Draft Local Plan Review

No

Representation ID: 1942

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association

Various wording suggestions / alterations to the text.

No

Representation ID: 2163

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association

Challenge A - needs to recognise poor public transport links between settlements in the rural area which lead to isolation and inequality. Link to challenge J "improving health and well-being".
Challenge E - some site allocations go against these objectives.
Challenge F - No real provision to improve public transport. New builds should incorporate renewable energy sources.
Challenge H - No definitive statements that poor public transport in the rural area can be improved. Statements are aspirational rather than practical.
Challenge J - No detail that sustainable additional educational facilities will be built should the individual sites be allocated.

No

Representation ID: 2164

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association

Many of the proposals in the plan contradict statements in the vision such as protecting the Green Belt, sustainable development, maintaining the distinctive historic and natural environment. In section 85, there is no reference to Catherine-de-Barnes in the text.

No

Representation ID: 2165

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association

Growth Option G Large Scale Urban Extensions - This option specifically includes "Land east of Solihull (between Lugtrout Lane and Hampton Lane"- later identified as LPR site 16). This statement is grossly misleading as the land sits in the Green Belt and plays a major part in maintaining the separation of settlements namely Solihull and Catherine de Barnes and its inclusion seems to be totally contradictory to many of the policy objectives SMBC are looking to achieve.

No

Representation ID: 2166

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association

The Plan should incorporate an objective that future new build developments must contain a diverse spread of property sizes as well as any requirement for affordable properties.

No

Representation ID: 2167

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association

The 2012 SHLAA and SLP Inspector considered the site to be unsuitable.
Site 16 conflicts with challenges C and E and objectives of Policy P7. Public transport is vital for the health and well being of the elderly community in the rural settlements.
Would impact on traffic congestion and road improvements would detract from the rural character of the area.
Local facilities will need to be provided but there is no firm commitment. No development should proceed unless facilities are put in place.
The site includes listed buildings and there would be loss of sports pitches and impact on wildlife.

No

Representation ID: 2168

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association

Many of the sites detailed in the plan do not enjoy a service to the levels required by P7 and there is no real commitment to them being provided. The size of the developments which are covered by the policy should be reduced from 100 to 20 as most of them shown in this document are situated next to existing communities whose residents could enjoy the benefit of this policy.
There is nothing in the Draft Local Plan or the Solihull Connected document to ensure that any of the various policy objectives will be achieved or adopted.

No

Representation ID: 2169

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association

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.

No

Representation ID: 2170

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association

It is misleading to suggest that settlements inset in the Green Belt are not subject to Green Belt Policy because some areas of the settlement are within the Green Belt and subject to full Green belt provisions and policies .