Draft Local Plan Review

Yes

Representation ID: 6246

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd

Policy P13:
Welcome policy effectively encouraging developers to ensure minerals have been extracted before development occurs.
Packington Estate has planning consent to extract mineral at the Arden Cross Interchange Station site and is in the process of extraction.
Recognise the important contribution the mineral reserve to the east of NEC/M42 could play in contributing towards the Borough's mineral requirement.
Recognise the most sustainable mineral is that which could be excavated and used on site again and again.
Urge the Council to aid with implementing a mineral extraction plan to ensure balance of extraction and development are forthcoming.

Yes

Representation ID: 6247

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd

Policy P14 -
Dark Sky:
Welcome policy that would safeguard parts of the countryside that retain an intrinsically dark sky from the impacts of light pollution and would welcome a plan identifying where these 'dark areas' are to ensure that any development within these areas must comply with low light emitting design guidance.

Yes

Representation ID: 6248

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd

Policy P15 -
Supportive of any policy that delivers high quality/safe environments where people and nature are able to flourish.
This should be delivered through 'stewardship'
excellence that ensures a long term approach to place making.

Yes

Representation ID: 6249

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd

Policy P16 -
Welcome the importance being placed on heritage assets and the Arden landscape in particular. Whilst Packington Hall and parkland are outside the Borough, the Estate's land and landscape within the Borough make a significant contribution to its local character and distinctiveness. Packington Hall is a Grade II* listed house and the Park is a Grade II* listed parkland with remnants of the original Forest of Arden landscape, (of which only a few remain) and lies immediately adjacent to Solihull border.
Expansion of Airport east of A452 would destroy listed Park and Gardens and adversely affect landscape character.

Yes

Representation ID: 6250

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd

Policy P17 -
Generally support, including changes of use to accommodate outdoor sport and recreation.
Should give support to opportunities that enhance biodiversity of the GB linked with alternative users.
Generally welcome section on reasonable expansion of established businesses in the GB, however, 'significant contribution' is too limited and vague.
E.g. is a small scale expansion of 1,000-2,000 square foot office to provide additional employment for 8 people significant?
Is significant for the firm, but not necessarily wider economy.
We suggest changing 'significant' to 'proportionate'.

No

Representation ID: 6251

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd

Policy P20 -
Waterways:
Propose change of wording to '...providing that the development safeguards the historic and natural environment, the needs of agriculture and...'
The needs of agriculture, such as running of cattle across areas of grassland adjacent to rivers and waterways could potentially conflict with proposals for greater recreational and leisure use on the river and canal network.

No

Representation ID: 6252

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd

The first two bullet points should be caveated by the word 'appropriate'. Further, a third bullet point should be added 'contributions will reflect the viability of the development'.
Developers should only contribute to changes to infrastructure required to facilitate their development.
Should not used for upgrades that are required to facilitate natural growth, e.g. digital infrastructure.
Emphasis and onus should remain on the local authority to provide/enable adequate services and infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 6253

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd

Packington Estate supports the inclusion of 'proposal allocation' Site 6, Meriden Road, Hampton-in-Arden to include the addition of the extension areas to the south and east.
In reviewing the evidence based documents that will support the Local Plan, it is evident that additional evidence is required.

No

Representation ID: 6254

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd

Potential expansion of Birmingham Airport to east of A452:
Would prefer a second runway to utilise Site 20.
Expansion to East would further jeopardise the Green Belt, the River Blythe SSSI and ornithological flyway, Packington Hall (Grade II* listed) and the listed Capability Brown Park, along with having to move circa 30 million tonnes of domestic waste at Packington Landfill.
Note:
No national policy supporting a second runway
No prepared economic business or environmental case in public domain
No coherent plan for removal of 30M tonnes of waste
Removal of 1000s of trees
Increased noise impacts
Water management in area.

No

Representation ID: 6255

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Packington Estate Enterprises Ltd

Site 20, is a location that the Airport has previously formally identified as a potential site for a second shorter runway. The Government White Paper of 2003 'The Future of Air Transport', recommended safeguarding this area.
This site seems to be allocated for Jaguar Land Rover expansion but is vaguely defined in the plan.
A second runway, utilising Site 20, would be preferable to that of a new runway to the east of the A452, currently suggested by the Airport.
Therefore Site 20 should not be developed until a long term plan is adopted for Birmingham Airport.