Phase 5 & 9 planning committee outcome

We were glad to have the opportunity to yet again ask for support at Planning committee following the original deferment of Phases 5 & 9 Lawley.

We feel that a number of improvements were made to the plan which included:

  • A phasing plan for Public Rights of Way and Safe Routes to School to provide access throughout the development period.
  • Retention of a substantial number of trees.
  • A large reduction in the size of the retaining wall.
  • The attempt to include a Landscape Management Plan (which is the first time this has been requested in Lawley)

There were a large number of conditions which were required and it was vital that we ensured robust conditions were placed upon this application to give guarantees and assurances to residents who will be impacted by this development and to hold to account any deviation or non-compliance.

  • Highways- HGV movement and restrictions on Marlborough Way.
  • Rights of Way – Phasing Plan
  • Safety-Enclosure of attenuation pond
  • Construction Environmental Management Plan
  • Tree Conditions

(These are just a few and we await the final decision notice for the remainder to ensure moving forward these are all complied with and enforced if necessary)

This was always identified as a difficult site to develop, which has been detrimental to the level of affordable housing, and due to the retention of the ‘Green Corridor’ a loss of recreational space (which we can not afford in a high-density development such as Lawley). Lawley has achieved a reasonable level of affordable housing throughout, which is important, but we must balance these needs against resident’s well-being, sense of space, infrastructure, facilities and services.  We have attempted to push for improvements to benefit the area for new and existing residents.

We do however still raise concerns that The Landscape Management Plan has not been fully addressed (although this has been conditioned). The Management of the retaining wall and attenuation ponds may not be managed by the existing Management Company and we could see an external company being brought in to deliver this, with additional cost implications. The question remains, will existing residents who pay fees for site management be required to pay additional fees for these installations which could have been designed out? This can only be answered in time but needs to be considered.