I strongly oppose the proposed SITE 4 proposal.

Rationale;

Wildlife seen roaming freely in the fields opposite Norton Lane to include, badgers, hedgehog, deer and other smaller mammals, where will they go?
Irresponsible building seen on other local sites (Tidbury Heights) on a clay based soil can only lead to further flooding for Norton Lane
Failure by anyone to invest in anything but housing. Where are the additional roads, byways, hospitals, dentists, emergency services, etc. going to come from to deal with the increase in demand.
Perhaps the new breed of individual does not require this level of service & security and hospitals etc are a thing of the past?
How will the increase in noise and light pollution be managed to ensure no disruption to local wildlife and living?


In addition, i include the following already stated.

The only reason for the choice of this site for new housing is its location close to Whitlocks End railway station but detailed analysis shows that it is not sustainable and should be considered as a red not a green site in terms of sustainability analysis. The combined significant adverse effects given below from developing the land west of Dickens Heath makes the proposal wholly inappropriate in terms of sound planning practise, and both national and local planning policies.
On the negative side, Dickens Heath has increased from the original design of 850 dwellings to approximately 1,800 units today. However, the roads and infrastructure have not been improved to accommodate this increase plus the vast number of dwellings given planning permission in the general area in the last few years. The Site lies outside Dickens Heath village and has no direct physical connection to it. Given the parking problems in the centre, the rural narrow roads and historic hedgerows, it will be difficult to make sufficient road improvements to take much more traffic. In addition, Site 4 is a high performing Green Belt site; there are the most Local Wildlife Sites surrounding than any other of the proposed allocations being 4 in all with protected species inhabiting the Site; there are ancient hedgerow; the land is liable to flooding as the sub-soil is deep boulder clay that does not allow adequate percolation; the site is not within walking distance from the facilities in the Village Centre; there would be a loss of character and identity as Site 4 is outside the confined boundaries; the Site is in an area of landscape sensitive to development; there would be a loss playing fields with no alternative proposals submitted.