I have monitored the proposals on this site over the last few years and have contributed my thoughts to the local community.

Firstly, unlike members of Solihull Council and in particular the planning committee, I was actually born on this area, not hospital, I was raised here and still living here. Over a 20 year period I was part of the committee at one of the sports clubs, extending facilities, working with governing bodies, including sport England. Blood Sweat and tears go into these clubs and it way more than just a muddy field where kids kick about! There are in region of 40 teams on these facilities, Men, Women, Kids and it is a community in its self, offering support to the players and their families and extended families who all enjoy a breath of fresh air, exercise, meals, snack, drinks and paid roles even if to glass collectors, cleaners, kitchen staff as well as many volunteering roles. It is where kids learn values not just to play a game.

The sports fields are not being relocated fairly or following Sport England recommendation of Like for Like. Far from it! The upheaval itself is huge and with all the history & effort gone into building their clubs it is not acceptable to have it all taken away. In fact it is a preposterous idea of which we residents believe not enough thought or consideration has gone into.

1. The Council have not undergone a proper scrutiny of all other more sustainable sites in a sequential test that would have fewer constraints if the Sustainability Appraisal had been carried out correctly in the first place, before the site allocation, rather than trying to make the pre-selected site allocations fit the Plan.
2. This proposed development will be un-associated, both visually and physically, with the award-winning Village of Dickens Heath. The character and setting of the Village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows. The proposal falls outside the Village’s built-up boundary.
3. Site 4 is surrounded by Local Wildlife Sites and Ancient Woodland. Although the Council state that to mitigate for the proposed development the area can be enhanced, they have not considered the very important connectivity of these important ecological sites. Indeed, Natural England have stated that “Ensure current ecological networks are not compromised, and future improvements in habitat connectivity are not prejudiced.”
4. Traffic & Village centre parking. The Traffic Study does propose some works to improve the congestion in peak hours but the situation will be further exacerbated by the huge number of new homes proposed in the Blythe area and South Shirley. The Council only propose to solve the Village Centre parking problem by controlling some on-street parking which will not solve the existing problem and will only be made worse with more development. The narrow, rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded.
5. The proposed development is not within a recognised walking distance from the Village Centre facilities, so further adds to the un-sustainability of the development. The Council state that a new footpath will be needed to the private road of Birchy Close to reduce the walking distance but this is legally unachievable. They suggest that a new bus route down Birchy Leasowes Lane could be provided but how will a bus exit the junction with Dickens Heath Road safely? At this junction the ancient woodland either side of this junction would inhibit any road improvement which has not been recommended. All the proposed footpaths are welcomed and should have been put in place many years ago to facilitate the extensions of the existing Village. The Village already acts as a commuter settlement with higher than average car ownership. Additional housing will only exacerbate the use of the car contributing to global warming.
6. Although the flooding report states that Site 4 is mostly in flood Zone 1, local residents have evidence that the sports fields flood nearly every year because of the increased rainfall due to climate change and the fact that this area is of bolder clay that restricts permeability. Even given the fact that a sustainable urban drainage (SUD) system is proposed, this all adds to the unsustainability of this site when other “Amber” sites have far less constraints.

Finally the infrastructure of Tilehouse Lane and Tythe Barn Lane is noy equipped for this development nor does it have the ability to be adapted accordingly. They are country lanes running on their maximum with regards to road widths and utility supplies.

I would like my objections taken into account along with all the other hundreds from the Village of Dickens Heath alone.