Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

No - so long as the conditions referred to in the response to question 34 are sustained - namely the justification by reference to exceptional circumstances. A failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances renders the Plan susceptible to legal challenge and thus ineffective, which in turn renders the plan unsound.

This comment relates solely to the land at the rear of 114 - 118 Widney Manor Road. It is considered it should be allocated as an express housing site.
On behalf of the owners I submitted a response to the consultation exercise in January 2016 which demonstrated that when measured against appropriate Green Belt and other criteria the site was demonstrably more appropriate to release from the Green Belt than any other Green Belt site tested at that time. The case was put then, as is put now in response to question 2 of this consultation exercise, that the initial coarse sieve exercise results in the exclusion from further consideration of candidate sites with worthwhile credentials.
For reasons set out in response to question 2 this approach renders the approach adopted by the Council both unlawful and unsound due to the arbitrary exclusion of sites which potentially offer the best fit with the achievement of sustainable development. The current exercise has compounded that unlawfulness and unsoundness by undertaking a Sustainability Appraisal which amalgamates sites either side of Widney Manor Road and tests them as one. In so doing this undermines the merits and demerits of the component sites which would return very different results if tested objectively on their individual merits. Such an approach is unlawful in that it breaches the duty given to Solihull MBC under Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act to exercise their plan making function of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Any plan based on the analysis adopted thus far would be unsound due to inadequate justification, a failure to follow national policy and ineffective as a result of its susceptibility to legal challenge
The SHMAA report embracing this site is erroneous. Table A shows it as being available in years 6 -10 but the original SHMAA indicated it to be available in years 1-5 - which fact is noted in the analysis of constraints page in the same document.
The site assessments table in the Site Assessments report published as part of this round of consultation lists the Sustainability Appraisal results in relation to the larger amalgamated site tested by the SA and this therefore renders the evidence of the relevant table to be based on a falsehood. That table also reports that access represents a soft constraint. A scheme was tested at appeal and the access was found to be wholly acceptable. Similarly proximity to the railway line is listed as a soft constraint but at the appeal noise was not held to be a problem in the decision. The appeal was dismissed on Green Belt grounds and inadequate wording of the affordable housing provision due to an uncertainty about the long term management.
The Council have a statutory duty to seek the achievement of Sustainable Development and in pursuit of this national policy indicates they have to use an evidence based approach, and the Sustainability Appraisal is clearly an important contribution to this. It follows that the Sustainability Appraisal and other evidence documentation should present the material in a manner which is firstly, accurate and, secondly, enables like for like assessment of individual parcels of land rather than amalgamations of sites with differing characteristics.

No. The appropriate mechanism for securing smaller market housing is achieved using density policy. It is a requirement of plan making that account is taken of national policy. The approach to increasing densities is set out at paragraphs 122 and 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework. As is evident from those paragraphs it is necessary to approach the articulation of density policies having regard to several factors including the character of the surrounding area.

The plan is very heavily reliant on two major sites (UK Central Hub and Barratts Farm, Balsall Common) which have uncertainties relating to them. In the case of Barratts Farm it is understood there is a multiplicity of ownership. Whilst the consultation seeks to secure a comprehensive development proposal these are very difficult to put together and I have known long gestation periods whilst this takes place. There is therefore a material uncertainty regarding deliverability which currently would render the plan ineffective and therefore unsound. More reliable sites such as 114 - 118 WIdney Manor Road should be allocated.