Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Support

Representation ID: 9338

Received: 21/03/2019

Respondent: Halford Holdings

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Support the proposed allocation of our Client's site within Site 16 for housing which, together with the rest of the proposed allocation, is estimated could deliver in total around 600 dwellings within the revised plan period to 2035. Site has defensible boundaries, provides logical extension, is highly accessible, well served by sustainable forms of transport.
Concept Masterplan
Object to potential area of ecological assessment as no evidence.

Support

Representation ID: 9339

Received: 21/03/2019

Respondent: Halford Holdings

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The 5 ha urban site is expected to deliver approximately 200 dwellings. However,
the viability of the site for residential development has not been tested and the
potential land contamination on the site is unknown. Recommendation in concept masterplan that consideration given to relocation or removal of the telecommunications mast if possible.
Deliverability not demonstrated and should not be allocated.

Object

Representation ID: 9340

Received: 21/03/2019

Respondent: Halford Holdings

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Support proposed housing distribution, review of green belt boundaries and reassessment of washed over green belt settlements. Object to lack of justification/agreement for scale of contribution to wider HMA shortfall. Insufficient deliverable sites to meet needs and more small/medium sites required.
Contends that despite use of Standard Methodology based on 2014
household projections, there is still no signed Statement of Common Ground,
(contrary to NPPF).

Object

Representation ID: 9341

Received: 21/03/2019

Respondent: Halford Holdings

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No clearly defined physical feature along eastern boundary, and site does not follow field boundaries. Reliance on bypass line problematic, no evidence that route/funding agreed. Line likely to be further east so could not provide boundary.
Low level of accessibility, Sustainability Appraisal identifies only 3 positive v 6 negative (2 significant) effects.
Only one third of site is brownfield, the eastern part of the site makes the highest possible contribution towards the Green Belt purposes.
Should not be priority 3, but 8 for brownfield element and 10 for remainder according to site selection methodology, therefore unsuitable for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 9342

Received: 21/03/2019

Respondent: Halford Holdings

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Lack of a clear defensible physical boundary and concern that there will be pressure for further development to south, as shown on the promoter's masterplan submission for site 26. Site needs to be assessed consistently with other sites rejected for lack of physical boundaries.
Severely compromises Green Belt purposes a to c.
Site should be re-evaluated and doubtful that stated capacity is realistic.

Object

Representation ID: 9343

Received: 21/03/2019

Respondent: Halford Holdings

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Lack of a clear defensible physical boundary and concern that there will be pressure for further development up to the Stratford Canal, as shown on the promoter's masterplan submission. Site needs to be assessed consistently with other sites rejected for lack of physical boundaries.
Severely compromises Green Belt purposes a to c.
Site should be re-evaluated and doubtful that stated capacity is realistic.

Object

Representation ID: 9344

Received: 21/03/2019

Respondent: Halford Holdings

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The 'Draft Concept Masterplan' document, January 2019, acknowledges
that alternative premises would need to be found for the wood shaving operation to
enable the residential development of both sites. This is likely to be problematic
given the 'bad neighbour' characteristics of the use.
Site preparation works required for brownfield element questioning viability.
These significant doubts over deliverability mean site should not be allocated

Object

Representation ID: 9345

Received: 21/03/2019

Respondent: Halford Holdings

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Many sites rejected where there are no existing physical features, yet there is no clearly defined physical boundary along northern edge of NW proposal and site does not follow field boundaries. Topography means site more visually intrusive in green belt and impacts on openness. Impact on Local Wildlife Site, TPOs, right of way and setting of Grimshaw Hall.
SE proposal occupied by Knowle FC so question over deliverability. Further land promoted with potential impacts on Grimshaw Hall. Land is highly performing in Green Belt Assessment.
No very special circumstances to justify sports hub in green belt.
.

Object

Representation ID: 9347

Received: 21/03/2019

Respondent: Halford Holdings

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

We contend that it does not conform with national policy for site 18 to be allocated in the Solihull Local Plan Review until such time as replacement playing pitches can be
provided to serve the local community to compensate for the loss. Therefore,
under the terms of national policies, the site should be removed from the
Solihull Local Plan Review and alternative site or sites found to accommodate
the estimated 100 dwellings.

Object

Representation ID: 9348

Received: 21/03/2019

Respondent: Halford Holdings

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Concept Masterplan recognises viability issues. To be considered
developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development with a
reasonable prospect that they will be available and could be viably developed.
Recommend that site 7 is not relied upon as an allocation for housing.