Q20. Do you agree with the policies for quality of place? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2239
Received: 12/03/2017
Respondent: Jenny Woodruff
Absolutely, there is great value in maintaining the distinctive character of Solihull.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2278
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Meriden Parish Council
Support. Any design needs to retain rural landscape. Agree with Policy 16 & 17.
Policy 15 - Building in rural settlements should take regard of character and modern design of new build should be disallowed. Tightening up of policies of "garden grabbing" by home owners to stop public open space/green space owned by the Principal Authority to be transferred or sold without consultation; encroached upon and materially affected without consultation and liaison.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2310
Received: 06/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs A Wildsmith
Agent: John Cornwell
Support.
see letter from agent on behalf of landowner
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2455
Received: 16/03/2017
Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council
Objectives of P15 are appropriate. But concern over current levels of engagement with developers and SMBC in relation to planning decisions. Policy needs to detail the terms and levels of pre-planning consultation.
Agree with principles of P16.
P17-Agree with policy that inappropriate development will not be permitted. But concern that SMBC will not take into account the importance of the rural setting of Hockley Heath. The importance of maintaining the distinctiveness of HH and its
separation with Dorridge should be reinforced in the Local Plan.
original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2503
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Urban Growth Company
Agent: ARUP
Policy P15- support the requirement for a concept framework to be prepared for the UKC Hub area to guide future development.
Support the proposed removal of land from the Green Belt within the UKC Hub area.
However, the UKC Hub area as a whole is unique and opportunities for economic investment should not be contained to individual parts or sites. There are additional areas of Green Belt land which similarly at best have only scored moderately against the key purposes of Green Belt which could also be considered for future development to deliver the jobs, homes and infrastructure required.
see attached letter and supporting document (The UK Central Hub Growth and Infrastructure Plan)
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2510
Received: 07/02/2017
Respondent: Councillor Mark Wilson
Broadly agree.
P15 - need to do more to enhance local green spaces. Make more biodiverse and community friendly. Can become places for fly-tipping and ASB, e.g. Ribble and Redwing Walks, areas off Anglesey Avenue and Falkland Way in Smith's Wood.
see letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2544
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
Agree with proposals being expected to conserve, restore or enhance biodiversity.
see attached response
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2601
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: West Midlands HARP Consortium
Agent: Tetlow King Planning
Policy P15 - fourth bullet point should be removed as it is unnecessary. All housing development has to meet Approved Document M of the Building Regulations as a mandatory requirement.
New optional standards include a higher standard of Approved Document M of the Building Regulations under M(2) and M(3).
Have to demonstrate a "clear need" for the introduction of the optional technical standards. Should consider the impact of using these standards as part of Local Plan viability assessment.
see response from agent
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2602
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: West Midlands HARP Consortium
Agent: Tetlow King Planning
Policy P17 - Whilst Policy P4(B) sets out that rural exception schemes in the Green Belt can be considered acceptable in certain situations, it would be good practice to also include reference to Paragraph 89 of the NPPF under Policy P17 to avoid any doubt that the Local Plan is in accordance with the NPPF.
see response from agent
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2610
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Extra MSA
Agent: Pegasus Group
Policy P17 - Paragraph 359 should include reference to delivery of supporting infrastructure for Junction 6 improvements.
Some 'joined up, positive planning' is required with regard to this part of the Green belt. The Local Plan should remove land required for the Junction 6 improvements and MSA from the Green Belt and allocate the site of the current application MSA application at Catherine de Barnes as suitable for a MSA and as the most appropriate and policy compliant location in which to meet a significant and growing road safety need.
see attached response by agent on behalf of Extra MSA group
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2614
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Cannock Chase District Council
Policy P17 - Paragraph 5.19.2 of the Sustainability Appraisal states that wording of Policy 17: Countryside and Green Belt is flexibly worded to enable 'reasonable expansion of established businesses' creates uncertainty.
see attached letter
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2663
Received: 10/02/2017
Respondent: Mr & Mrs David Hull
There is already a shortage of sporting facilities in the area how will these playing fields be replaced if built on, surly it would be better to put effort into ensuring this land is used for its designated purpose.
Sharmans cross sporting development
Please find this email in objection to the proposed development of the sporting fields in Sharmans cross road.
My primary concerns are,
Traffic, this is already at its limits there are daily gridlocks on Sharmans cross road at both ends, it is regularly being used for parking which in turn is putting pedestrians cyclists and in particular school children in danger. A new development will only exacerbate this already increasing problem.
Further building in the area will in all likely hood lead to in creased flooding in Sharmans cross, this is already a problem despite the remedial works that have been undertaken.
There is already a shortage of sporting facilities in the area how will these playing fields be replaced if built on, surly it would be better to put effort into ensuring this land is used for its designated purpose.
There is already a high density of housing and population in the area the building of another 100 houses in such a small area will only increase problems for the already overstretched schools and medical facilities.
To summarise my concerns are;
Traffic
Safety to cyclists / pedestrians
Parking
Environmental impact particularly flooding Loss of sporting facilities Effect on essential amenities
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2708
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mr S Catton
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Outdoor sport and recreation in the Green Belt cannot constitute very special circumstances if they are lost unnecessarily due to development being directed to their existing locations in the Green Belt.
Policy P17 incorrectly does not qualify when changes of use to accommodate outdoor sport and recreation uses could be regarded as 'very special circumstances', contrary to the spirit of NPPF paragraphs 87 to 89.
Changes of use to accommodate outdoor sport and recreation uses should be removed from the list of very special circumstances or the policy amended similar to that for the expansion of existing businesses.
see letter and various appendices supporting site land - between no. 39 and 79 Earlswood Road (The Paddock) and The Orchard, 79 Earlswood Road, Dorridge
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2814
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Catesby Estates Limited
Agent: WYG
Commenting only on Policy P17.
consider the policy as being sound, in accordance with NPPF para 182.
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: 2818
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Belle Homes Ltd
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Outdoor sport and recreation in the Green Belt cannot constitute very special circumstances if they are lost unnecessarily due to development being directed to their existing locations in the Green Belt.
Policy P17 incorrectly does not qualify when changes of use to accommodate outdoor sport and recreation uses could be regarded as 'very special circumstances', contrary to the spirit of NPPF paragraphs 87 to 89.
Changes of use to accommodate outdoor sport and recreation uses should be removed from the list of very special circumstances or the policy amended similar to that for the expansion of existing businesses.
see letter and supporting documents for Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Nos. 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 2887
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: IM Land
Agent: Stansgate Planning LLP
Policy P17 -
As a Green Belt review is taking place and new Green Belt boundaries are being defined, it is necessary for the Council to identify as part of the review, 'safeguarded land' to meet longer term development needs.
Land south of Fillongley Road, Meriden is proposed as 'safeguarded land' (see rep).
The NPPF paragraphs 83 and 85 states that once established Green Belt should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and that, when defining boundaries, local planning authorities should identify in their plans areas of 'safeguarded land' to meet longer term development needs.
see attached documents
LPR Draft - Representations IM Land Meriden - this is the overarching document
LVA & Green Belt Review Feb 2017
Access and transport Appraisal 161208
Land North of Main Road, Meriden - The Vision
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3061
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross Road) Ltd
Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd
Agree with suggested policies to ensure a quality of place.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3175
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Parish Council and Catherine-de-Barnes Residents' Association
Policy P17 provides guidance on small settlements inset from the green belt, but is misleading as it suggests that the whole of the built up area of the villages is inset when this is clearly not the case.
see attached letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3212
Received: 15/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Karl Peter Childs
The development outlined for Allocation 13 in terms of scale, access, infrastructure, location and loss of important Green Belt areas, as well as the impact on the existing environment and loss of amenity for existing residents meet none of the objectives in Section 10 of the Local Plan.
The alternatives to revisit the spatial strategy and alternatives.
see written response attached
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3251
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Society
Policy P17 provides guidance on small settlements inset from the green belt, but is misleading as it suggests that the whole of the built up area of the villages is inset when this is clearly not the case.
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: 3395
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Sport England
Sport England, in conjunction with Public Health England, has produced 'Active Design' (October 2015), a guide to planning new developments that create the right environment to help people get more active, more often in the interests of health and wellbeing. We would commend the use of the guidance in the master planning process for new residential developments.
We seek to ensure that Active design is utilised in the determination of planning applications and is embedded in Planning Policy P15 in order to influence the design and promote healthy communities and active lifestyles.
Solihull Local Plan Review - Sport England consultation response
Sport England would like to make the following comments:
Borough wide Challenges
Sport England support the identification of Challenges H, J and K. These Challenges are consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and are consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.
Policy P15: Securing Design Quality
Sport England, in conjunction with Public Health England, has produced 'Active Design' (October 2015), a guide to planning new developments that create the right environment to help people get more active, more often in the interests of health and wellbeing. The guidance sets out ten key principles for ensuring new developments incorporate opportunities for people to take part in sport and physical activity. The Active Design principles are aimed at contributing towards the Government's desire for the planning system to promote healthy communities through good urban design. Sport England would commend the use of the guidance in the master planning process for new residential developments. The document can be downloaded via the following link:
http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/active-design/
Through our statutory role, non-statutory role (major housing schemes) and our involvement with strategy development (evidence base Para 73 of NPPF) and our involvement through the local plan process we seek to ensure that Active design is utilised in the determination of planning applications and is embedded in Planning Policy P15 in order to influence the design and promote healthy communities and active lifestyles.
Policy P18: Health and Well Being
Support is offered for the principle that provides support for proposals which encourage healthy and active lifestyles. This is consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.
The use of Health Impact Assessments for larger developments is welcomed as these can help ensure that developments give appropriate consideration to how environments can be created which allow healthy and active lifestyles to take place.
Policy P20: Provision for Open Space, Childrens Play, Sport, Recreation and Leisure
The protection and provision of sports facilities is supported. However it is not clear whether or not the reference to the protection of existing facilities in Part A of the policy includes playing fields. It would be useful to provide clarity in this regard.
Sport England considers that Part A of the policy should be more specific as to the clear evidence required to demonstrate that sports facilities (particularly if these include playing fields) are surplus to requirements. Sport England would only accept a robust and up-to-date strategic assessment (e.g. a Playing Pitch Strategy or Built Facilities Strategy).
Sport England object to the section of Part A of the policy which allows the loss of playing fields and other sporting facilities where there is a substantial community benefit. This approach does not accord with the relevant national planning policy contained within para 74 of the NPPF and it is not clear what 'substantial community benefit' would involve. The NPPF requires that the proposed development is for alternative sports provision, the need for which clearly outweighs the loss.
Part B should also reference the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy as the evidence base to demonstrate the need for playing pitches associated with the additional demand created by new housing developments. The occupiers of new development, especially residential, will generate demand for sporting provision. The existing provision within an area may not be able to accommodate this increased demand without exacerbating existing and/or predicted future deficiencies. Therefore, Sport England considers that new developments should contribute towards meeting the demand that they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. The level and nature of any provision should be informed by Solihull's forthcoming Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) and any future Built Facilities Strategy (BFS). It is anticipated that the Solihull PPS will be completed before the publication of the revised Solihull Local Plan.
If this demand is not adequately met then it may place additional pressure on existing sports facilities, thereby creating deficiencies in facility provision. In accordance with the NPPF, Sport England seeks to ensure that the development meets any new sports facility needs arising as a result of the development. Solihull Local Plan should reflect this need in its local policies.
Site Allocations
Sport England would object to the allocation of any sites which would result in the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities unless evidenced by a robust and up-to-date evidence, as required by paragraph 73 NPPF.
Sport England are aware that work is currently underway on the completion of an up-to-date Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS). The PPS should be used to determine whether or not the playing field proposed for allocation is surplus to sporting requirements by demonstrating that there is an excess of playing fields in the catchment. If this cannot be demonstrated then the playing field or formal recreation land would need to be replaced with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality.
In the absence of an up-to-date PPS to justify the loss of playing field (and other sporting facilities) or confirmation of replacement with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality Sport England object to site allocations 4, 8, 15, 16 and 18; these site allocations would result in the loss of playing field land and other sporting facilities. Sport England will also object to any other site allocations which involve the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities without the necessary evidence or replacement facilities.
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3702
Received: 14/02/2017
Respondent: Peter Bray
I support promoting the quality of space, securing good design quality, conservation of heritage assets and local distinctiveness, protection of the countryside and greenbelt it's just a pity you have not followed the challenge 'Protecting Key Gaps between Urban Areas and Settlements' at Barretts Farm in Balsall Common. Likewise promoting quality of space seems to have been forgotten on the current Kenilworth Road development.
see attached written rep
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3717
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes
Agent: Hunter Page Planning
Policy P15 - Overly prescriptive and places too many design requirements on future development proposals.
see detailed response to policies and 4 supporting documents supporting proposed sites
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3747
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Pertemps Ltd
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Support Policy P17, in particular:
"...The reasonable expansion of established businesses into the Green Belt ... providing that appropriate mitigation can be secured..."
This support is SUBJECT TO an amendment to Para. 364 of the DLP, for the sake of clarity, to confirm that Policy P17 does not exclude 'established businesses' other than Jaguar Land Rover and Whale Tankers; in accordance with the High Court Judgement.
To read: "...The reasonable expansion of these and other established businesses into the Green Belt, whilst remaining inappropriate development..."
representation is made on behalf of Pertemps
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3748
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Hogarth
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Support Policy P17, in particular:
"...The reasonable expansion of established businesses into the Green Belt ... providing that appropriate mitigation can be secured..."
This support is SUBJECT TO an amendment to Para. 364 of the DLP, for the sake of clarity, to confirm that Policy P17 does not exclude 'established businesses' other than Jaguar Land Rover and Whale Tankers; in accordance with the High Court Judgement.
To read: "...The reasonable expansion of these and other established businesses into the Green Belt, whilst remaining inappropriate development..."
representation on behalf of Mr & Mrs Hogarth , Hogarths Hotel
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3813
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Colchurch Properties Ltd
Agent: Richard Brown Planning
We are in agreement with the proposed policies
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: 3841
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: John Parker
Agent: DS Planning
* Policy P15. Securing Design Quality - Agree in principle
* Policy P16. Conservation of Heritage Assets and Local Distinctiveness -
Agree in principle.
* Policy P17. Countryside and Green Belt. - Agree in principle
see attached
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3872
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Ron Shiels
Agent: DS Planning
* Policy P15. Securing Design Quality - Agree in principle
* Policy P16. Conservation of Heritage Assets and Local Distinctiveness - Agree in principle.
* Policy P17. Countryside and Green Belt. - Agree in principle particularly at
paragraph 361 which refers to minor changes to address anomalies in Green
Belt boundaries across the Borough, taking into account an assessment of
submissions made during the preparation of the Plan
see attached
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3937
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: National Motorcycle Museum
Agent: Framptons Planning
Policy P17:
National Motorcycle Museum is a brownfield site in the Green Belt and effective use should be made of it. Accords with Para. A.63 of Housing White Paper.
NMM Site been assessed as part of R18 in Green Belt Review, and scores relatively poorly against purposes of Green Belt.
Please see attached the following submission to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation.
We have produced the following documents to form part of our submission:
* Covering Letter
* National Motorcycle Museum Site Location Plan
* The Hub drawing
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3963
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
Agree with Policies P15, P16 and P17 on the whole.
Would raise points on definition of 'significant' development within Policy P15 in relation to the review by the MADE board panel to assist in securing design quality. The definition of significant development should be set out so that the required quantum of development can be assessed appropriate within the context of MADE board and it doesn't place unnecessary requirements upon the majority of development proposals within the Borough.
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