Draft Local Plan Review

Yes

Representation ID: 4160

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Arden Cross Consortium

Agent: Turley

Support allocation of 1000 dwellings at the UKC Hub. However, this figure should be a minimum. More development could be delivered on the Arden Cross site.
It would be prudent to set out separately the amount of housing Arden Cross and the NEC is expected to deliver over the plan period.
Despite the allocation of housing to the UK Central Hub Area, there is concern that Arden Cross is not specifically included in the 'Summary Table of Allocated Sites'. This is contradicted by Policy P1 which promotes Arden Cross as providing residential opportunities.

Yes

Representation ID: 5571

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Arden Cross Consortium

Agent: Turley

The allocation of Arden Cross can significantly contribute to meeting the majority of challenges in the Borough.
Suggest bullet point two of Challenge M should be altered to better reflect the Arden Cross Vision of a mixed use urban quarter that maximises the benefits of the site's current and planned connectivity. This should include the most efficient use of the site for a range of complementary uses that capitalise on the opportunity for investment stimulated by HS2. The "garden village" concept is inappropriate in this context since it would not enable the full potential benefits of HS2 to be captured.

Yes

Representation ID: 5572

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Arden Cross Consortium

Agent: Turley

Part of the vision referring to HS2 could be made more robust by reference to the Midlands region (East and West) rather than the "wider area". References to "managed growth" gives a misleading message about the Council's strategic objectives for major growth within the Borough, in particular, the UK Central Hub. The Council should consider rephrasing this to better reflect the spatial strategy. Suggested alternatives are "major sustainable growth" or "planned growth".
With regard to Green Belt, the Vision should reflect support for release of sustainable locations for growth and appropriate protection of other retained parts of the Green Belt.

Yes

Representation ID: 5573

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Arden Cross Consortium

Agent: Turley

Support the identification of Growth Option E.
The identified development figures for jobs and homes in the UKC area represent a conservative assessment of development potential and capacity. The LPR should promote the maximised economic and social benefits that can be achieved.
The sequential approach set out at paragraph 96 of the Draft LPR should be radically revisited. It currently contradicts much of the broader content of the Plan's Vision and Spatial Strategy relating to the scale of growth to be delivered at the UKC Hub which involves releasing land from the Green Belt to meet development needs.

Yes

Representation ID: 5574

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Arden Cross Consortium

Agent: Turley

Generally support. However, given the significance attached to Arden Cross by the Government, WMCA and GBSLEP, it is considered that the wording of Policy P1 can be refined to better reflect the Arden Cross Vision and the potential for early delivery of development to coincide with the arrival of HS2 in 2026. Welcome working with the Council to assist in this.
The flexibility afforded by the Policy and justification is supported and is necessary, however,
In justifying removal of the site from the Green Belt, the exceptional circumstances are much stronger than outlined in the draft Plan.

No

Representation ID: 5575

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Arden Cross Consortium

Agent: Turley

The key objectives as identified in Policy P1 should be disaggregated so that it is clear how each economic asset will help to meet them over the course of the plan period.
The proposals for each key economic asset should be subject to site-specific objectives in line with those set out at paragraph 58 of the NPPF
LPR could also include an additional objective based on the demonstration of how development proposals will contribute to the alleviation of persistently high unemployment across pockets of the Borough and facilitate economic growth across the sub-region.

No

Representation ID: 5576

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Arden Cross Consortium

Agent: Turley

The Employment Land Review (ELR) fell within the consultation period. While it is assumed that this evidence informed the draft Plan, the justification for Policy P3 is currently limited.
The recommendations of the study have yet to be translated into the Draft Plan.
Consequently, draft Policy P3 provides insufficient certainty over the level of economic growth needed within the Borough, including in response to the arrival of HS2.
The ELR's recognition of the significant potential for economic development and job creation at Arden Cross needs to be specifically referenced and justified by Policy P3.

No

Representation ID: 5577

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Arden Cross Consortium

Agent: Turley

Policy P3 fails to identify the total employment land required across the Borough over the plan period.
There is a significant under estimation of the potential scale of employment land that will be needed within the Borough to meet the wider strategic economic objectives of the GBSLEP and the WMCA.
It does not appear that the Employment Land Review has considered the level of economic growth identified in the Strategic Economic Plan, and by implication its impact on employment needs, which represents a deficiency that could affect the soundness of the LPR.

No

Representation ID: 5587

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Arden Cross Consortium

Agent: Turley

This level of requirement is likely to be excessive, and could prejudice the viability of allocated housing sites, especially where there are other significant costs associated with the delivery of development. Concerns over the evidence to support this level of requirement.

No

Representation ID: 5588

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Arden Cross Consortium

Agent: Turley

Support that the Borough will meet its own housing need whilst also addressing the acknowledged shortfall of housing across the HMA.
However, the future relationship between continued economic growth of the Borough and the pressure it exerts on the demand/need for housing is of critical importance within Solihull. The consideration of supergrowth in the evidence base does not reflect the developing vision for the area.
No evidence for the 2000 shortfall figure. Commuting patterns indicated that Solihull should take a greater share of the shortfall than already planned.