Draft Local Plan Review
Search representations
Results for William Davis Ltd search
New searchNo
Draft Local Plan Review
Alternative Site Suggested (Call for Sites)
Representation ID: 2026
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: William Davis Ltd
Agent: Define Planning & Design
SHELAA Site 6 - land off Old Station Road, Hampton in Arden.
Location and aspect mean that it is not a particularly sensitive part of the Green Belt.
Role considered incidental to the main purposes of the Green Belt around Birmingham and Solihull.
Screening by mature trees.
Bordered on two sides by existing development.
Infilling an existing gap in the suburban frontage.
2km from Catherine de Barnes.
Merits recognises in Green Belt Assessment.
Accessible location.
Would not affect Conservation Area.
Not in the floodplain.
No nature conservation designations.
Site can be appropriately accessed.
No issues with utilities.
Site deliverable.
see attached letter and graphics
Yes
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: 2027
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: William Davis Ltd
Agent: Define Planning & Design
Agree with overarching spatial strategy.
Exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release exist.
Disagree that Hampton-in-Arden is a settlement with a limited range of services.
see attached letter and graphics
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q11. Do you agree with Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 2028
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: William Davis Ltd
Agent: Define Planning & Design
Support the provision of an appropriate and viable mix of dwelling types, tenures and sizes in new developments.
Unduly prescriptive and premature to precisely set the market housing mix on future developments or briefs.
Requires more flexibility.
Should recognise difference between need and demand. Actual demand is still for larger properties. Larger properties are more sustainable as more flexible living accommodation over time.
Housing mix should be decided at planning application stage.
see attached letter and graphics
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q12. Do you agree with the level of affordable housing being sought in Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 2029
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: William Davis Ltd
Agent: Define Planning & Design
SHMA states affordable housing need is 26.9% of proposed housing requirement.
50% affordable housing target therefore excessive.
Recent Housing White Paper confirms that starter homes will not be an additional requirement over and above the affordable homes requirements as currently suggested in DLP.
Viability caveat is welcome.
SMBC need to demonstrate viability of delivering all of policy objectives plus CIL before setting the affordable housing target.
see attached letter and graphics
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Q13. Which option for delivering self and custom housebuilding do you favour and why? If neither, do you have any other suggestions?
Representation ID: 2030
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: William Davis Ltd
Agent: Define Planning & Design
Support Option 1.
Option 2, if progressed, should only be on a 'seek to negotiate' basis rather than prescriptive.
Needs robust evidence of need.
see attached letter and graphics
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: 2031
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: William Davis Ltd
Agent: Define Planning & Design
SHMA is not an OAHN for Greater Birmingham HMA.
GBHMA Stage 3 Report uses 2012 SNHP therefore is not up-to-date.
Housing and Employment strategies must be properly aligned - no adjustment to support economic growth generated by HS2 Hub in Solihull.
Assessment of worsening market signals, affordable housing need and supporting economic growth should have been calculated for the whole HMA.
10% uplift to address affordability is too conservative.
No evidence to justify 2,000 dwellings to meet HMA needs; meagre amount.
Not yet been a positive outcome to Duty-to-Cooperate engagement.
Discount of 10% uplift from HMA shortfall is illogical.
see attached letter and graphics
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q18. Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Representation ID: 2032
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: William Davis Ltd
Agent: Define Planning & Design
Policy P7 - Intent is supported but focus is too narrow on accessibility to bus and rail.
30 mins bus frequency is unduly onerous.
Will frustrate development of several sites coming forward.
Conflicts with Atkins Accessibility Study.
Policy should be revised to reflect Para. 17 of NPPF.
see attached letter and graphics
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q19. Do you agree with the policies for protecting the environment? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Representation ID: 2033
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: William Davis Ltd
Agent: Define Planning & Design
Policy P11 - Requirement for higher optional water efficiency standard of 110 L per day per person cannot be justified and should be removed.
PPG clear this can only be applied in areas of water stress; not justified by Water Cycle Study.
see attached letter and graphics
Yes
Draft Local Plan Review
Q20. Do you agree with the policies for quality of place? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Representation ID: 2034
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: William Davis Ltd
Agent: Define Planning & Design
Policy P15 - Support intent of the policy.
Concerns about how policy will be interpreted and applied.
Lacks clarity.
Reference to Building for Life 10, and not 12, is presumably an error.
see attached letter and graphics