Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Object

Representation ID: 8979

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Strongly object to omission of amber sites 104 and 413 as:
* The site compares favourably against draft allocated sites in Green Belt and accessibility terms, including Draft Allocation Site 8 (Hampton Road, Knowle), and has thus been incorrectly scored in the Site Selection Process
* Concern is raised surrounding the overall number of houses generated from the draft allocations in meeting unmet need in HMA. For example, Site 9 is in multiple ownership and there is evidence that the capacity will not be achievable.
* It is not demonstrated how 2000 dwellings for HMA shortfall will be delivered.

Comment

Representation ID: 9259

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Do not believe there are exceptional circumstances that would justify an alternative approach, but nonetheless consider Plan has not appropriately addressed the requirement to contribute to the unmet need of the wider HMA.
Concern about lack of clarity over mechanism to agree unmet need and how Plan should provide for need. Procrastination will delay preparation of other Plans significantly affecting HMA and risks stifling economic growth.
Borough well placed to deliver greater proportion of unmet need. Less harmful Amber sites identified that can deliver additional 706 dwellings, including up to 340 at Blue Lake Road (ref A5).

Comment

Representation ID: 9477

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Heyford Developments agree with the methodology of the site selection process but strongly disagree with the resulting scores in Step 2 for Draft Allocation Site 8 Hampton Road and Amber Site A5 Land at Blue Lake Road.
Sites 166/213: identified as blue in Step 1, exhibit a number of concerns, setting of listed building, Local Wildlife Sites, TPOs/hedgerows. Whilst could be mitigated, nonsensical to score green in Step 2. Should be red.
Sites 104/413: yellow in Step 1, no significant impacts, should be identified as green in Step 2.

Comment

Representation ID: 9478

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Heyford Developments agree with the need for Green Belt enhancements as encouraged by paragraph 138 of the NPPF.
Consider this provision should be incumbent for all housing development within the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath areas for land that is to remain in the Green Belt to compensate for land that is taken up for development.
Heyford Developments highlight the ability of land at Blue Lake Road, under their control, to deliver such mitigation measures in the form of a new country park proposed for the eastern part of the site, included in the Vision Document at Appendix A.

Object

Representation ID: 9479

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Heyford Developments strongly object to the inclusion of Site 8 as an allocated site, ahead of land under their control at Blue Lake Road, as:
* It has been incorrectly prioritised in the Site Selection Process;
* The loss of the land parcel to the north of Hampton Road facilitating the proposed new sports pitches and adjacent housing is unjustified in landscape and Green Belt terms; and
* It would cause unacceptable harm to the setting of Grimshaw Hall (Grade I Listed)
Land off Blue Lake Road would be less harmful and can provide appropriate mitigation for green belt loss.

Comment

Representation ID: 9484

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Difficult to distinguish between Site 9 and Amber Site A5 Blue Lake Road, and latter will round off development alongside Site 9.
Blue Lake Road aligned with Site 9 in terms of accessibility.
Uncertainty over Site 9 due to different land ownerships and land parcels, which risks not delivering allocated housing numbers. All the land at Blue Lake Road now under control of Heywood Developments, is available now and can deliver housing within first 5 years of Plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 9485

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Heyford Developments agree with the need for Green Belt enhancements, as encouraged by paragraph 138 of the NPPF, and particularly the creation of recreational areas where land is laid out to provide access to open areas, as suggested by the Council is paragraph 386 of the Consultation document.
Highlight ability of land at Blue Lake Road to deliver such mitigation measures in the form of a new country park proposed for the eastern part of the site. Park approximately 4 Ha in size, provide for a range of recreational uses, and is proposed to be permanently available for public use.

Comment

Representation ID: 9487

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Fulfilling the Duty to Cooperate will require the Council to reach agreement with the other authorities throughout the HMA on how it can assist in accommodating an appropriate portion of the unmet housing needs from across the HMA. Responses from North Warwickshire Borough Council/Coventry City Council to the Draft Local Plan consultation in 2016 raise concern over how Solihull are addressing their contribution to the HMA shortfall. North Warwickshire Position Statement demonstrates that concern over lack of agreement. Solihull well placed to deliver significant proportion, and failure to do so will result in unsound Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 9735

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Agree approach to calculating housing need and welcome calculation on both 2014/2016 based household projections. Any additional housing requirement for wider HMA shortfall should be provided in addition to local need.

Comment

Representation ID: 9736

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Capacity of existing infrastructure, such as schools, should not be used to limit ability to provide further development, as infrastructure, such as additional school capacity, can be part funded by development.