Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Search representations
Results for Greenlight Developments search
New searchObject
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Policy BC1 - Barratt's Farm, Balsall Common
Representation ID: 11034
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Greenlight Developments
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Support allocation of Site BC1 in principle, but object to Concept Masterplan/Site Analysis proposing open space on 3.05ha adjacent to Meeting House Lane, as undeliverable and contrary to paragraph 34 of NPPF. Ecological evidence is misguided as this area is not of high habitat distinctiveness, whilst pond and some features can be retained and enhanced. Development would not alter setting of Pool Orchard due to distance and landscaping. Concept Masterplan does not recognise need for vehicular access to land from Meeting House Lane. This part of Site BC1 can be delivered in first 5 year phase.
3.05ha of land adjacent Meeting House Lane within Site BC1 should be designated for housing, with access from Meeting House Lane. Area of significant ecological value and zone of significance on the setting of the listed building should be removed from the Site Analysis and Concept Masterplan. This part of the site should be within phase 1 0-5 years for delivery.
Policy BC1
Our comments can be found in the attached ‘Representations’ document.
Greenlight Development’s specific objection relates to the treatment of its land holding in the
‘Illustrative Concept Masterplan’ as an ‘area of significant ecological value’ and ‘public open space’; a
position that is not consistent with the Council’s own evidence base.
Greenlight’s position is that these uses are not deliverable and contrary to Paragraph 34 of the NPPF.
If the Illustrative Concept Masterplan were to be taken forward in the Local Plan Review, then the
landowners would be unwilling and financially unable to submit a planning application for an ‘area of
significant ecological value’ and ‘public open space’ due to it not being a viable development option.
It should instead be designated for housing.
