I would like to request that the land put forward under the call for sites scheme (SHELAA site ref. 84, Land South of Houndsfield Lane) be considered as a housing allocation site, in particular for self-build development. The Plan currently does not propose to allocate this site for housing but I believe that it should. My reasons for supporting thin inclusion of this site are:

* potential to enhance the existing street scene (as stated in SHELAA report)
* therefore there is not much opposition to be expected from neighbours
* visual variety achievable through small scale development / self-build
* sustainability (just 1/2 mile from Whitocks End Station)
* direct involvement through keen local owners / self-builders.

When assessed by Peter Brett Associates within last November's report this site (84) scored high in almost all categories as being suitable. I understand the only weak point was that it did not lie within or directly next to a larger settlement. This is an irony as Dickens Heath is now proposed to be extended right up to Tilehouse Lane/ Houndsfield Lane by means of the proposed housing development site 4 (West of Dickens Heath)

The problem with mainly relying on such large areas of land becoming available for housing in a short space of time is that only the large house building companies are able to snap it up in order to add it to their 'land bank' and later potentially build on it if and when it suits their business strategy. This not only limits the predictability of the planning process but also finally results all too often in dull and monotonous developments with little variety in terms of design and appearance.

In contrast to such large areas being developed by a single source, small scale developments have much more potential to enrich the area with more diverse developments. This is evident in more 'organically grown' settlements like the areas adjacent to site 84 at Houndsfield Lane and Tilehouse Lane. Here residential development has taken place as ribbon development, largely dating back to the 1920s and 30s. This has resulted in a wide variety of types and designs which gives the area such a lovely character.

Currently any development along Houndsfield Lane is generally concentrated on the north side of the road. The land on the south side (site 84) is classed as green belt. The merit of this 'green' is rather doubtful as the plots are mainly overgrown largely formerly occupied by small holdings and do not present much of a visual amenity even to the occupiers of the houses on the other side of the street. I would argue that a total of around 20 houses along that side of Houndsfield Lane, individually planned and lovingly executed by self builders would certainly enhance the view in comparison to the existing 'green belt'.

My vision for the land south of Houndsfield Lane is for it to be released in particular for self-builders. This will reanimate the tradition of the 1920s and 30s and contribute to enriching the area further, just as it happened then. It is a well-known fact that the quality of self-build homes is generally superior in comparison with other new builds. Self-build also taps into unutilised resources that would otherwise remain unused but can make a valuable contribution in a situation when too few new homes are being built. Another strong argument for permitting development is this area is its sustainability. It is only around 1/2 mile south of Whitocks End Station which can easily be reached on foot or by bike.

Therefore I would kindly request to include this site 84 in the council's proposal for new dwellings, in particular for self-builders.