Objection: Sites 4 and 13 Dickens Heath of the Draught Local Plan

I write to register my objection to the proposed development of the green belt land around Dickens Heath.
National Planning Policy requires that very special circumstances must be demonstrated in order to allow for the development of green belt land. SMBC may be able to achieve this by drawing attention to the difficulties of identifying sufficient brown field sites in conjunction with a plan led approach towards addressing those difficulties in order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF and that the NPPF is unrealistic unless building on greenbelt is allowed when no other route available.

However I feel the spirit of these NPPF requirements and the very definite and absolute statements made by Central Government are attempted to be circumnavigated by SMBC. This by way of using the very special circumstance rule to not just build on green belt land but in the case of Dickens Heath to eradicate the last remaining slender green corridors between Dickens Heath, Tidbury Green, Majors Green and Shirley. This would undisputedly create major urban sprawl between individual communities and wider Solihull by way of eradicating those final remnants of green belt which presently separate these communities. This would impinge on, not just the one semi-rural community of Dickens Heath but also the surrounding communities and greater locale.

I strongly believe and agree with Central Government that the very special needs rule is not about permitting the destroying of community identities by allowing urban sprawl to eradicate the last yards of natural green separation; it is the complete opposite to this. It is really about allowing developments on green belt land in a controlled and responsible manner when absolutely no other option route is available. I do not believe SMBC have proved by sequential testing that there is absolutely no alternative green belt land available that would not eradicate divisions between communities and illiminate any possibility of wildlife commute and habitat.

As stated any necessary last option development of green belt should not destroy rural communities by way of allowing large scale urban sprawl and not eradicate green corridors completely which would serious impede free transit of species and varied cross pollination. I believe the responsibility of an authority, when forced to build on green belt should be to do so in a way which retains existing linked green areas around those communities by adopting a landscape scaled approach towards the reason for, purpose of, and essential preservation of green belt land around rural or semi rural communities. This being in line with Central Government's target to reverse decline of species by 2025 which is a necessity if the UK's commitment towards the World Target is to be at all achievable. We all have our part to play and Borough Councils, above all else, should shoulder their responsibilities as role models in a leading and positive manner.

In addition to the above it has been proven that contact with nature promotes health and well being in all of us. Committing to urban sprawl will increasingly deny not just one community of that contact but also the other communities the sprawl links to. I consider this a totally irresponsible and unacceptable way for a borough council to conduct its affairs.

Over recent years the Dickens Heath area has already absorbed a large bulks of development which seems unquestionably more than a fair share of the boroughs housing needs. This losing Dickens Heath substantial amounts of outer green belt as well as outstripping the originally planned infrastructure and concept by well over double the number of originally intended households. The redesign of Garden Squares having now also completely ruled out the possibility of additional commercial premises within Dickens Heath to at last achieve the originally planned footfall and extra public parking to, in turn, boost trade for it's presently struggling services infrastructure and shops. The woefully inadequate present village centre situation being literally locked in concrete by more flawed planning.

In addition to this indisputable present outstripping of infrastructure, the locations for these newly proposed sites would incur an increased reliance on the current services and commercial area of Dickens Heath; this would be totally impractical from an accessibility point of view. It would also not be in line with the 800yrd planning rules forcing travel by car to local services and village centre, where again, over development has already created major parking and road capacity issues. This with several hundred dwellings still under construction within the original concept area of Dickens Heath itself. No matter how these newly proposed extra developments of the DLP are viewed, they can not in any way be seen as betterment of Dickens Heath Village. In addition to this, there can be no doubt that new developments on such a large scale would without doubt seriously compound the current planning flaws already built into Dickens Heath which have themselves been brought about by ongoing disregard for infrastructure capacity and the original village concept. It can be expected that the result of continuing along this overbuild path will without question result in community dysfunction at a seriously high level.

Considering the above points, it is considered that SMBC have not demonstrated a fair approach towards distribution of housings needs around the borough. Nor have they demonstrated that all alternatives have been openly and fairly explored. Have not displayed transparency or provided evidence for rejecting the development of a completely new rural community with its own infrastructure and own green belt separation within the borough. Housing development at the scale outlined in the DLP can not reasonable be tagged onto existing communities and especially those with an an infrastructure that has already been outstripped with apparent disregarded for the very real community issues that have already been created with apparently no concept of how these might be addressed at present levels let alone almost doubling the present number of Dickens Heath households with these two proposed new sites.

Considering the previous points l feel that the design and development of a purpose built, self contained new rural community within the borough would be a far more responsible and productive way to reach SMBC's housing quota while allowing for a plan that could better harmonise with protecting the general biodiversity of that chosen new area while also preserving the slender but essential green belt come green corridor separation of these particular existing communities. The call for sites must have returned development opportunities that, with some additional compulsory purchase, the cost of which would be passed on to the developer, would provide a new community sized parcel of land.

It is felt that this would be a far more responsible approach than cherry picking the easy ones for tagging development onto an existing community with an already outstripped infrastructure. One combined new community would also help to keep house prices down, as lots of smaller developments forces separate installation of that many more main service to each site.

I would strongly urge Solihull Council to reconsider what seems to be a flawed approach to this problem and in particular the proposal for sites 4 and 13 around Dickens Heath