Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 9572

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Stansgate Planning LLP

Site 420 north of Main Road, Meriden should be allocated for up to 100 houses. Site Selection topic paper demonstrates Meriden has good level of services and is highly accessible. Suitable for limited expansion and could take more than 100 dwellings.
Site Assessment scores well other than defensible boundaries, which is capable of remedy using existing hedgerows/watercourse. Accessibility Mapping finds very high level of accessibility. Maximum SHELAA score. Moderate impact on green belt. Visually well-contained. Can provide significant green infrastructure.
Site performs well against Step 2 factors, other than very low landscape capacity, which applies to Site 10 and elsewhere. Site more positive in SA than other Meriden sites.
Assessment incorrectly states 170 rather than 100 dwellings.

Comment

Representation ID: 9753

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

Agree that SM is good starting point for assessing housing need. PPG states that only a minimum.
Two factors need to be considered at the next stage of the Local Plan:
a) Impact of supergrowth associated with High Speed 2 (HS2), the planned investment in strategic infrastructure improvements at UK Central and elsewhere in the Borough to facilitate growth, on the housing needs
b) Reach a more firm position in respect of the level of HMA shortfall that will be accommodated in the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 9754

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

Considered Step 1 - Hierarchy criteria does not fully align with NPPF recommendations.
Accessibility should be more strongly featured in Step 1 and not as in Footnote 35.
Five purposes of Green Belt should not be considered ahead of Acessibility.
Step 2 should include sites well served by public transport in 'factors in favour'.
In reference to Site 141, this site would be advanced to Step 2 as proximity to Earlswood Station is an accessible location.

Comment

Representation ID: 9755

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

In ref. to NPPF Para. 138, it is considered that any compensatory provision should be a qualitative provision, such as improved access, rather than a quantitative approach where more land for Green Belt is provided.

Comment

Representation ID: 9756

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

SHELAA Site 141 should be further considered for allocation.
It can be included within the opportunity area 'South of Birmingham' a broad, non-specific area of land between Birmingham and Stratford upon Avon (location NS5) which was identified as having potential for a new settlement in the GL Hearn Strategic Growth Study 2018.
Site Selection Methodology is flawed and Site should have been considered to Step 2 due to proximity to Earlswood Station.
Could provide up to 500 homes, provide Green Belt compensation, provide 11 ha of open space, provide opportunity for supported uses such as schools, adjacent to underutilised station.

Comment

Representation ID: 9757

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

It is considered that the proposed approach to affordable housing and market mix is confused and should be reviewed as part of the preparation of the next stage of the
Local Plan.
It is standard practice for affordable housing contributions to be calculated as a percentage of the overall number of dwellings and there is no evidence to suggest that the alternative approach of calculating provision based on floorspace would encourage the delivery of a higher proportion of smaller market dwellings.
Experience within the industry is that the use of a square meterage approach does not enhance the delivery of either market of affordable housing. There are a much larger range of factors to take into account when developing an appropriate mix of housing; particularly on large
development sites where the creation of a high quality 'place' is critical.
This approach reflects the policies set out with the 2019 NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 9758

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

Overall IM is pleased that Solihull Council is progressing the SLPR and inviting comments on their proposed approach.
IM is keen to see a more holistic approach to and consideration of the key factors to be addressed within the DLP. In particular, a more comprehensive approach to housing
needs at both the local level and in terms of accommodating a proportion of unmet need from within the wider HMA.
Important that these factors are addressed so that the Council can be satisfied that the quantum of land they are seeking to identify and spatial strategy are sound.

Comment

Representation ID: 9761

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

Agree that SM is good starting point for assessing housing need. PPG states that only a minimum.
Two factors need to be considered at the next stage of the Local Plan:
a) Impact of supergrowth associated with High Speed 2 (HS2), the planned investment in strategic infrastructure improvements at UK Central and elsewhere in the Borough to facilitate growth, on the housing needs
b) Reach a more firm position in respect of the level of HMA shortfall that will be accommodated in the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 9762

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

IM Properties secured planning permission at Blythe Valley Park for residential, employment and mixed uses in 2017.
IM agrees with the infrastructure requirements as set out within the consultation document and is currently working with SMBC and other stakeholders to deliver improvements to infrastructure within Blythe and the wider Borough.
Keen to further understand what specific improvements the Council intend to make to local schools and medical facilities in order to facilitate development within the ward.

Comment

Representation ID: 9763

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley

Overall IM is in agreement with the infrastructure requirements set out within the consultation document; however they would suggest that more detailed consideration needs to be given to improving connectivity to and from the Town Centre as part of a wider strategic plan for investment to support economic growth within the Borough. In particular, detailed consideration should be given to improving connections between the Town Centre and the UK Central 'Hub', and the opportunity to reduce reliance on travel by car should be explored further to enable the opportunity for the redevelopment of existing car parks.