1. The site allocation is to be read with the Concept Masterplan. Both have different house numbers in, which is the definitive document. Other planned developments are to be considered outside of the scope of this policy - why? I refer to Site 328 and 49.

2. i. - does this mean conserve it as it is, or enhance it to something different? Does it mean improve the towpath surface. Does it imply that the hedgerow os retained - it is not clear, where it is clear in part ii.

2. ii .- How much hedgerow and tree must be retained, would a token number constitute compliance with the policy?.

2. iv. - How far along either School Road or the Canal does this refer? Or is it limited just to the new development - it is not clear

3. i. - What Financial Contribution, made by who for what. I assume there is a contribution for each child currently, if the school is full there is little more support required, so what does this imply and how is it measured in a transparent way.
3. ii. - Highway improvements in the policy are determined as Speed Reduction and Access Improvements. These are not referred to in any other documents, however other documents do make note that the developer should provide a mitigation for congestion around the school (672) why is this not part of the policy?

3. iii. - "Developer Contributions to primary care health services in the vicinity" - What are these, to who and to provide what? There is no Doctors Practice in the village, so does this mean the developer has to contribute towards one, or is this just to support other locations (Dorridge, Cheswick Green or Shirley) How would anyone know it has happened? Again, why would this policy not apply to any other planned development site (328 & 49?) and "appropriate UHB secondary care". Again how would anyone prove this has been delivered. This type of support is ongoing, so I assume is not aimed at the developer - so what does it mean? - just woolly words!
I have had two recent situations where urgent NHS support was required in the locality of Hockley Heath. One where it was thought that my Mother In Law was having a stroke, while out at a Resturaunt. The Ambulance service suggested the wait would be a hour (4 miles from Solihull Hospital). Upon us taking her ourselves to Solihull Hospital, she waited over 4 hours to be seen by a Doctor.
On Friday afternoon (11/12), I was witness to a car accident involving a Cyclist along the route from School Road to Shirley. This time the Ambulance service would not provide a timescale, and it was in excess of 45 minutes before one turned up.
Both of these lead me to believe the services cannot cope with the current volumes today, adding more people to the extremity of the borough, just leaves these new houses, and those existing in Hockley Heath with an inferior service to those living closer to the built up areas, near the Doctors/Hospitals.
3. iv. - What are appropriate measures in this context? There is little point if the village people can get to the limited range of shops by walking or cycling, if there is no wider access to any real retail stores, any formal entertainment venues or any employment opportunities. What are the wider transport connections planned to join to the other locations being promoted by this Local plan, or just to London or Birmingham? Is it therefore accepted that the motor vehicle is to be used for all other journeys, and therefore where is the traffic studies, and where is the commitment to Electric Charging Points, either at the new properties or locally?
3. v. - Pedestrian crossing - there is no mention of this in any other part of the document. Is this to be near the School, and the access road into the development, or at the Saddlerswell Lane end of the development where the pedestrian footpath is shown on the master concept plan? or both? Is this to be provided by the developer? How is this built into the traffic mitigation plans and School congestion plans?

4. i. - How much access is to be provided is not clear, but how does this comply with 2.i. conserving and enhancing of the towpath. The wildlife needs careful consideration here, to ensure that the existing habitat and corridors are not lost - who is providing the control on this balance?

4. ii. - What does this mean? This development will destroy an area of Green Belt, what more is planned? The Greenbelt should be protected, and maintained as it is, It is not just to show unbuilt areas on a map, it is to provide a living for those working the land, and a home for those living on it. (wildlife) It does not need more people traversing it, whether walking, cycling or any other sort of non motorised activity.

5. Who is the custodian of the policy?, who will be able to defend and police the expectations it places on the allocation? Also when the other allocations 328 and 49 become reality, will the same policies be applied, and how will the people of Hockley Heath see transparent delivery of the Policy principles. If this was an Industrial Company defining its policies, then they would regularly publish, even just to the internal stakeholders, how they are progressing in aligning to the policies.

The terms within the Policy document are too weak, either the policy is the policy and must be followed, or it is not and therefore has little value. There is little to give the reader any confidence that the document has to be followed or how one might determine if the actions expected in the policy have been delivered.
The Policy needs to provide more clarity and responsibility to make it deliverable and the performance measurable.