Solihull Local Plan Review
Consultation Submission

I refer to the following areas proposed for housing development:

1. Proposed Housing Allocation 4 West of Dickens Heath
This development will result in the loss of a significant number of playing fields and sports amenities that are close to south Shirley and Dickens Heath. Research shows that "Regular physical activity reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia and some cancers by at least 30%." The UK Government has a clear policy (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/get-active-to-get-healthy) to encourage people to take regular exercise to reduce the possible impact of obesity with its attendant impact on not only the health of our nation but the cost to the NHS in treating obesity. These open spaces and sports and leisure facilities should not be lost whilst the health of our population is declining.

2. Proposed Housing Allocation 12 South of Dog Kennel Lane
This development will considerably reduce the open countryside between Shirley and Dickens Heath. This is contrary to the NPPF which seeks to retain individual communities and to resist coalescence of villages. In para 83 the plan talks about "The network of strong and vibrant communities across the Rural Area will have been sustained with a range of local facilities and services that are readily accessible on foot and by bicycle and that are appropriate to the scale and hierarchy of the settlement" whereas the plan seeks to extend many communities and leave only a small strip of dividing land.

3. Proposed Housing Allocation 13 South of Shirley
This development will considerably reduce the open countryside between Shirley and Dickens Heath. This is contrary to the NPPF which seeks to retain individual communities and to resist coalescence of villages.

In Para 87 there is no recognition of the new development at Lowbrook and Tidbury Green Farms for 387 houses in Tidbury Green. The plan review should recognise the reality of house building that has taken place in and around Dickens Heath. Since 1989 when approval was given for 700 houses to be built in Dickens Heath the area has seen approval for over 1500 houses plus the expansion of Dickens Heath from 700 to over 1500 houses, with the attendant loss of green space and little or no increase in amenities or leisure facilities.

Whilst the Borough has a vision to "retain its sense of identity both in its urban and rural area (including appropriate protection of the Green Belt); and the quality of the environment that make it a special place." It is difficult to reconcile that statement with the level of house building that has and will be taking place at considerable cost to the green belt (Site 4, 12 and 13 are all in the green belt.).

Conclusions
The Local Plan Review should seek other ways to meet its housing needs other than extending urban areas by pushing their boundaries into the green belt, and should not build on existing sports and leisure facilities that are close to urban areas unless there is a clear replacement and extension plan.