Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Search representations

Results for William Davis Ltd search

New search New search

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Hampton-in-Arden

Representation ID: 13827

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Define Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The site assessment and selection methodology has been inconsistently applied in identifying allocation sites.

Significant weight has been attributed to two issues in relation to ‘Land off Old Station Road, Hampton in Arden’ (Site Ref. 6), which is unfounded as these can be effectively mitigated against.

There has been considerable inconsistency with the Council’s interpretation and application of the matter of ‘defensible Green Belt boundaries’ between sites, jeopardising otherwise favourable site assessments.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Policy P5 – Provision of Land for Housing

Representation ID: 13828

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Define Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The indicative densities should be included within the body of Policy P5.

Clarity is needed on the distinction between a “limited extension of urban or larger village edge”, which would allow for a residential density of 30-35dph, and a “significant extension of urban or larger village edge”, which would allow for a residential density of 30-40dph.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Policy P7 Accessibility and Ease of Access

Representation ID: 13829

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Define Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The requirement at Policy P7 part 2(ii) is ambiguous and not enforceable for development management purposes. No definition is provided of what constitutes as a “high frequency” service. No justification is given for the requirement for sites to be within 400m and / or 800m
of a bus service or rail station and it does not allow for mitigation by providing transport-related contributions.

The requirement at Policy P7 part 2(iv) is ambiguous and is not considered enforceable
for development management purposes.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Policy P9 Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change

Representation ID: 13830

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Define Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The requirement of Policy P9 3i and 3ii constrain development. Requiring a 30% reduction in carbon reduction would be in conflict with the Government’s adopted Building Regulations.

A fabric first approach’ to ensuring energy efficiency and sustainability as an alternative should be promoted.

Policy P9 3vi lacks the clarity that is required by Paragraph 16d in the National Planning Policy Framework

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Policy P17A Green Belt Compensation

Representation ID: 13831

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Define Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy P17A does not provide guidance in relation to what the scope of each form of compensation would have to be in order for a site’s removal from the Green Belt to be considered as appropriate, contrary to Paragraph 16d of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Policy P20 Provision for Open Space, Childrens Play, Sport, Recreation and Leisure

Representation ID: 13832

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Define Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy P20 would benefit from the inclusion of guidance on the indicative breakdown of the 3.57 hectares of Public Open Space (POS) that are required per 1,000 population. This would assist developers with viability considerations. This should be substantiated on up-to-date and relevant evidence.

The Policy is written somewhat ambiguously, and could be mistakenly interpreted that the POS requirements of new developments should compensate for any prior under-provision.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Policy HA1 - Meriden Road, Hampton in Arden

Representation ID: 13833

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Define Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

A planning application submitted on SLP Site 24 in October 2019 suggests that the development of the site will not be considered comprehensively with proposed allocation HA1, contrary to the Council’s intention cited in the Plan. This may reflect the numerous outstanding matters in relation to HA1, in particular the site’s availability as the site remains in use as a storage depot with the existing owners having no plans to vacate the site in the near future.

There are a number of suitability issues associated with the site, threatening its deliverability. The site is located wholly in an area that is considered to be potentially contaminated land, a land contamination assessment is required.

The site has far fewer positive effects when compared to ‘Land off Station Road’ within the Sustainability Appraisal. The site is not located in a suitable location, a significant negative.

The assessment of potential development sites and approach towards allocating land has not been “based on proportionate evidence” or taken into account reasonable alternatives.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Policy HA2 - Oak Farm, Catherine-de-Barnes

Representation ID: 13834

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Define Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The deliverability of Site HA2 is not assured as it is dependent on either re-housing existing tenants or the applicant being able to agree to purchase the site. The site is significantly constrained, including a high pressure gas pipeline being present on site.
The site is considered to have low / medium accessibility. Catherine-de-Barnes is less suitable for large scale expansion that Hampton in Arden.

Development at Site HA2 would be on one of the Borough’s high scoring Green Belt parcels, contrary to the Council’s proposed Green Belt approach.

Attachments:

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.