Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Search representations
Results for Mr P Benton and Mr T Neary search
New searchObject
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Question 32 - Site 7 - Kingshurst Village Centre
Representation ID: 10181
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr P Benton and Mr T Neary
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.
See Letters
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Question 33 - Site 15 - Jenson House/Auckland Drive
Representation ID: 10182
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr P Benton and Mr T Neary
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Given stated uncertainty over the extent of the site available for development and hence its deliverability, it is inappropriate and unsound for site 15 to be allocated.
See Letters
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Question 34 - Washed Over Green Belt Settlements for Potential Removal
Representation ID: 10183
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr P Benton and Mr T Neary
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Agree appropriate to consider. Washed over designation for Whitlock's End should be removed and new boundaries defined. Settlement does not make an 'important
contribution' towards the openness of green belt, as the Green Belt Assessment of lower performing parcel indicates.
Introducing settlement boundaries provides opportunity for small or medium sized windfall sites, such as Call for Sites reference 116 rear of 146-152 Tilehouse Lane, which should be removed from the green belt.
See Letters
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Question 38 - Amber Sites
Representation ID: 10184
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr P Benton and Mr T Neary
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Site 116 r/o 146-152 Tilehouse Lane, Whitlock's End (A3) should be assessed as green and allocated.
Existing housing/railway line/road provide strong defensible green belt boundaries. NE and SW boundaries well treed.
Sustainable location, near station and existing bus services, served by pavements. Close to nursery school/church/restaurant with further facilities nearby in Tidbury Green/Wythall/Grimes Hill/Major's Green/extended Dickens Heath.
No significant constraints, site available and evidence provided. Planning Appeal demonstrates well-contained, openness issues can be addressed.
SHELAA site assessment misleading, should be Category 1, and capacity unrealistic. Landscape Character Assessment irrelevant. Sustainability Appraisal performance contested.
Object to inclusion as priority 8 in site selection, as medium accessibility and part brownfield. Should be priority 3 for brownfield area and 5 for remainder as lower performing green belt. No constraints so Step 2 should be green.
See Letters
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Question 44 Are there any other comments
Representation ID: 10185
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr P Benton and Mr T Neary
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
St. George and Teresa School, site 155, capacity 31 dwellings, is in educational use and no evidence to show suitable alternative site. Should not be included in SHELAA sites calculation for housing supply.
Sustainability Appraisal scores for Call for Sites reference 116 contested. SA10 gives inappropriate weight to Landscape Character Assessment as too broad brush for application at site level. SA11 does not take account of footpath/bridleway access to natural green space. SA16 should be significant positive as delivery within 5 years. Should be 5 not 3 positive (3 significant), 11 not 10 neutral and 3 not 5 negative effects.
See Letters
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Question 44 Are there any other comments
Representation ID: 10340
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr P Benton and Mr T Neary
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Evidence lacking or flawed. No detailed landscape or ecological assessments. IDP not updated. No viability assessments. Green Belt Assessment not revisited to re-assess refined parcels to reflect additional green/amber sites.
Unclear how wider HMA shortfall contribution calculated, and figure not justified or agreed.
No feasibility work on recommendations of Strategic Growth Study. Full potential capacity of Borough for new housing not considered as potential in SGS not objectively tested in accordance with recommendations.
Given green belt boundary changes proposed, Plan should identify safeguarded land between urban area and green belt to avoid changes to green belt boundaries in next review.
See Letters