The site selection methodology is significantly flawed in that, in accordance with section 67 of the Supplementary Consultation, it does not take into account the number to be accommodated by each settlement, but rather it is based upon site appropriateness alone. This results in lack of spatial awareness, lack of consideration for the retention of intrinsic character of distinctive villages (as cited in the Local Plan) and ignorant of supply versus demand (for instance, Dickens Heath represents a 14% shortfall on 1 bed property and 4% shortfall on 2 bed. Contrast this to Knowle/Dorridge/Bentley Heath and there is a 17% shortfall on 1 bed property, and a 25% shortfall on 2 bed).

Using this methodology alone is therefore very short-sighted, for instance, if all suitable sites based on the assessment criteria were around Dorridge, would they all get the go-ahead?
A more reasonable methodology would be to use the current methodology, but with a third criteria to place a cap on the number of dwellings for each region/location based upon spatial awareness, retention of distinctive settlements and supply and demand (perhaps a cap of a maximum 50% increase in housing versus existing housing stock for any one area). This is further demonstrated in my response to questions 11 and 12.

The proposal therefore means an additional 2,290 homes in the vicinity of South Shirley and around Dickens Heath village.

This does not allow for the 200 homes have already built by David Wilson at Braggs Farm (71) and by Bellway at Dickens Heath Road (130).

Based on the proposed allocations within the Supplementary Consultation, this represents a gross imbalance of proposed new housing within the region as below (this imbalance is outrageous and simply cannot be justified). This is represented in the attached table.