The first observation is that none of the proposed locations are not accurately identified by postcode or any precise map. As such this makes it difficult to properly consider each proposal and I believe the document should be reissued with detailed site locations as an appendix.
An example of the problem this causes is on page 177 paragraph 605 where I believe that the football clubs listed as affected by the site to the West of Dickens Heath are incorrect. Having cross referenced other documents I believe it is Wychall Wanderers ground that is part of the proposed site rather than Leafield Athletic. I would appreciate written confirmation of this. Assuming this is the case I would reiterate the point ,if your own staff cannot accurately interpret the proposed site locations then this document needs to be reissued.
The proposed site West of Dicken’s Heath (pages 175 and 176) is problematic for a number of reasons. The primary one being the fact the football pitches are currently used by hundreds of children of all ages as well as adults to participate in grass roots sport, principally football. The number of football pitches available has reduced significantly over recent years and it is imperative that those that are left are protected. The council will be well aware of the importance and benefits of regular sport and exercise for the mental and physical well being of our community. While the plan does suggest alternative sites should be sought it does not identify any and the likelihood of finding sites of the same capacity and quality in the vicinity is very low – if they existed, they would have been identified within the plan already. This is reason enough to reject the proposal to build on this site. If alternative sites do exist, they should be identified and evaluated as an alternative for meeting the housing needs now as it does not make sense to move football clubs without proper evaluation of all options.
Furthermore there are a number of other reasons why site 4, West of Dickens Heath is an unsuitable:
- The location is a high performing Green Belt area which has not been taken into consideration in the sustainability appraisal. Central government policy is to protect green belt and develop brownfield sites.
- The sustainability Appraisal tries to prove the site is sustainable when clearly it is not, as evidenced by the numerous mitigation measures to attempt to make it sustainable – some of which are not achievable
- 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 has been carried out correctly in the first place, prior to site allocation, rather than trying to force preselected site allocations to fit the plan
- The proposed development of 250 houses will be un-associated, both visually and physically, with the award-winning village of Dickens Heath. The character of the village will be adversely affected and the sense of community and identity compromised. The canal, woodlands and ancient hedgerows form a strong definable boundary to the existing village and this proposal sits outside that boundary
- Traffic and Parking in and around Dickens Heath are already a problem as the council has and continues (Regency Fields and Tidbury Heights for example) to allow the area to be overdeveloped. Traffic is stationary in Dicken’s Heath at peak times and exisiting Parking is not sufficient. The surrounding rural road network is overloaded and cannot take any additional traffic, they pavements (where they exist) and street lighting are also insufficient. The council has proven unable to address these problems and therefore should not put further stress on the infrastructure.
The proposed site West of Dickens Heath is completely unsuitable and this needs to be removed from the plan. Furthermore the plan needs to give more consideration to the regeneration of commercial areas of the borough. With both an increase in people working from home and fewer people visiting town centres and shops in general, there is a strong case for converting office and retail space into residential. This will provide for the housing need but also help the footfall in town centres bringing much needed trade to our retailers, many of who are local businesses and residents of Solihull.
I am also concerned that traffic flow has not been adequately considered in this plan. For example the A34 carries a huge amount of traffic an is already unable to adequately cope at peak times and yet the plan proposes to build 1000 dwellings on the site south of Dog Kennel Lane (page 177). This will significantly exacerbate what is already a problem. It would be much more logical to site these homes on the other side of Junction 4 of the M42 where the A3400 has the capacity to manage the traffic flow. There is a site at Blythe Valley off Kineton lane and it would make sense to expand this further so that the area can support local shops or Doctor’s surgery to make it more sustainable and benefitting residents of the existing development.
When I moved to Tidbury Green (part of Blythe in the plan) I relied on the local authority search which stated the area was green belt. While I understand and support the need for additional housing, I feel that Tidbury Green and the surrounding area’s Green Belt status and rural character have been ignored in Solihull Council's handling of recent planning proposals - the locality has met significantly more than its fair share of the boroughs housing needs. This is completely changing the feel and character area and this should not be allowed to continue, particularly as it is not sustainable and the infrastructure cannot cope.