Draft Local Plan Review
Search representations
Results for Friends of the Earth (Cities for People) search
New searchNo
Draft Local Plan Review
Q1. Do you agree that we've identified the right challenges facing the Borough? If not why not? Are there any additional challenges that should be addressed?
Representation ID: 1232
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)
A further challenge will be in how these challenges are prioritised. Another challenge will be the threat of sprawl, the ability of the plan to withstand pressures from national government and developers, and the need for Solihull to support the rest of the conurbation by protecting its natural assets and assisting development to take place where required, not just developing green field/green belt sites in close proximity to the Motorway network or the badly located station associated with High Speed Rail.
A further challenge will be in how these challenges are prioritised. Another challenge will be the threat of sprawl. The ability of the plan to withstand pressures from national government and the developers. The need for Solihull to support the rest of the conurbation by protecting its natural assets and assisting development to take place where development is required not just developing green field / belt sites in close proximity to the Motorway network or the badly located station associated with High Speed Rail.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q2. Do you agree with the Borough Vision we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 1233
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)
There is too much emphasis on the flawed HS2 proposals. There needs to be more focus on intensifying developments by increasing densities and a wider mix of affordability and tenure to accommodate people of all ages and abilities.
There should be more acknowledgment of the agricultural aspects of land use within the borough, including the need to be able to grow more food locally. It is welcome that soil quality is part of the evidence base.
There is too much emphasis on the flawed HS2 proposals. There needs to be more focus on intensifying developments by increased density and a wider mix of affordability as well as tenure and also to accommodate people of all ages and abilities.
There should be more acknowledgment of the agricultural aspects of land use within the borough. Mention should be made of the need to be able to grow more food locally. It is welcome that soil quality is part of the evidence base.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q3. Do you agree with the spatial strategy we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 1234
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)
This plan could result in ever more sprawl and car based development. There is not enough emphasis on increased densities as well as catering for a truly mixed community in terms of age, affordability and abilities.
This plan could result in ever more sprawl and car based development. There is not enough emphasis on increased densities as well as catering for a truly mixed community in terms of age, affordability and abilities.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q4. Do you agree with Policy P1? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 1235
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)
This policy could create sprawl as well as a huge growth in car dependency as area not well served by public transport, BUT where the opportunities arise to curb traffic growth all the plan suggests is 'Encourages modes of travel other than the private car'. Where is the reduction in dependency upon the private car?
This is where sprawl could really take effect as well as a huge growth in car dependency. This area is not well served by public transport BUT where the opportunity arise to curd traffic growth all the plan suggests is "Encourages modes of travel other than the private car." Where is the reduction in dependency upon the private car?
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q5. Do you agree with the key objectives that development is expected to meet as identified in Policy P1 are appropriate? If not why not? Are there any others you think should be included?
Representation ID: 1237
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)
Yet again development is centred upon the attractive locations along the M42/M40 corridor. This will result in sprawl as well as an overheating economy. Solihull should be working with the other boroughs of the West Midlands to spread economic activity to help areas where development is required, not adding to an already vibrant area.
Yet again development is centred upon the attractive locations along the M42 / M40 corridor. This will result in sprawl as well as an overheating economy. Solihull should be working with the other boroughs of the West Midlands to spread economic activity to help areas where development is required not adding to an already vibrant area,
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q6. Do you agree with Policy P1A? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 1238
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)
This is yet more sprawl development.
This is yet more sprawl development
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Q7. Do you agree with Policy P2? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 1239
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)
Support much of policy, although the term sustainable economic growth is somewhat confusing. There should be greater ambition for larger number and variety of housing provision in these locations, to provide for all age groups and abilities to create an enhanced churn with these areas.
Is relocation of station such a high priority and for what purpose? By taming the car and reducing car dependancy enhanced connectivity between the station and the centre could be achieved?
Plan will need to be strictly worded to ensure these developments are not traffic generating and Council vigilant in ensuring traffic reduction results.
There is much to support here. The term sustainable economic growth is somewhat confusing. There should be a greater ambition for a larger number and variety of housing provision in these locations. This should cover for all age groups and abilities to create an enhanced churn with these areas.
Is it really of such high priority to relocate the station and for what purpose? Surely by taming the car and reducing car dependancy enhanced connectivity between the station and the centre could be achieved?
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q9. Do you agree with Policy P3? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 1241
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)
The vision here is to be applauded BUT all of the sites identified are close to the Motorway networks and lend themselves to traffic generating development. This will result in ever more sprawl.
The vision here is to be applauded BUT all of the sites identified are close to the Motorway networks and lend themselves to traffic generating development. This will result in ever more sprawl.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q10. Do you believe the right scale and location of development has been identified? If not why not?
Representation ID: 1242
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)
Why are there no brownfield sites included and all of the sites on the M42 corridor? Are there no sites closer to where people currently live and work which could benefit from these policies? How will these developments curb sprawl and meet wider environmental commitments?
Why are there no "brownfield" sites included. Why are all of the sites on the m42 corridor? Are there no sites closer to where people currently live and work which could benefit from these policies? How will these developments curd sprawl and meet wider environmental commitments?
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q18. Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Representation ID: 1243
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Friends of the Earth (Cities for People)
The Council is unlikely to support developments:
'where the impacts of increased delay to vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists, taking account of the residual cumulative transport effects of development, are severe'. This would indicate that all other forms of development will be supported. This is not sustainable. There needs to be far more restrictions on the private car.
HS2 should not be supported and the threats to the future of Meriden Gap should be rejected.
The Council is unlikely to support developments:
*where the impacts of increased delay to vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists, taking account of the residual cumulative transport effects of development, are severe. This would indicate that all other forms of development will be supported. This is not sustainable. There needs to be far more restrictions on the private car.
HS2 should not be supported and the threats to the future of Meriden Gap should be rejected.
