Draft Local Plan Review
Search representations
Results for Richard Cobb Planning search
New searchNo
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: 4135
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
Reasonable case for the housing numbers but concerned that it falls short of what should be provided in terms of meeting the Objectively Assessed Housing Need requirement for the Birmingham HMA. There is a reliance on too many large sites and volume housebuilders do not perform at the pace necessary to deliver the housing target requirements. More small and medium sites should be made available for local building companies who can deliver faster.
Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q7. Do you agree with Policy P2? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 5542
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
The broad approach taken to developing Solihull Town Centre is probably right but the loss of parking facilities in Solihull Town Centre is worrying. The Local Plan should look at a scheme for Park and Ride in the life of the Plan and to look for sites in the Green Belt around the periphery. Sites at Ravenshaw, Widney manor, Damson Parkway and South Shirley come to mind.
Apart from residential development, more hotels and employment sites are also needed in the centre.
Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q9. Do you agree with Policy P3? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 5543
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
The Plan seeks to protect existing business and employment premises but then allocates existing employment premises for housing without replacing them elsewhere. That idea should be forgotten.
Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan
No
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: 5544
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
Housing numbers fall short of what should be provided.
Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q15. Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think
Representation ID: 5545
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
Disproportionate amount of housing proposed in Blythe Ward.
Significant development in Balsall Common with no additional employment provision, a dysfunctional village centre with no space to accommodate more parking.
Failure to explore other potential communities which should share the burden of development. Most notable are Dorridge and Hockley Heath which seem capable of taking their share.
Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan
No
Draft Local Plan Review
02 Balsall Common - Frog Lane
Representation ID: 5546
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
No strategic reason to allocate land at Frog Lane for development. Better to replace this with a selection of smaller sites at the northern end of the village that could deliver the same additional housing numbers at a faster rate. That would help to round the village and spread the burden of new development in the village.
Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan
No
Draft Local Plan Review
04 Dickens Heath - West of Dickens Heath
Representation ID: 5547
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
Continued approach to see Dickens Heath perform the role of a soft sponge for soaking up more and more housing to avoid having to find sites elsewhere. The expansion breaches the fundamental principle of preventing the merging of settlements. Majors Green should remain well separated from Dickens Heath and housing development along Tythe Barn Lane out to Tilehouse Lane would be a fatal erosion of that Green Belt gap. Dickens Heath centre is also in need of a fresh examination if it is to cope with any more housing.
Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan
No
Draft Local Plan Review
09 Knowle - South of Knowle
Representation ID: 5548
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
The site will destroy the character and setting of Knowle. It will massively impact on the visual aspect of Knowle from the east. The allocation should not extend to the Warwick Road or beyond the Middlefield development. The remaining balance of numbers can be found by adopting a dispersal approach using smaller or medium sized sites.
Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan
No
Draft Local Plan Review
11 Shirley - TRW Site
Representation ID: 5549
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
Loss of one of the few remaining modern employment sites so close to Shirley. Retaining and/or redeveloping it as an employment site would offer continued opportunities for employment for those occupying the new houses proposed off Dog Kennel Lane and the South of Shirley site, rather than removing those employment opportunities altogether.
Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
12 Shirley - South of Dog Kennel Lane
Representation ID: 5550
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
The release of site 12 should extend over to link to the rather ad hoc and long established development at the head of Creynolds Lane and include a feeder road leading over to Dickens Heath.
Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan