniques to enhance the options and that this management is funded by farm businesses.

Full text:

see attached letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2633

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: NFU West Midlands

Representation Summary:

Policy P11 - Large new urban developments have the potential to cause downstream impacts, even when new SUDs techniques are employed.
Important to recognise that farmers have to deal with these impacts as they are responsible for maintaining many of the area's watercourses and drainage infrastructure.
Waterlogging and flooding impact upon food production and the productivity of agricultural land.
Need to emphasise downstream effects and considerable additional demands on the drainage capacity of the rural areas downstream of the area.
Remain concerned about the future management of SUDS structures. Need to investigate the wider impacts of water management.

Full text:

see attached letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2875

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch

Representation Summary:

Chapter 9 covers a range of environmental policies. Policy for the Green Belt is not one. Green Belt is a planning and not an environmental designation so it would not be correct to have a Green belt policy in Chapter 9.
No clear Policy setting out the aims and purposes of the Green Belt and how these will be applied. A separate Policy is needed for the Green Belt. Compare the absence of such a Policy with Policies C1, C2 and C3 on the 2006 UDP, all Policies for Solihull's Green Belt

Full text:

see attached documents

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3060

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross Road) Ltd

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

on the whole, agree with the policies in this section.

Full text:

see letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3173

Received: 16/02/2017

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

Representation Summary:

Support the principles and policies in Section 9 and urge the Council to ensure that the commitments and criteria enshrined in policies P11 and P12 are met, particularly when dealing with major developments such as HS2 and plans to relocate the Municipal Waste Recycling Centre. Support the criteria in policy P14 for electronic communications networks, but highlight the continuing lack of reliable broadband service in Hampton and its consequence on employment opportunity.

Full text:

see attached letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3211

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Karl Peter Childs

Representation Summary:

A thorough environmental assessment of Site 13 should be made.
Popular area with dog walkers, ramblers, and such like as well as being a valuable habitat for a range of wildlife and flora.
Risks of flooding from Site 13.
Section 9 fails to address Challenges in respect of Site 13.

Full text:

see written response attached

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3215

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Mr David McGrath

Representation Summary:

Views of Meriden residents expressed at a public meeting on 6 December 2016, noting that policy P13 included wording relating to permitting the search for coal bed methane subject to criteria to conform with national guidance, whilst recognising that any such proposed extraction would be highly controversial and have significant potential impacts, requiring full consultation and the earliest possible notice.

Full text:

submitted to advise of views expressed by members of the public (residents of Meriden ) at an open public meeting 16th December 2016

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3250

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Society

Representation Summary:

Support the principles and policies in Section 9 and urge the Council to ensure that the commitments and criteria enshrined in policies P11 and P12 are met, particularly when dealing with major developments such as HS2 and plans to relocate the Municipal Waste Recycling Centre. Support the criteria in policy P14 for electronic communications networks, but highlight the continuing lack of reliable broadband service in Hampton and its consequence on employment opportunity.

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: 3489

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

Representation Summary:

Policy P9-The Trust would wish to highlight the potential of the canal for heating & cooling for district heat network or individual schemes such as the allocation Ref 4- West of Dickens Heath. The Policy or supporting text should be amended to include reference to the potential of the canal to contribute to low carbon technologies.
Policy P11-highlight that any proposed discharge to the canal would need to be in consultation with the Canal & River Trust and appropriate wording should be included within the policy.

Full text:

see attached letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3701

Received: 14/02/2017

Respondent: Peter Bray

Representation Summary:

I cannot claim to be an environmentalist but I would not endanger the environment only support it. I pray that you can fulfill the fine words under this heading. However, I have to say I have my doubts judging by the destruction you support to the east of Balsall Common. It is a travesty of monumental proportions. This is not a NIMBY statement I am only thinking about the next generation just as you say you are but perhaps you have no choice.
You are not responsible for HS2 but you did support it and are busily adding to it.

Full text:

see attached written rep

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3716

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Hunter Page Planning

Representation Summary:

Policy P11 - 110L per person per day is not justified in the text.
Water Cycle study has not identified Solihull as a water stress area.

Full text:

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

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3782

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Simon Taylor

Representation Summary:

Agree with policies. However, some of proposals in DLP contradict these e.g. suggesting development on areas with a higher combined Green Belt scores than those omitted.

Full text:

see attached letter and supporting annotated map

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3812

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Colchurch Properties Ltd

Agent: Richard Brown Planning

Representation Summary:

We are in agreement with the proposed policies

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: 3840

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: John Parker

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

* Policy P9 Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change - Agree in principle.
* Policy P10. Natural Environment - Agree in principle.
* Policy P11. Water Management - Agree in principle
* Policy P14. Amenity - Agree in principle.

Full text:

see attached

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3871

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Ron Shiels

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

* Policy P9 Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change - Agree in principle.
* Policy P10. Natural Environment - Agree in principle.
* Policy P11. Water Management - Agree in principle
* Policy P14. Amenity - Agree in principle.

Full text:

see attached

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3962

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Representation Summary:

On the whole agree with policies P9, P10, P11, P12, P13 and P14.
P9 - agree with national requirement to reduce carbon emissions on new developments.
At site level would suggest fabric-first approach to improve energy efficiency, rather than provision of renewable energies that can be quickly out of date. Fabric first is in line with Building Regs.
Recommend that P14 would sit better in Chapter on Quality of Place, as refer more to design than protection of the environment.

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: 3981

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

* Policy P9 Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change - Agree in principle.
* Policy P10. Natural Environment - Agree in principle.
* Policy P11. Water Management - Agree in principle
* Policy P14. Amenity - Agree in principle.

Full text:

see response and supporting documents

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3986

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Tarmac Trading (Ltd)

Agent: Heaton Planning Limited

Representation Summary:

Policy P13 -
Overall support for principle for growth in DLP.
Will have a significant call on local mineral reserves in Borough, such supply is invaluable.
Meriden Quarry is an important resource for Borough and wider region.
Support identification of Mineral Safeguarding Areas.
Support inclusion of associated infrastructure within MSAs.
Support statement that proposals for ancillary uses to sand and gravel extraction will be permitted where appropriate.
Notwithstanding the above, proposals for sand and gravel extraction outside of the identified Area of Search should not be prejudiced where there is a proven workable reserve, in accordance with Para. 144 NPPF.

Full text:

Please find attached a response to the Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan consultation, on behalf of Tarmac.

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4018

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

* Policy P9 Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change - Agree in principle.
* Policy P10. Natural Environment - Agree in principle.
* Policy P11. Water Management - Agree in principle
* Policy P14. Amenity - Agree in principle.

Full text:

see attached response and supporting documents

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4062

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Stonewater

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

* Policy P9 Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change - Agree in principle.
* Policy P10. Natural Environment - Agree in principle.
* Policy P11. Water Management - Agree in principle
* Policy P14. Amenity - Agree in principle.

Full text:

see attached

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 4098

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Persimmon Homes Central

Representation Summary:

Policy P9: Energy efficiency measures listed at strategic and site level should not be over and above national requirements as set out in Approved Document L of Building Regulations.
Should also be considered how these policy measures will impact the viability of a scheme.

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.