Question 12 - Site 4 - Land West of Dickens Heath

I object on the grounds that the amount of increased trafffic impacting on th immediate and surrounding areas .The fact that these raid were designed as country lanes and not for the constant use of residential and through traffic flow.The loss of local sports grounds and no plans for adequate replacements.The impact on Whitlocks end station and the increased requirement of parking spaces.The lack of proposed new amenities such as Doctors/ shops/schools etc.

Taking away existing playing field facilities, which also helps to create a boundary and green space between developments, does not make sense. Promoting sport/ fitness for young people and old does not appear to be on the agenda for residents and their families. Drastic changes would be needed for the train network from Whitlocks End to Birmingham as the facility is overstretched now and over capacity. Cars entering and leaving the existing large car park at Whitlocks End is causing hazardous congestion now. Additional residents would end up parking on nearby streets causing more congestion.

Whilst I acknowledge the need for additional housing unless the surrounding infrastructure is improved at the same pace problems will inevitably arise. This development will drive further additional traffic through and already busy area including but not limited to neighboring major's green.

I am opposed to the development of site 4 west of Dickens Heath.I am a rersident of Majors Green, my house is on Haslucks Green Road. The traffic has increased to an all time high, and with the site development would be unbearable. Majors Green is a small community,classed as semi-rural but not for much longer it seems. Haslucks Green Road is a race track, and to add more traffic would be ridiculous. at peak times it can take up to 10 minutes to get off my drive which I think you will agree is quite annoying

38% housing in solihull built in shirley 4000 new cars stations full to overflowing pollution flooding stratford road full all day bills lane haslucks green road at capacity

Please find attached Tidbury Green Parish Council's response to the Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation, along with the appendices referred to within our response.

The parishes of Cheswick Green, Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green, the "Blythe Villages," have taken substantial development under past Plans, notably the Dickens Heath new village, constructed in the last 15 years and 1,000 dwellings at Blythe Valley. It is estimated that this area has taken a further 2,000 dwellings over the past 5 years but the roads, services and infrastructure have not been upgraded to accommodate this growth. Yes, we need more houses but they should be the right type and in the right place. With no new employment areas proposed in the Local Plan and little existing local employment, residents have to drive to their work, which is predominantly located to the east of the Borough, causing commuter chaos in this area along rural roads that were not designed for such volumes of traffic. This is an unsustainable situation now without the additional proposed developments exacerbating this situation.
it should be noted that Solihull Council fought hard to stop some of thesemajor developments over the past 5 years which include Mount Dairy Farm at Cheswick Green, the CLEOBURY Lane and Braggs Farm sites at Dickens Heath and the two sites at Tidbury Green currently under construction being Lowbrook Farm and Tidbury Green Farm, totalling some 800 dwellings. These were all won on Appeal because of the calculations of increased housing need. The reasons that the Council gave to contest these developments at these Appeal hearings still apply to the proposed housing sites in the Local Plan.
Most of the playing fields (sports clubs) west of DH are still under threat, including the extensive Old Yardleins RFC. Only Shirley Town FC opposite Whitlock's End station and the small football field just east of it are retained. The 'sports hub' that was in Richborough Estates proposal on the land north of Tythe Barn Lane, of 2016, is not proposed - that was contrary to Green Belt policy. It is not clear where the playing fields are to go to. Sport England (the Government's Sports Quango) has a policy to protect playing fields and did oppose the Solihull Plan Site 4 proposals in comments in 2017. Loss of sports grounds/recreation areas for 9 clubs which is contrary to Government Policy.
2) The traffic situation is really bad as shown by photos taken by Cllr Hawkins and now some by John Green. Site 4 would add to these. The rat-running through Tythe Barn Lane and part of DH village is mainly by people from the large and populous Wythall Parish (Drakes Cross, Hollywood, etc) who work in Solihull, Blythe Valley Business Park, etc. Extra people/traffic will exacerbate congestion through the Dickens Heath Village, on the A34 and surrounding roads especially at peak times. This is not being addressed by SMBC and the new Local Plan does not seem to realise the scale of this problem (or even that it exists).
3) Adverse impacts of developing this Site 4 for housing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing houses near a railway station when there are other sites in the Solihull area that are of a lower grade of Green Belt with lesser adverse impacts and are in a more sustainable location. The Council's sustainability analysis should be bought into question as when I carried out the sustainability test, in accordance with Government guidelines see https://thescorecard.org.uk/ the test for Site 4 came out as only 30% sustainable.
4) Impact on the function of high performing Green Belt status of land will be lost which is contrary to Government Policy; there would be coalescence between Dickens Heath, Whitlock End, Majors Green and Bromsgrove District.
5) There would be added demands on already crowded local rail services and inadequate parking at the station and Village centre.
The award winning design & concept of Dickens Heath is of a new village surrounded by Green Belt with no part more than 800 m / 10 mins walk from village centre being 1.27km away - Site 4 housing proposals are beyond this circle. Any proposals to make a footpath onto Birchy Close would be strongly resisted by the residents. Therefore the location of Site 4 is unsustainable: not linked to Dickens Heath (no physical connection by road or cycleway or footpath) and outside the 800 m circle from the village centre. There are existing natural boundaries to the Village - canal to east and north, line of woodland (Ancient woodland, LNR) on west side and this proposal will be out on a limb detracting from the character of the Village.
7) Impact on landscape character; within an area of high sensitivity.
8) Tithe Barn Wood is a most significant Ancient Woodland in Solihull south of main urban area. The ancient woodland is likely to require a suitable semi-natural buffer which, together with the ancient hedgerows, will reduce the areas of development.

The attached plan shows the new road connecting Whitlocks End Station with the A34 and providing access to Dickens Heath and Site 12.

A new traffic island would be located to replace the sharp bend on Haslucks Green Road at the junction with Peterbrook Road. The new road would cross both the railway line and canal nearby and would not affect any of the proposed housing.

The only reason for the choice of this site for new housing is its location close to Whitlocks End railway station but detailed analysis shows that it is not sustainable and should be considered as a red not a green site in terms of sustainability analysis. The combined significant adverse effects given below from developing the land west of Dickens Heath makes the proposal wholly inappropriate in terms of sound planning practice, and in both national and local planning policies.
On the negative side, Dickens Heath has increased from the original design of 850 dwellings to approximately 1,800 units today. However, the roads and infrastructure have not been improved to accommodate this increase plus the vast number of dwellings given planning permission in the general area in the last few years. The Site lies outside Dickens Heath village and has no direct physical connection to it. Given the parking problems in the centre, the rural narrow roads and historic hedgerows, it will be difficult to make sufficient road improvements to take much more traffic. In addition, Site 4 is a high performing Green Belt site; there are the most Local Wildlife Sites surrounding than any other of the proposed allocations being 4 in all with protected species inhabiting the Site; there are ancient hedgerow; the land is liable to flooding as the sub-soil is deep boulder clay that does not allow adequate percolation; the site is not within walking distance from the facilities in the Village Centre; there would be a loss of character and identity as Site 4 is outside the confined boundaries; the Site is in an area of landscape sensitive to development; there would be a loss playing fields with no alternative proposals submitted.
No other proposed site in the Draft Local Plan has such adverse effects if developed and should therefore be removed from the proposed allocation for development.

Reference is made to replacing the sports pitches, I assume this includes the club houses etc. and not just pitches.I see no plans for this and where they will be?
Reference is also made to maintaining hedgerows etc. which is good but this could compromise the road improvements required to cater with the influx of population, so have the road improvements been evaluated properly?

I wish to object to the proposal to develop for housing, Site 4, west of Dickens Heath, I have attached my objections as they are over 100 words.

I would like to object to this development and I attach my objections

I believe that this site will be detrimental to the area. Dickens Heath is already over developed from the original concept. The land identified currently is a buffer between various different settlements and should remain that way. I would think that a reduction in the current sporting facilities is not a good thing and the proposed alternatives inadequate to meet the community's needs. Not very accessible to shops and amenities and other than trains to Birmingham not currently served well by transport to the wider locale such as Solihull.

This site would cause many problems with both the lack of infrastructure, from the lack of public transport to the very narrow roads which are still country lanes which currently have major traffic jams during the main rush hour traffic times, and both Dickens Heath and Majors Green would be gridlocked causing great pain to the local residents. The train station at Whitlocks End is already full everyday and could not cope with anymore cars as they are already starting to use the back streets to park their cars causing issues for the residents living close to the station.

I recognise that SMBC need to build more houses but I object strongly to the number of house being built on the Bromsgrove District boundary in particular those either side of Majors Green which is already has overcrowded roads. I am however pleased that you have decided not to build the large sports stadium. My main concern is the infrastructure hence there is a requirement to undertake a study with the view of moving the traffic away from Majors Green area. This area is already known as an accident black spot hence additional traffic will increase this risk

The local roads cannot cope. Traffic is very problematic already near Whitlock's End station and particularly on the corner of Haslucks Green Road where cars repeatedly go off the road and though people's hedges and walls. The loss of sports facilities does not support healthy lifestyles or reduction to childhood obesity.

Please refer to attachments.

No plans for drainage and flood prevention in what is part of a natural valley, risking current and future properties. Majors Green was cut off in floods in May 2019 (Haslucks Green Road, Dickens Heath Road, Tythe Barn Lane, Truemans Heath Lane, and Peterbrook Road flooded).
No detail on like for like replacement of Sports pitches not replaced.
Site is further than 1.7km away from Dickens Heath Centre, exceeding the governments sustainability measure, requiring additional short car journeys.
No detail on how current and future transport needs will be met. Improved pavements, roads, trains, cycle lanes and bus routes required.

We moved to Majors Green in January 2017 to experience a more idyllic lifestyle with views of the countryside. The properties are priced accordingly because of this privilege and the development will no doubt have an impact on local property prices. There has already been a lot of building development in the Dickens Heath area and Shirley Park Gate bringing increased pollution and health implications. There are three local football clubs which stand to be affected by the proposed building where there are regular matches played by younger leagues are we not being encouraged to keep children more active. More and more parkland and recreational areas are being taken away. Sadly my initial impressions on moving here was how the Roads did not seem adequate to cope with the volume of traffic going through the area with the already overcrowded and very built up Dickens Heath plus the traffic from the surrounding Shirley areas. Our property is situated on a particularly bad bend of Haslucks Green Road our neighbours have told us of the accidents that have occurred over the years and since moving here we been unfortunate to witness many RTAs which have resulted in the erection of Bollards, sharp bend warning signs and the introduction of an anti skid surface. Making the Road look like a danger zone! We can often hear the speeding traffic and sometimes wait with baited breathe expecting to hear a crash the roads are dark and narrow and the speeding signs are not adhered to! This will only be heightened with the increased volume of traffic should the proposal go ahead approx 750 houses x an average of 2 cars per household could be 1500 extra cars adding to the daily traffic plus visitors to the area. The car park is already full daily at Whitlocks End station and the public transport is inadequate in Dickens Heath to get commuters to Solihull the residents will have to use their vehicles or go on foot which brings it own risks with the darkened roads and narrow footpaths or no footpaths in parts. By allowing this proposal to go ahead you are putting the safety of all the local residents in more jeopardy!

As per my comments on questions 14 and 15, I fundamentally object to sites 4, 12 and 26 being included as allocated sites, due to the inequitable scale of development in this area versus other areas. Furthermore, site 4 should not be included as it is a recognised Green Belt Area with a high rating to prevent urban sprawl. Development of this site simply exacerbates urban sprawl and removes any determinable barrier between Dickens Heath and Majors Green, which is in direct contradiction to the Local Plan objectives and does not retain the intrinsic character of both settlements.

I am concerned that the infrastructure of the area is just not good enough for these proposed developments. The roads throughout the area are narrow. There is queuing traffic throughout Dickens Heath every morning Monday to Friday as early as 7.00am.
Haslucks Green Rd with its sharp bents is already a dangerous road.
Yet again Green Belt Land is being proposed to be built on, yet there are brownfield sites throughout the West Midlands.
The lost of very busy, well used football pitches is of great concern.
Akamba is unique - a wonderful original oasis. A REAL GEM and a treasure to behold within Solihull.
Dickens Heath village centre and school - unable to cope with traffic and parking presently - and this will be made even worse.

The site has a number of significant ecological features including 3 designated Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) of country importance, a potential LWS, species rich hedgerows and ancient woodland. These are all shown on the Landscape Assessment.
The Developer Site Proposal would destroy both the grassland LWSs and therefore we strongly object to this proposal. LWSs are of county importance and form key components of our ecological network.
The SMBC Illustrative Emerging Concept Masterplan retains the LWSs and more of the hedgerows within the site. We are therefore more supportive of this concept plan. However, it is unclear what the buffer will be between the development parcel and the ancient woodland; as per guidance from the Woodland Trust we recommend that for a development of this scale a minimum of 50m of semi-natural space if provided to buffer the ancient woodland and protect it from harm. In some cases up to 150m buffers have been recommended subject to further information. We therefore recommend that the SMBC concept plan is amended to clearly show a woodland buffer of at least 50m.

In 2018 the canal flooded as far as the drawbridge actually flooding some houses however the field referred to in this proposal provide a very important flood plain which definitely reduced the impact on houses further up the canal. If built on any flood water would inundate all the houses along the canal. Traffic is the other issue all roads mentioned in this proposal are narrow country lanes, certainly Tythe Barn Lane is already congested at peak times. Most traffic will turn onto Tile House Lane and onto Haslucks Green Road which are already busy and congested at peak times.

Please see covering letter

I would like to register my concerns and objections to the current draft local plan.

What is quite frightening is that the HSR report into the historic past of Blyth Valley has not been acknowledged by Solihull Council, A report that was widely available and already printed. A Report that could have considerable bearing on future housing.Shirley and Blyth Valley has 38% of the proposed housing which is a higher percentage than any other area and would link surrounding areas together i.e. Cheswich Green, Dickens Heath, & Tidbury Green. This will turn into an urban mass with a lack of open space which is a requirement for health and well being.I believe the council has based it's calculation on the 2014 Office of National Statistics figures and there is a clear case that the 2016 figures could be used.There are no plans in the current draft for extra GPs and schools
There has been no consideration of increase of traffic on the current road system and public transport system, the Mott Macdonald plan was not obtained. The council state that public transport will be improved, however if there is no public transport now how can that be improved.There is already a lack of local GP's and pupils are already travelling far and wide due to lack of schools in the appropriate areas..Site 4 an extension of Dickens Heath, proposed as it is near a station. The council has asked for alternative sites, if being near a station is a requirement, have the fields to the east of Widney Manor Station been considered. Widney Manor Station is much better linked. Dickens Heath which won best village was based on all houses being within a 10 minute walk to shops, this is something that no longer can be claimed . Site 4 states that improvements will be made to the infrastructure however roads cannot be improved as there are ancient hedgerows, which again the council appear to have neglected.
Site 26 I have no objections providing that the level of housing is kept as per the plan however the increase in traffic on Bills Lanes would need the Mott Macdonald plan being obtained prior to any permissions being granted.
However with this development then site 13 is the mitigation against the loss of green belt and would be beneficial for the community if this was designated a Village Green/ Nature Reserve.

Q 12 - Site 4 - Land West of Dickens Heath

Although Site 4 West of Dickens Heath has been reduced from 700 dwellings to 350 it is still unsustainable and covers the same area.

Most of the playing fields west of Dickens Heath would disappear. It is not clear where the playing fields are to go to. Sport England opposed the Solihull Plan Site 4 proposals in comments in 2017. The loss of sports grounds/recreation areas for 9 clubs is contrary to Government Policy.

The traffic situation is really bad. Site 4 would add to this. The rat-running through Tythe Barn Lane and part of Dickens Heath village is mainly by people from Wythall who work in Solihull, Blythe Valley Business Park, etc. Extra traffic will exacerbate congestion through the Dickens Heath Village, on the A34 and surrounding roads especially at peak times.

Adverse impacts of developing this Site 4 for housing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing houses near a railway station when there are other sites in the Solihull area that are of a lower grade of Green Belt with lesser adverse impacts and are in a more sustainable location. The CPRE has carried out the sustainability test, in accordance with Government guidelines and the test for Site 4 came out as only 30% sustainable. There are other sites throughout the Borough that are more sustainable to locate this development which are analysed as an amber category in the Local Plan to replace the Site 4 proposal.

Impact on the function of high performing Green Belt status of land will be lost which is contrary to Government Policy.

There would be added demands on already crowded local rail services and inadequate parking at the station and Village centre.

The design & concept of Dickens Heath is of a new village surrounded by Green Belt with no part more than 800m walk from village centre. Site 4 housing proposals are beyond this circle. The location of Site 4 is unsustainable not being linked to Dickens Heath by road, cycleway or footpath and outside the 800 m circle from the village centre.

Tythe Barn Wood is a most significant Ancient Woodland in Solihull. The ancient woodland is likely to require a suitable semi-natural buffer which, together with the ancient hedgerows, will reduce the areas of development.

The development would have a significant adverse impact on the ecology of the area, which has 3 Local Wildlife Sites adjacent to and surrounding the proposed housing development, affecting the ecological connectivity of the area.

The sports fields are liable to flooding most years and would exacerbate the flooding problem to neighbouring properties. The Site consists of deep boulder clay which does not drain well and dwellings would need to be built on deep piles and to keep above the water table, raised with infill material. Again, this contributes to the unsustainability of the proposals.

There is no case for any 'Sustainable Urban Extension' in the Dickens Heath Parish. Dickens Heath has reached the limits of expansion; any further growth would reduce gaps between the new village and other settlements and create urban sprawl, the prevention of which is one of the purposes of the Green Belt as stated in the NPPF.

Dickens Heath has some 1800 dwellings but the original design was for only 700 dwellings. The impact of this level of population on the local road system, which has had no road improvements to compensate for this additional growth, is significant. Outside the village built-up boundary, the roads are primarily narrow country lanes. There are junctions with low visibility which were not a problem before the recent housing growth, but are now potentially dangerous. The level of traffic creates noise, and deters walking and cycling on what were once quiet lanes.

The original decision to approve Dickens Heath, by the adoption of the first UDP in 1997, was made in the context of Green Belt status being confirmed at the same time on all the open land around the settlement. The Green Belt until 1997 was only 'Proposed' or 'Interim' Green Belt. This confirmed status, which dates from 1997, should not be altered. Exceptional circumstances need to be demonstrated to alter Green Belt boundaries in a Local Plan Review. There are no exceptional circumstances for changing the boundary to allow new houses on the land surrounding Dickens Heath.

Not as demonstrated in the supplementary update.
Re-provision of sports fields is a good thing, but where is of vital importance.

There has been considerable re-provision of sports fields across the borough. The re-provision element is good. Very often clubs are able to provide improved facilities to their members and encourage more people into active leisure.
Where there is more sensitivity, is over where these provisions are made. Sports clubs are not only beneficial for the physical health of the individuals involved, they play integral roles for communities and mental health, connecting people and place.
When clubs move, their identity often changes. The communities they support change. Access can be impaired for many who derive the greatest benefit from engaging with them. Concentrating many pitches in one area undermines the distinctiveness of local teams. These are important issues that need to be satisfactorily addressed in advance of any permissions being granted.

One factor in favour of Site 4 is sustainable transport provision.
As I stated in my response to the Draft Local Plan Consultation, that whilst I do not support Site 4, it does offer the possibility of connecting Dickens Heath up to Whitlocks End Station. At present there is no safe active transport link between the village centre and the station. However, there are concerns over whether a viable means of delivering this are demonstrated in the masterplan. There appear to be issues over how the site is integrated into the settlement, without disrupting the ancient woodland at Tyburn Coppice.

Very poor reference made to the ancient woodland in the consultation narrative
Whilst the masterplan makes a better job of identifying and addressing the issue of the ancient woodland of Little Tyburn Coppice, the narrative of the supplementary update does not do an adequate job.
Ancient woodland is incredibly important for heritage and habitat. It cannot be replaced, but can easily be disrupted by close proximity of new development. These are the remnants of the ancient Forest of Arden. Whilst small pockets remain, they are increasingly being disrupted and negatively impacted by human activity.
Root systems can be disturbed. Invasive species can accidentally be introduced. Biodiversity can be adversely affected by construction works. These are of vital importance and the ancient woodland needs to be afforded far greater protection than hedgerows or individual trees alone.


It is right to identify Whitlocks End Station, but a much bigger picture is being missed.
There are currently significant traffic problems in the neighbouring environs, the flow from and feed Dickens Heath. Haslucks Green Road, Bills Lane, Dog Kennel Lane, and Tanworth Lane are all experiencing congestion associated with development in this area.
 Connecting to alternative transport provision, like train stations, is good. But that is only a small part of the solution. There are factors that are causing increased car dependency that are outside of the complete control of a Local Plan or a Local Authority. The dislocation of jobs, homes, schools and social activities mean that individuals engage in more complex journeys than previously. Where urban extensions take place, this is exacerbated.
Developments that increase car dependency, like this, should be avoided.

The proposed allocation contains playing field land currently occupied by Highgate United FC, Leafield FC and Old Yardleians Rugby Football Club. The consultation document states that re-provision will be required for these sports pitches. The Council's Playing Pitch Strategy identifies that there is a current and future shortfall in playing pitch provision therefore the sites are not considered to be surplus to requirement.

Sport England consider that if the site is allocated a requirement for the allocation policy should state the playing fields (playing pitches and ancillary facilities) should not be developed upon until replacement provision is made in line with the requirements of NPPF paragraph 97(b) and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy.

In relation to the concept masterplans Sport England has previously advised the site promoter that the proposed sports hub site would represent a quantitative loss of playing field land, therefore it would not comply with national planning policy and Sport England policies relating to playing fields.

With regard to SMBC's illustrative emerging concept masterplan it is acknowledged that the site identified as Shirley Town FC is proposed to be retained. However, the retention of the site does not represent replacement provision as implied by the supporting text relating to concept masterplan.

Sport England and the relevant national governing bodies would welcome an opportunity to discuss the options for the replacement sporting provision with the Council and the site promoter.

There is not enough investment in sufficient infrastructure to cope with the increase in traffic in this area.

Q 12 - Site 4 - Land West of Dickens Heath

Although Site 4 West of Dickens Heath has been reduced from 700 dwellings to 350 it is still unsustainable and covers the same area.

Most of the playing fields west of Dickens Heath would disappear. It is not clear where the playing fields are to go to. Sport England opposed the Solihull Plan Site 4 proposals in comments in 2017. The loss of sports grounds/recreation areas for 9 clubs is contrary to Government Policy.

The traffic situation is really bad. Site 4 would add to this. The rat-running through Tythe Barn Lane and part of Dickens Heath village is mainly by people from Wythall who work in Solihull, Blythe Valley Business Park, etc. Extra traffic will exacerbate congestion through the Dickens Heath Village, on the A34 and surrounding roads especially at peak times.

Adverse impacts of developing this Site 4 for housing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing houses near a railway station when there are other sites in the Solihull area that are of a lower grade of Green Belt with lesser adverse impacts and are in a more sustainable location. The CPRE has carried out the sustainability test, in accordance with Government guidelines and the test for Site 4 came out as only 30% sustainable. There are other sites throughout the Borough that are more sustainable to locate this development which are analysed as an amber category in the Local Plan to replace the Site 4 proposal.

Impact on the function of high performing Green Belt status of land will be lost which is contrary to Government Policy.

There would be added demands on already crowded local rail services and inadequate parking at the station and Village centre.

The design & concept of Dickens Heath is of a new village surrounded by Green Belt with no part more than 800m walk from village centre. Site 4 housing proposals are beyond this circle. The location of Site 4 is unsustainable not being linked to Dickens Heath by road, cycleway or footpath and outside the 800 m circle from the village centre.

Tythe Barn Wood is a most significant Ancient Woodland in Solihull. The ancient woodland is likely to require a suitable semi-natural buffer which, together with the ancient hedgerows, will reduce the areas of development.

The development would have a significant adverse impact on the ecology of the area, which has 3 Local Wildlife Sites adjacent to and surrounding the proposed housing development, affecting the ecological connectivity of the area.

The sports fields are liable to flooding most years and would exacerbate the flooding problem to neighbouring properties. The Site consists of deep boulder clay which does not drain well and dwellings would need to be built on deep piles and to keep above the water table, raised with infill material. Again, this contributes to the unsustainability of the proposals.

There is no case for any 'Sustainable Urban Extension' in the Dickens Heath Parish. Dickens Heath has reached the limits of expansion; any further growth would reduce gaps between the new village and other settlements and create urban sprawl, the prevention of which is one of the purposes of the Green Belt as stated in the NPPF.

Dickens Heath has some 1800 dwellings but the original design was for only 700 dwellings. The impact of this level of population on the local road system, which has had no road improvements to compensate for this additional growth, is significant. Outside the village built-up boundary, the roads are primarily narrow country lanes. There are junctions with low visibility which were not a problem before the recent housing growth, but are now potentially dangerous. The level of traffic creates noise, and deters walking and cycling on what were once quiet lanes.

The original decision to approve Dickens Heath, by the adoption of the first UDP in 1997, was made in the context of Green Belt status being confirmed at the same time on all the open land around the settlement. The Green Belt until 1997 was only 'Proposed' or 'Interim' Green Belt. This confirmed status, which dates from 1997, should not be altered. Exceptional circumstances need to be demonstrated to alter Green Belt boundaries in a Local Plan Review. There are no exceptional circumstances for changing the boundary to allow new houses on the land surrounding Dickens Heath.