658 - There is no bus service that links to Birmingham. The Railway station at Dorridge, does link with Birmingham and London, however the Car Park is already full before the morning peak is complete currently, meaning additional future capacity would need to be found, if additional houses are provided locally. this is also true for other developments proposed in the plan. There is no commentary of this need in the plan, and therefore where the funding for it would come from.
661 - The School is already full, how by increasing the size of the village by 17.7% (141 homes) does this not overwhelm it?
663 - The Concept Plan and the Local plan quote different numbers 100 in the concept and 90 in the local plan, in addition the concept plan makes no reference to the additional 51 houses that the local plan seems to "design in" by needlessly removing the Green Belt from the north side of School Road. There is no need to do this, if the intention is not to allow the extra building. Indeed by removing the green belt from that part of the road, this will lead to additional infill building on that side - further eroding the character and attractiveness of the the village, as it become just anther terrace of houses without the supporting infrastructure that is required. (existing plans for No 122 School Road are examples of infill building)
664 - The concept plan shows no evidence that there is any consideration for resolving the School Parking problem, indeed it will actually make the problem worse, particularly from a safety aspect as the access road to the new development is virtually opposite the School, and where most of the existing School parking occurs. There seems no control to mandate that the developer builds in the School parking relief capacity, other than local planning applications which at best are ineffective. In addition if the building alongside 84 and behind 84/86&90 is allowed this will further put pressure on the road and the ability to park for Schoolchildren. The impact of children coming from BVP (as it is a popular & successful school) will also increase the vehicle count at the peak School hours.
665 - This will do nothing. Will the Local Parish council be able to put traffic lights at the junction of School Road/Stratford Road to assist with the flow of vehicle out of School Road?
666 - School Road is already a busy road for Cyclists, which is to be supported. however the road is not suitable for the volume. Beyond Saddlerwell Lane , the road becomes a narrow unlit country lane, and given the speed and volume of traffic now using the road it is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident. There is nothing to describe what enhancements are considered, and how these might be funded, as only road widening would provide safety, but would destroy the character of the road, and be prohibitively expensive. In terms of Walking to the Village Centre, The current pavement is unlit, and currently in a state of disrepair in a number of locations (as the result of the additional building on Ashtons Nursery land). Despite complaints at the time the council have not resolved the issues. It is unclear if the plan would provide a safe walking environment from Saddlerswell Lane to the Village, and who would be expected to fund it.
667 - There are many contradictions in this compensation to loss of Green belt offer. Greenbelt is not just a piece of land that is not built on, it is the home for nature. The continuous hedgerow along School Road, and Saddlerswell Lane provides a route for both birds and Mammals to survive. There is a good population of Hedgehogs living in this area of the road, a Nationally endangered species, that need this style of habitat. Breaking it and replacing it with footpaths, and worse roads is not conducive to the ongoing survival in the area. Equally accessible Open land, be it new parkland or woodland planting, does not support the wild private habitat that the existing wildlife needs. By providing play areas along the route of the canal, will again be disruptive to the water based wildlife. This section of the canal is currently home to a nesting family of Kingfishers, which again are declining and need the seclusion to continue to successfully breed.
668 - I am not convinced that increasing the size of the village by 17.7% on home count is either limited or proportionate.
670 - Again seems to be confusing needs placed on the requirement. market and affordable, and smaller homes for young people and specialist housing for elderly. It is not one thing or the other. The needs are very different and the impact equally very different. With the exception of the latter, all will need to have the capability to have a car for each member of the household, as the limited public transport available is not geared to this sector, who would need to be commuting elsewhere for work (as there is non existing or proposed in the village) There is no mention I have seen of any traffic studies, or traffic plans that is monitoring the use of School Road, to see the impact of this and existing developments around. There has already been and increase ad a result of the Tutnel Road development, the additional houses at Ashtons Nursery, and the increasing use of the road as a result of both the Mount Dairy Farm and BVP development. It is a convieneint "Rat Run" route either from these areas to access the A3400, or from Hockley Heath as the shortest route to Shirley, and the larger shops and retail parks. As already stated it is a narrow, unlit country lane. Indeed given the nature of the edges to the road it is often necessary to stop if an oncoming car is approaching in the opposite direction at night to avoid damage to the car from the many pot holes at the edge of the road.
Is a town planning department capable of making the careful balance decisions, with the pressure from developers to build?
671 - Why? - where is the rational for this other than convenience and the ability to accommodate more building as described as No 49 and No 328, to start. Once it is approved, how many more infilled opportunities will arise, and be legitamised (Example 122 School Road) If the plan for the proposed allocation is to be agreed, then this should be removed to safeguard the remainder of the road for ongoing development.
672 - Not clear what the real number of the allocation is a here it is 90, but the Master Concept plan is 100, so either scope creep is already planned or the documents are wrong. Either way how does this document control the size? The plan does nothing to explain how the highway mitigation will be delivered, or if it will be mandated. If, because of the location of the development access road, the school parking is moved further up the School Road (away from the School) then additional crossings will be required at Tutnel Road to allow the Safety of the children at Morning peak, the afternoon is not so busy. Who will fund this? All of this could be done now if there was real concern for the safety of the children.
674 - It is not clear which part of School Road this plan seeks to "retain the historic landscape", as the look and feel as it is now will be destroyed from the School to Ashford Road if the additional status of green belt is removed from the north side of the road. There is no justification or benefit of doing this, other than to allow the additional building on that side of the road, which is outlined in 671. If that is the "implied" reason, why is it not clearly stated and the numbers included and the rest of the document and the same level of analysis given to the impact of these sites. What conditions as outlined in the Policy HH1 section would be assigned to the developers of those sites, and what then would the impact on the highway mitigation suggested in 672? This plan needs to be joined up to ensure the least worse outcome for the road, and the village.
A number of the houses on the North side of the road have large land areas, and by removing the Green Belt status will pave the way for windfall developments. The existing proposal for 122 School Road, is an example, where the current proposal is for infill, but that is to allow the existing property to be demolished to allow for an access road to the land at the rear, and then housing opportunity. Maintaining the green belt will allow this type of development to be controlled.

The facts related to the Current village and links are not all still true, and have not been reflected in such a way that informs future decision making. The future plans are not detailed to consider the impacts of other developments on this one, such as traffic down School Road as a result of BVP or the impact on Dorridge Station Car Parking. There is no traffic/transport specific detail/plans that will support the development plans, other than high level meaningless words.