Draft Local Plan Review
Search representations
Results for Bromsgrove District Council search
New searchNo
Draft Local Plan Review
Q14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?
Representation ID: 2073
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Bromsgrove District Council
Contributions from LPAs to the HMA shortfall needs full support of all GBHMA authorities.
Should be based on a robust and thorough apportionment methodology, i.e. Strategic Growth Study.
2000 figure received some but not full support.
Strategic Growth Study underway; essential that all of GBHMA receive same level of scrutiny.
Need for strategic Green Belt Review in WM Land Commission report.
Align contribution with Solihull's economic aspirations.
PBA Stage 3 Report recommended locating shortfall within easy reach of Birmingham and lesser extent Solihull.
OAN figure not defined in DLP.
Unclear how 2,000 dwellings has been included within the 15,029 figure.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
04 Dickens Heath - West of Dickens Heath
Representation ID: 2074
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Bromsgrove District Council
Objection to Site 4.
Site 4 abuts Bromsgrove District boundary. As Majors Green in Bromsgrove already abuts the boundary to the west, this allocation would result in the coalescence of settlements contrary to purpose 2 of the function of Green Belts
as set out in Paragraph 80 of the NPPF.
Landscape Character Assessment concluded that this area has a very low landscape capacity to accommodate new development with visual sensitivity in the area being high.
Unclear how allocation would retain 'meaningful' Green Belt gaps as expressed in Topic Paper.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
12 Shirley - South of Dog Kennel Lane
Representation ID: 2075
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Bromsgrove District Council
Objection to Site 12.
Concerns about coalescence with settlements such as Majors Green close to Bromsgrove/Solihull boundary; and undermining Green Belt functions contrary to NPPF.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
13 Shirley - South of Shirley
Representation ID: 2076
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Bromsgrove District Council
Objection to Site 13.
Concerns about coalescence with settlements such as Majors Green close to Bromsgrove/Solihull boundary; and undermining Green Belt functions contrary to NPPF.
see letter
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: 3351
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Bromsgrove District Council
Housing site allocations appear to presented as options they are not truly options since they do not provide comparative levels of growth and all appear to be required to meet the Housing requirement.
Topic Paper 4 'Options for Growth and Site Selection' does not appear to reflect findings of Green Belt Assessment or Landscape Character Study for Area F.
Unclear how meaningful Green Belt gaps will be retained in Blythe ward close to Bromsgrove District and Worcestershire County boundary.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q16. Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure[35] required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are the
Representation ID: 3352
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Bromsgrove District Council
In relation to Sites 4, 12 and 13.
Concerns regarding the trip movements associated with Sites 4, 12 and 13 potentially amounting to over 2000 dwellings in close proximity to Bromsgrove district and impacts on wider transport network.
Relevant sections of Solihull Connected Infrastructure Strategy would be interventions 28, 32 and 34.
see letter
