17 Solihull - Moat Lane/Vulcan Road
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 140
Received: 11/01/2017
Respondent: Mr Matthew Stewart
Area 17 and 18 should not be included as they are already established areas and the infrastructure will have an adverse effect on the existing area
Area 17 and 18 should not be included as they are already established areas and the infrastructure will have an adverse effect on the existing area
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 1762
Received: 08/02/2017
Respondent: Renewal Christian Centre
Agent: Richard Cobb Planning
site 17 - Family church Centre and car park to be removed from allocated site plan
letter re: Site 17 Renewal Family Church Centre
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3827
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: John Parker
Agent: DS Planning
Concern about ability to bring forward current employment sites at this location within the Plan period and the potential conflict with the employment policy P3 on retention of employment land.
Relocation of employment uses may be an option but to where within Solihull? No indication is given within the Plan of such an option.
see attached
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3862
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Ron Shiels
Agent: DS Planning
Concern about ability to bring forward current employment sites at this location within the Plan period and the potential conflict with the employment policy P3 on retention of employment land.
Relocation of employment uses may be an option but to where within Solihull? No indication is given within the Plan of such an option.
see attached
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 3966
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land
Agent: DS Planning
Concern about ability to bring forward current employment sites at this location within the Plan period and the potential conflict with the employment policy P3 on retention of employment land.
Relocation of employment uses may be an option but to where within Solihull? No indication is given within the Plan of such an option.
see response and supporting documents
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 4007
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd
Agent: DS Planning
Concern about ability to bring forward current employment sites at this location within the Plan period and the potential conflict with the employment policy P3 on retention of employment land.
Relocation of employment uses may be an option but to where within Solihull? No indication is given within the Plan of such an option.
see attached response and supporting documents
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 4052
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Stonewater
Agent: DS Planning
Concern about ability to bring forward current employment sites at this location within the Plan period and the potential conflict with the employment policy P3 on retention of employment land.
Relocation of employment uses may be an option but to where within Solihull? No indication is given within the Plan of such an option.
see attached
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 5553
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
Appreciate that the Moat Lane depot might be a sensible site on its own if it were to be relocated, but the remainder of the allocation site is comprised mainly of relatively inexpensive buildings and yards which are necessary for so many business units. The Rural East around Balsall Common, Shirley and Dickens Heath need to be part of a balanced business site portfolio. Site 17 should not be developed for housing but left for employment use as these are lacking. Any housing numbers that it might provide should be distributed to small and medium sized sites.
Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6336
Received: 11/02/2017
Respondent: Colin Davis
If the council depot and light industry move out where will they be relocated . will more green belt be taken elsewhere . Lode lane is a congested traffic corridor . the site would have to be carefully designed to avoid all the social and parking problems that wharf lane next door has experienced
a whole list of sites
site 4 - shouldn't be allowed to sprawl across and join almost to majors green . the existing roads cant cope
site 5 - a no brainer what on earth will happen to the existing road network and the traffic corridor for the Chester road/ Collector road especially with all the expected extra growth at the HS2 hub . traffic east bound on this route to bham will increase. The last road improvements on the chester road at Craig croft and the Timberley shops have been heavily criticised so the council dont have a great track record on roads in North Solihull. also you would not build on a large open island in South solihull so why is it ok in Chelmsley Wood,
site 7 - yes if its done sensitively and enhances kingshurst. but if the homes are more modern Bellway shoeboxes like at Woodlands next to smiths wood college then it is a waste of an opportunity.
Site 14 - same as site 7 Arran way deserves well planned homes . not high density modern slums
site 15 - yes to building on brownfield but not the open space /sports ground. why does chelmsley wood have to lose all its open space
site 16 - major road works would be needed to prevent gridlock back onto Damson park way , hampton lane and the warwick road junction to the M42. proposed high growth at the A45 corridor from JLR / HS2 will have a massive impact on this whole road network between A45 and A41 & M42
site 17 - if the council depot and light industry move out where will they be relocated . will more green belt be taken elsewhere . Lode lane is a congested traffic corridor . the site would have to be carefully designed to avoid all the social and parking problems that wharf lane next door has experienced