Draft Local Plan Review

No

Representation ID: 2852

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch

- protecting and maintaining the Meriden Gap and ensuring that Birmingham and Coventry are kept separate has not been adequately addressed in the Draft Plan.
- A new Policy that picks up the principle from the UDP should be added regarding the Green Belt and the Meriden Gap
- On Challenge I, there is no case for seeking to provide more sand and gravel from quarries within the Borough. Challenge should be amended to include restoration of the Cornets End area landscape to farmland

No

Representation ID: 2853

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch

The Borough Vision is defective.
- housing proposed would undermine the character of Solihull and reduce its rural features.
Heavy traffic levels would make journeys slow and uncomfortable
Vision should be revised to reflect the fact that Solihull is a location for employment for many who live in other local authority areas and is itself a place for people who work in Birmingham to live.
Vision should state that the Green Belt will be fully protected and that new housing will be developed where small, sustainable locations are available; large greenfield sites for new housing will generally not be permitted

No

Representation ID: 2854

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch

The Spatial Strategy is not sound as written:
four issues put forward to support this:
1) level of employment
2) extent of Green Belt
3) Capacity of main road system
4) nature and type of new housing development

An essential revision to the Spatial Strategy is to replace the proposal for a few large greenfield housing allocations with a principle that small and medium-sized sites will be the preferred way to deliver new housing.

No

Representation ID: 2855

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch

P1 Central Hub Area includes the 'UK Central':
- not located at a public transport hub; instead a road-served location. The HS2 station will generate car traffic and not reduce it
- No floorspace is given in the Plan for the 'UK Central' proposals east of the M42
- effect of development on the road system, M42 in particular, not addressed in the Plan
Policy P1 should be reviewed and revised to put limits on the development proposed at UK Central. make clear that the UK Central proposal called is not required to meet the employment needs of the Borough.

Yes

Representation ID: 2856

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch

The proposed 600 dwellings on land currently designated in the adopted Plan for Blythe Valley Business Park already have outline planning permission. No use would be served now by examining alternatives to Policy P1A, which is already being implemented.

No

Representation ID: 2857

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch

- relocating Solihull station to south of the main centre and close to Touchwood Court should be progressed, along with some housing at the present station and bus station site.
- a new station should be provided between Solihull and Olton at Wadleys Road
- Mell Square location can provide more housing than anticipated

Shirley Town Centre
- Amend P2 re Solihull Gate retail park (will become housing and that its retail uses will be encouraged to relocate to Shirley Town Centre). It is a site which would be ideal for high-density housing (up to 800 dwellings)-

No

Representation ID: 2858

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch

Policy P3 itself is a standard policy for employment land. Solihull is not short of employment
floorspace and most expansion will be B1 uses.
The table at para 165 includes two proposals for employment land on Green Belt:
* Land at HS2 Interchange (Site 19) 140 ha
* Land at Damson Parkway (Site 20) 94 ha
Neither of these proposals is justified by Policy P3, and neither is necessary for the employment needs of the Borough's residents. They should be removed from the section of the Plan relating to Policy P3.

Yes

Representation ID: 2859

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch

The 50% affordable housing target is supported. Starter Homes should not be counted as 'affordable housing' as they will not be affordable under the standard definition; and they would seen be part of the general housing market.

No

Representation ID: 2860

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch

The Council is not proposing new housing in the right locations. The policy is to develop a few large housing locations and not to seek small sites. This is the wrong policy for the reasons set out in the 'Main Issues' part of this response, at page 4-6 above, under D:
The Plan's preference for a few large greenfield sites for the additional housing proposed, and its failure to examine and propose instead a large number of small sites adjacent to or fitted into the existing urban pattern of development

No

Representation ID: 2861

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch

Contrary to Green Belt policy and Council policy to protect 'urbs in rure' character, unsustainable location dependent on car travel, would harm attractive open countryside, remove opportunities for quiet recreation, loss of playing fields/sports grounds and drainage issues and impact on flood risk.