Sadly not.
There is much to commend in the wording around this section of the plan. Maintaining the gap between Dickens Heath and Shirley, removing Site 13 from the plans, Green Belt compensation enhancements. But there are still issues with it.
A precedent of acceptable distance between settlements is set by Site 26.
Whilst I commend the Council for removing Site 13 from the Local Plan, there are issues with Site 26 that need addressing. I will go into as much detail as possible, so as to avoid any confusion.
The Site is clearly not as harmful as Site 13 was. Though it is "less bad" in relative terms, it does not mean that it is bad in and of itself. The most significant aspect of this is the precedent it sets with regards to the acceptable distance between Shirley and Dickens Heath. Residents were told that the existing distance between the settlements was the minimum and would be preserved. The encroachment in numerous places between settlements is creating a problematic precedent that risk merging distinct areas.
In terms of access, there are two main concerns here. The site has two access points shown, which may or may not be deliverable. Currently one acts as access to a private property so may not be suitable without significant adaptation or by removing that property. The other is either the access to the Christmas Tree Farm (Wood's Farm), or the access to the bridleway. If it is the latter, that is problematic. The bridleway currently acts as a service road to a minimal number of properties on the site. Increasing the volume of traffic will be disruptive and potentially dangerous to walkers and riders (and animals - dogs/horses). This would act as a deterrent to those accessing the canal at the far end of the bridleway. There should not be developments that deter people from active leisure and so this has to be carefully considered.
The second issue around access is with regard to how accessible the site is. Whilst on paper relatively short distances could be drawn between parts of the settlement and the two closest train stations, Whitlocks End and Shirley, they are not direct routes that can be walked. Furthermore, this location has next to no bus connectivity. The upshot is that it will increase car dependence and prohibit some modal shift. This will all place greater load on Bills Lane, which is experiencing issues primarily around the Burman Road, Shakespeare Drive area. It will place greater load on Shakespeare Drive, Burman Road, Haslucks Green Road, School Road, Hurdis Road, Union Road and the A34. Whilst some of these roads act as arterial roads, they are residential in their design. There is limited possibility for adaptation and many play a pivotal role in encouraging active transport. Bills Lane currently acts as a barrier to active transport. A clear indication of this is to watch school children trying to cross it at peak times. It is terrifying to watch and should be taken into account when putting plans forward.
Expanding the issue of safety, it should be noted the number of accidents that have happened in recent years close to the access of the site. Problems come about from speeds of drivers coming up the hill from Haslucks Green Road and a perception of it being a rural road, due to the vegetation on the rail embankments. There are also challenges with speed coming from the Stratford Road, with a fatality in the vicinity in recent years. This is exacerbated by navigation encouraging the route as a cut through that avoids the M42. Ensuring pedestrian safety in this area and environs should be front and centre of any potential plans. Sadly, the plans as they are laid out do not demonstrate how they will enhance safety, but do present challenges with greater vehicle movements, especially with exiting onto a stretch of road with concerns over speeding.
Finally, the concentration of housing in Blythe is disproportionate and not fair. As such this would be a reasonable site to remove.