Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Search representations
Results for Taylor Wimpey search
New searchObject
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Policy P5 – Provision of Land for Housing
Representation ID: 15119
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Lichfields
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Concept Masterplans. Para. 243 (in relation to BL2)
Noted that SMBC will be seeking a coordinated and comprehensive approach to the development of site, even when they are in separate ownership. In principle, this is agreed and accepted, and the Concept Masterplans should provide SMBC with the confidence that site’s will be developed comprehensively. However, it is not appropriate to require ‘evidence’ demonstrating a joint, coordinated approach to development. This would place an unnecessary burden on the delivery of sites and would negate the need for a concept masterplan to be prepared at this stage. As with all planning applications for sites in multiple ownership, it will be up to the Council during the determination of any planning application to be satisfied that proposals do not prejudice development coming forward on neighbouring land.
To ensure that the Local Plan is ‘effective’ clarity is required on the weight to be given to the Concept Masterplans. If it is made clear that these are just the starting point for future applications and that changes can be made, then that would be acceptable. Alternatively, the Concept Masterplans need to be modified prior to the Plan being adopted.
Paragraph 243 – this should be amended as follows:
It will be expected that where there are multiple ownerships involved and to avoid piecemeal development, future planning applications should, where possible/relevant, demonstrate that the development will not prejudice what can be delivered on any remaining parts of the site. This needn’t necessarily preclude a phased approach where one parcel of land or part of the site may be available for development in advance of another. It will, however, provide reassurance that one phase of development does not prejudice a future phase, nor place undue viability pressures on a later phase to complete necessary infrastructure to serve the whole development.
Delete: the concept masterplan will show a coordinated and comprehensive approach to the development of the site that is supported by relevant site promotors/developers so that piecemeal development is avoided.
Delete: However it will be expected that evidence can be provided of a joint and coordinated approach so that
See Attachments
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Foreword
Representation ID: 15221
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Lichfields
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policies Map (in relation to Green Belt boundary for Site BL2)
Considered proposed boundary does not accord with NPPF Para. 35 & 139.
1) Appointed consultants to site promoters, EDP, have carried out an assessment (see attached) and conclude that the site does have well-defined and defensible boundaries for a new Green Belt boundary, contrary to statement Para. 609 in the DSP.
Considered that a well-vegetated field boundary, which could be enhanced with additional planting, would provide a much more appropriate and definable physical
boundary on the ground than a proposed new internal road and in doing so would maintain the existing field structure within the landscape.
To re-align to only a newly built man-made feature is unsuitable, and affords less opportunity to integrate the proposed development into the landscape setting, which may potentially impact the character of the
countryside beyond and the perception of openness in the countryside and would make for an inefficient road layout and less permeable masterplan.
2) Parcel east of BL2 (south of Stratford Rd up to boundary with buildings west of Creynolds Lane) should be re-instated as part of Site BL2, as per the 2019 consultation.
Unclear why land has been removed between 2019 and 2020 consultations; is within a lower performing Green Belt parcel, no flood risk, unconstrained by ecological features and does not contain any heritage assets.
Release of land would have added benefit of additional land available for residential development.
Suggested amendments to the policies map:
• Amend the site and Green Belt boundary of Policy BL2 to align with the Masterplan prepared by Randall Thorp which is based on a robust, justified and appropriate strategy. This can be found on page 56 of the SMBC
Concept Masterplan document or at Appendix 2 of this note for ease of reference.
• Remove the land to the south of Stratford Road and west of Creynolds Lane from the Green Belt and include it within the site allocation BL2 to ensure the site allocation is based on a robust, justified and appropriate
strategy.
See Attachments
