Draft Local Plan Review

Yes

Representation ID: 2435

Received: 16/03/2017

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

The proposed challenge lists are quite comprehensive and in the main appropriate.
Suggest wording changes to some of the challenges.
Birmingham should be doing more to meet its needs.
Need focus on rural area issues such as transport, infrastructure including superfast broadband.

No

Representation ID: 2436

Received: 16/03/2017

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

Disagree with paragraph 91 which states "The two factors outlined above represent a significant shift from the starting point of the 2013 plan and requires the spatial strategy to be looked at afresh. This is in the context
that to deliver the level of growth envisaged, will require significant releases of land from the Green
Belt".
Paragraph 104 states "Releasing land from the Green Belt to maximise the growth potential from HS2". This is yet to be agreed
Disagree with Paragraph 105 - "Growth Option G - New Settlements, Large Scale Urban Extensions or Significant Expansion of Rural Villages/Settlements".

No

Representation ID: 2437

Received: 16/03/2017

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

Neither the Local Plan nor the associated HS2 Growth Strategy adequately explain how existing stations such as Solihull and Dorridge will integrate with the new rail infrastructure.
There is no rail connectivity indicated from these stations to the HS2 link, driving traffic to these stations - hardly "...an integrated approach to movement through the Hub area...". As plans for Birmingham International are not clear from the evidence base it is uncertain how the development will allow commuters to reach HS2 from within Solihull borough. Insufficient detail to ensure the Policy is compatible with P8.

Yes

Representation ID: 2438

Received: 16/03/2017

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

The key objectives identified are appropriate, but other policies (such as P8) must be assessed against these to ensure that development within the UK Central Hub Area support other policies, notably P9.

No

Representation ID: 2439

Received: 16/03/2017

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

Would have expected the views expressed within P1A to have translated into planning policy in spite of the draft status of the Local Plan. The sentence indicating that development should demonstrate integration with surrounding areas and facilities has been ignored by the developers of the site. The zero CIL rating will reduce the potential for the development to benefit the wider area and nearby communities. Urge SMBC to ensure that facilities within the BVP development contribute to the needs of surrounding communities in addition to the needs of the BVP development itself.

Yes

Representation ID: 2440

Received: 16/03/2017

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

Whilst the vision is bold, it is not clear to what extent SMBC will be able to realise this vision. The section "...The benefits that could be realised if the train station were to be relocated to an alternative site..." suggest dependencies on other parties. SMBC should be clearer on its plan to realise the objectives of the Solihull Town Centre masterplan with input from the relevant bodies. It is unclear what SMBC intend to do to deliver the masterplan. There are numerous aspirations and more detail is required on how SMBC intend to deliver the masterplan.

Yes

Representation ID: 2442

Received: 16/03/2017

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

HHPC do believe the scale and location of development is correctly identified in the Local Plan.
Developments such as Touchwood have been effective in raising the quality of the environment in these areas.

Yes

Representation ID: 2443

Received: 16/03/2017

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

Yes.

Yes

Representation ID: 2444

Received: 16/03/2017

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

The sites indicated utilise existing and planned infrastructure improvement and represent the best effective use of existing general business sites. More could be said in relation to paragraph 174 (for example powers relating to business rate reduction to encourage utilisation of existing premises over newly built SME-level development of smaller office sites). Vacant small and medium sites (e.g. along Stratford Road, Shirley) are a barrier to creating vibrant communities in these areas as current policy encourages tenancies in the charity sector over other retail use.
Support the omission of site 165 in the Plan given its Green Belt impact.

No

Representation ID: 2445

Received: 16/03/2017

Respondent: Hockley Heath Parish Council

Disagree with the 50% affordable housing figure. The allowance for financial contributions where on-site provision is not feasible or viable gives too much leeway to developers meaning that affordable housing is being provided in concentrated sites rather than being spread equitably throughout new developments.
Affordable housing should be integrated into communities by being part of a mix of housing provision not built 100% on one development which this policy may indirectly encourage.
Policy 4B - do not consider these two criteria are sufficient to override building on green belt land. Should be integration with existing communities.