Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Support

Representation ID: 14057

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Support the vision to provide a range of quality homes across the Borough by 2036 whilst also setting out the opportunity to maximise the economic and social benefits of the High Speed 2 rail link and interchange both for the Borough and wider area.
Vision could be strengthened by identifying the important link between the provision of new employment opportunities and the requirement to deliver new homes within the Borough. The two are intrinsically linked and together will ensure a prosperous future for SMBC. It is in this context that the DSP should be viewed.

Support

Representation ID: 14058

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Support and conforms with the NPPF .
The spatial strategy appears to be based on a settlement hierarchy. The site selection paper (October 2020) also refers to a hierarchy. The plan would benefit from establishing a clear and prescriptive settlement hierarchy, informed by qualitative evidence as to the sustainability of each settlement based on its provision of services and facilities etc. to demonstrate that the spatial strategy is justified.
This approach would also assist in the overall development management and delivery of windfall sites during the plan period, which are expected to deliver 2,800 new homes by 2036.

Support

Representation ID: 14059

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Support the overall thrust of the policy.
Part 2 could be read as conflicting as it appears to seek to secure a profile of household types, as identified by the latest HEDNA, through the concept masterplans which will form part of the Local Plan.
Part 3 could also be read this way given it appears to prescribe the mix for market housing based on the HEDNA.
Could be resolved by stating that housing mix for any allocated site will be agreed at the Development Management stage and that mix at part 3 are just indicative starting points.

Support

Representation ID: 14060

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Appreciate the flexibility built into the policy to enable an applicant to negotiate the amount and type of provision of self and custom care homes at the point an application is submitted.

Support

Representation ID: 14063

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Welcome flexibility in the policy to take into account site specific factors when applying P4E to any planning application but would welcome an additional factor to be included within the list.
This should include:
‘Where the Council’s up to date statement on older person’s accommodation does not identify a local need in the local area of the proposed development’.
This would prevent the oversupply of older person’s accommodation within a specific local area.

Object

Representation ID: 14064

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy P5 should refer to the total amount of housing to be delivered on allocations identified by the Plan. Part 1 refers to 5,270 dwellings between 2020 and 2036, but does not include the total number of homes to be delivered at the UK Central Hub area (2,740). If this were to be included the total number to be delivered by allocations would be 8,010.
National Space Standards should retain some flexibility.

Support

Representation ID: 14066

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Turley

Support in principle but object to the Masterplan as proposed.
Concern the masterplan is not based on sound evidence and does not respond appropriately to the site’s constraints and opportunities.
The western end of the allocation represents the least constrained land, so surprising that the relocated school is where it is. No evidence to support or justify relocation and the reasons given are contested.
SMBC need to continue to engage with landowners to reach agreement.
A revised masterplan is being prepared which will respond to the site’s constraints and opportunities, and ultimately the Council’s aspirations and principles for how it should be delivered.

Support

Representation ID: 15094

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Support inclusion of Site in Draft Submission Plan.
The site is in a sustainable and accessible location and the Council have adopted an appropriate strategy in identifying it for development.

Object

Representation ID: 15096

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Support principle of allocation, but a number of changes required to make Policy BL2 sound:
Part 1
The policy states that the site is allocated for 1,000 dwellings. However, elsewhere in the Local Plan the number of dwellings to be delivered on strategic allocated sites is stated as a ‘capacity’. In order to ensure the effective optimisation of site’s and delivery the required number of dwellings to meet SMBC’s housing requirement, all strategic housing allocations should be stated as a ‘minimum (unless mitigating factors determine otherwise)’.

Object

Representation ID: 15097

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Support principle of allocation, but a number of changes required to make Policy BL2 sound:
Part 2
Unclear how the requirement of 8.2 hectares of public open space has been derived and why it is necessary to define a specific amount of public open space in the policy.
This is not a sound, appropriate strategy and should instead refer directly to draft Policy P20 which requires a Part 7 for new housing developments to provide or contribute towards new open spaces (or improvement to existing provision) in line with the minimum standard of 3.57ha per 1,000 population.
Amount of public open space should be calculated at the time an application comes forward, so directly relate to the number of dwellings delivered on the site, the mix of houses and, consequently, a more accurate population yield.
With regards to part v which relates to the retention of hedgerows and trees along Dog Kennel Lane, this policy is accepted in principle, but it should be amended to allow for their removal where ‘necessary’.
This will be necessary to provide the relevant vehicle access, including visibility splays. An amendment to this policy to allow this is suggested below.