I am writing to express my concerns about proposals to develop Site 16 with 650 dwellings. I have the following reservations which I would like the Council to consider. I understand you have to address the housing shortage but I would strongly urge you to review the inclusion of this area in your plan.

1. The proposals breach your own objectives (Challenge E) namely maintaining key gaps between urban and rural areas as the development would join Solihull & Catherine de Barnes. It is also within the Meriden gap which you have identified needs protection. I would remind the Council of its motto Urbs in Rure. It seems to me we are having more urbs than rure and I would urge you to maintain the rure part as much as possible.

2. The area specified is home to both sporting and agricultural land both of which are needed to maintain the health of both children and adults given the obesity crisis we are facing and school sports facilities are in decline. This I believe contradicts Challenge J Improving Health and Wellbeing for Everyone. I get personal enjoyment from walking in the area with my grandaughter seeing animals grazing and meeting others doing the same which would be more difficult with the increased settlement and associated traffic. The loss of local agricultural land means increased transport costs to bring food from further afield at a cost to the environment.

3. I am also concerned about the increased traffic flow which could lead to even more traffic jams and subsequent delays particularly at peak times such as rush hour and shift changes at Jaguar Land Rover.
Currently a small hold up on the M42 sees long delays down Damson Parkway, Hampton Lane and Lugtrout Lane. If the plans to expand JLR go ahead this will increase traffic flow without the added pressure from
650 dwellings. It could lead to severe delays. As an example it recently took a friend half an hour just to drive off a local car park let alone get home due to severe congestion.

4. The upgrading of Field Lane and Lugtrout Lane will have the effect of completely changing the character of the rural oasis which is promoted by the Council as a desirable quality in the local area and makes it a popular area for visitors and residents alike. Along Field lane there is a listed building which could potentially be lost further eroding our heritage.

5. Do we have sufficient school, medical facilities and leisure options to support a development? The local hospital is continually losing aspects of work such as downgrading A&E, Birthing Unit etc. GP surgeries are under pressure and schools would face increasing class sizes which devalues the education process. Would new facilities be added at the same time as the housing or develop later? There is no guarantee in the plan that there would be an increased provision of these facilities.
Transport facilities are also limited at the moment so how would they cope with the additional pressure?

6. My final point is that the development would not be sensitive to or enhance the local character of the area.

Thank you for considering the above concerns.