Draft Local Plan Review

No

Representation ID: 2002

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Stansgate Planning LLP

DLP seems a combination of all Options from SIO consultation - 'Concentration and Dispersal' strategy lacks focus.
Should prioritise PDL in Green Belt first before greenfield sites in Green Belt.
Paragraphs 101, 103, 104 need further work.
Growth opportunities not supported by evidence base.

No

Representation ID: 2883

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Stansgate Planning LLP

Over-reliant on housing numbers to be delivered in UKC Hub Area.
Lack of evidence provided to support delivery or supporting infrastructure.
Timescales of HS2 delivery still uncertain.

No

Representation ID: 2884

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Stansgate Planning LLP

Additional representations have been made by Turley on behalf of IM on this matter.
Conclusion is that insufficient housing is allocated in DLP.

No

Representation ID: 2885

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Stansgate Planning LLP

SHELAA Sites 187 & 211 (part)

Land should be allocated for 180 houses north of Main Road, Meriden.
Evidence base demonstrates this is a highly sustainable location. It is available now, offers a suitable location and is achievable without significant new infrastructure. There is a realistic prospect that housing can be
delivered in the short term.

No

Representation ID: 2886

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Stansgate Planning LLP

SHELAA Site 211 (part)
Seek removal of land north of the Site and south of Fillongley Road from Green Belt and its designation as 'safeguarded land' to meet longer-term development needs within and post the plan period.
Assessment of the Local Plan Review evidence base shows that the Site scores well and performs as well and better in many cases than the sites proposed to be allocated. It is highly accessible; has moderate impact on Green Belt; is not constrained by minerals safeguarding; is visually well contained; and has the maximum SHELAA score. There are no known technical constraints.

No

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.

No

Representation ID: 2889

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Stansgate Planning LLP

Landscape & Visual Appraisal and Green Belt Review by Barton Willmore of the land North of Main Road, Meriden have been submitted as an alternative to the Council's evidence base.
Access and transport appraisal by Mode Transport Planning of the land North of Main Road, Meriden have been submitted as an alternative to the Council's evidence base.

No

Representation ID: 3880

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

Challenge B - agree with objectives, particularly the first three bullet points.
Challenge H - agree with objectives, particularly first and third bullet points.

No

Representation ID: 3881

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

DLP established a positive economic context and ambition for Solihull.
Support the proactive visioning within the Draft Local Plan.
Concern that this ambition is not matched through other draft polices, including scale of housing to be provided for in Policy P5.

No

Representation ID: 6305

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

DLP established a positive economic context and ambition for Solihull.
Support the proactive visioning within the Draft Local Plan.
Concern that this ambition is not matched through other draft polices, including scale of housing to be provided for in Policy P5.
DLP has more positive approach to support the full economic growth associated with its strategic economic assets than accommodating a more reasonable and justifiable level of overall housing need shortfall in HMA. Significant benefits in ensuring sustainable distribution of housing and employment growth.
Plan fails to adequately align its economic and housing policies, a key NPPF requirements (Para. 158).