Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Object

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.

Object

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.