Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 9303

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP

Within the document that has been issued for consultation, there appears to be no justification for moving away from the standard methodology. SMBC needs to be confident that there is sufficient supply of sites to meet both the Borough's housing need and the wider HMA shortfall contribution.

Comment

Representation ID: 9304

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP

The approach to not seek to allocate a particular number to be accommodated in each settlement is welcomed. Concern that DLP does not include any small sites within the methodology. Whilst it is acknowledged that Step 2 assessment is subject to planning judgement, it is not particularly clear as to why some sites have been excluded.
Part Site 102 Waste Lane, identifies distance to key economic assets yet conclusion indicates site could be considered as part of larger site, when parts are further away.
Site 101 Old Waste Lane is priority 7 but should be 6 as adjacent site.

Comment

Representation ID: 9305

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP

In order to meet these ambitious infrastructure requirements in the local area, it will be necessary to allocate additional sites for development within Balsall Common, for example Land at Meeting House Lane and Waste Lane, adjacent to Barratts Farm (part of site 102), Oakes Farm (site 304) and Land at Old Waste Lane/ Waste Lane (part of site 101).

Comment

Representation ID: 9306

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP

Spitfire does not contest the principle of an allocation being made. It does however contest that based on the current site boundaries, the number of dwellings is too high when proper consideration is given to its constraints including its sensitivity in relation the Green Belt and listed buildings. Proposal for high density development along by-pass route is out of character, will create urbanising effect and result in poor quality environment. Site has complex ownerships and uncertain delivery. Allocation should be extended to include Sites 101 and 102 and range of builders will help delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 9307

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP

This allocation has already been reduced in numbers to around 100-110 and questions must be raised at to whether it will be able to delivery the amount set out.

Object

Representation ID: 9308

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP

This site appears to an illogical extension to the settlement, when considered in its wider context with listed buildings and main services and should therefore not be allocated.

Comment

Representation ID: 9309

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP

Question whether site is deliverable given time required to relocate existing businesses. Given the commercial uses currently on the site, would this site be better as a commercial allocation?

Comment

Representation ID: 9310

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP

The density of development appears to be at odds with the density of the surrounding area on the edge of this settlement, and does not accord with open space requirements. As a result, it is highly unlikely the site would be able to deliver 300 dwellings, particularly also given the existing woodland and trees on the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 9311

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP

Unclear whether existing businesses would be relocated. Nevertheless, the loss of employment generating uses appears to be at odds with the wider economic ambitions of the Council. The site would also be bounded on two sides by the railway line with what appears to be a limited buffer. This therefore raises concerns over amenity for future occupiers.

Support

Representation ID: 9312

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP

Spitfire Homes welcomes the changes to the Green Belt Boundary. It is recognised that this is necessary and welcomed in order to meet the Councils housing target. The level of growth proposed for Balsall Common should be seen as a minimum figure. Welcome acknowledgement that site 101 would fall within settlement boundary.