Policy BL1 - West of Dickens Heath

1. Impact on the Green Belt
The proposed housing allocation would erode the Green Belt between Dickens Heath, Major's Green and Trueman's Heath. This risks the semi-rural character of Dickens Heath being detrimentally impacted and represents a major step towards the village being subsumed within the Birmingham urban conurbation. The housing allocation would also cause the loss of a number of local sports facilities and a popular African-inspired garden centre. Government policy is to protect such greenbelt land and to develop brownfield sites first.
2. Pressure on existing amenities
I have lived in Dickens Heath since September 2000 and I have personally witnessed the increasing pressures placed on local amenities, most notably on the Jacey GP practice and the inadequate parking in the village centre (exacerbated by the loss of a substantial number of parking spaces to new residential dwellings in recent years). Dickens Heath simply does not have the amenities and infrastructure to bear the proposed village expansion.
3. Traffic Management
Another existing issue which will be exacerbated by the proposed housing allocation is the traffic congestion during peak commuting hours between the village school and running along Tythe Barn Lane and Dickens Heath Road, until the roundabout in front of Miller & Carter. The absence of highway and traffic management improvements has led to a high degree of congestion and the council's failure to use on-road parking restrictions along Tythe Barn Lane (either side of the existing speed control measures) to prevent on-road parking by residents has caused further congestion. The inreased flow of commuter traffic to central Solihull and to the M42 will worsen the existing congestion. Furthermore, in the past 12 months village residents have sought to avoid this congestion by instead seeking to exit the village via Tythe Barn Lane, past the BL1 site. This has resulted in tailbacks from the junction with Tilehouse Lane, a problem that will be dramatiacally exacerbated by the introduction of a further 350 dwellings at BL1.
4. Impact on wildife
I note the plan's statement that, "The smaller northern site is an existing arable field with few constraints. Views onto and access to the Stratford-upon-Avon canal will be enhanced, whilst retaining its important function as a wildlife corridor and key piece of green infrastructure." In what way does placing 350 homes on the land "retain" a wildlife corridor or "enhance" canal access? Such a development can only adversley impact local wildlife and further erode the greenbelt.
5. Access to amenities
Quoting the plan again:
"The sites are opportunely located in very close proximity to Whitlock’s End Station, which has 3 train services per hour to the centre of Birmingham with a short journey time of 20 minutes. Furthermore, local services and shops in Dickens Heath village centre will be easily
accessible by foot or bicycle, and it is important that convenient links are provided. "
The walking distance from the proposed site to the centre of Dickens Heath village does not represent "easy accessibility" and the reality is that car use to the village centre will increase, without an increase in the limited car parking currently available, which is already overstretched. With regard to the train station, the reality of British weather is that many of the new residents, if choosing to use the train, will discover that the Whitlocks End car park is already fully utilised during commuting hours. Moreover, many of the residents will not use public transport, instead relying on car travel which will increase pollution and result in the traffic management concerns outlined above.
My view is that there are more appropriate areas for housing allocation within the Borough which have a reduced impact on the Green Belt, place less pressure on existing, stretched amenities and have a reduced impact on the character of the existing residential area.

My comments would be, for the estates proposed that are near to Dickens Heath:
1) We have had flooding at the bottom of Birchy Leasowes Lane since we moved in, in 1975. It has been temporarily improved, but there was still some flooding on one of the new estates recently. It has to be a fact, that the more development there will be around this area, the more likely there will be flooding. The soil here is heavy clay and does not drain well.

2) The traffic in the early morning rush hour is a real problem. It’s not just at the exit towards Solihull, but right up at the next roundabout, and up Dog-Kennel Lane, where you are planning another large estate of housing. And the speed of the traffic at other times is often too fast. It would be a mistake to have more development when there is no room for better roads. There is no room for a bypass. And there is an acute shortage of parking spaces in the village, making congestion worse.

3) There is too much air pollution here, with many houses built too close to the road. To add so much more housing means more pollution from cars and lorries. It’s not good for health to have homes with doors and windows opening straight onto busy roads, especially when roads are narrow, increasing the density of the pollution.

4) We used to be able to walk on Birchy Leasowes Lane, and Cleobury Lane right down to the reservoir before Dickens Heath Village was built. Now that is tricky because of fast traffic and not pleasurable. There’s no footpaths. Braggs Farm Lane is being over-used, and therefore looks spoilt.

5) Green spaces are increasingly important in today’s world; our need for space to walk more, to exercise, to ride bikes, to enjoy trees and bird and plant life; these are all essential. Wildlife needs to be given priority if we are to enjoy our surroundings. This is an imperative for our planet! Let’s not make the need for housing overtake the need to make a good future for the next generations.

6) The football and rugby grounds are also good green spaces, for exercise and fun; they should not be lost.

7) More than anything, the sheer density of housing proposed is more than the area deserves; small growths of 20 to 30 houses would be reasonable if carefully sited along good highways, but 1,650 houses near the village of Dickens Heath would be excessive.(I’ve included houses on Dog-Kennel Lane as well as west and north of Dickens Heath, as these all affect this area.)

I am objecting to the planned development of a further 350 houses in Dickens Heath

- There are numerous sports fields included so this will affect our children (and adults) who play rugby and football on these fields, including Old Yards Rugby Club, Highgate Football Club and Wychall Wanderers Football Club, as well as Fitbox boot camp on the rugby field.
- The land is high grade GREEN BELT – Government policy is to protect Green Belt and develop Brownfield land first.
- Site 4 is surrounded by Local Wildlife Sites and Ancient Woodland – this will be so detrimental to the deer, badgers, bats and other wildlife that roam in these fields and adjoining woodland.
- The narrow rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded. It is becoming increasingly difficult f to get to work on time due to the traffic in the mornings, leaving earlier is not an option as I have to wait until my child goes to school first.
The character and setting of the Village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows

I am objecting to the planned development of a further 350 houses in Dickens Heath

- There are numerous sports fields included so this will affect our children (and adults) who play rugby and football on these fields, including Old Yards Rugby Club, Highgate Football Club and Wychall Wanderers Football Club, as well as Fitbox boot camp on the rugby field.
- The land is high grade GREEN BELT – Government policy is to protect Green Belt and develop Brownfield land first.
- Site 4 is surrounded by Local Wildlife Sites and Ancient Woodland – this will be so detrimental to the deer, badgers, bats and other wildlife that roam in these fields and adjoining woodland.
- The narrow rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded. It is becoming increasingly difficult f to get to work on time due to the traffic in the mornings, leaving earlier is not an option as I have to wait until my child goes to school first.
The character and setting of the Village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows

use the sports provisions available at Old Yardleians RFC every day and the following ob sections about site 4 outside of Dickensheath
1. Site 4 BL1 Dickens Heath is in a high performing Green Belt area, which has not been taken into consideration in the Sustainability Appraisal. Central Government Policy is to protect the Green Belt and develop on Brownfield land first.
2. The Sustainability Appraisal tries to prove that this Site is sustainable when it clearly is not, owing to the numerous mitigation measures proposed to try and make it sustainable, some of which are unachievable.
3. The sports fields can be re-located but at some upheaval to the clubs and members, but why move them in the first place? Where would the land be found to accommodate so many pitches? Would it be preferable to find another site to build on? Also during the current issues surrounding the COVID crisis and the impact of having an unfit and unhealthy population would it be wise to build on sports pitches that provide health benefits to hundreds of adults and children every weekend. Surely it would be better for the council to add further provision to what is already available to promote healthy living and not take it away. What would the optics be for Solihull council if this were to go ahead?
4. The Council have not undergone a proper scrutiny of all other more sustainable sites in a sequential test that would have fewer constraints if the Sustainability Appraisal had been carried out correctly in the first place, before the site allocation, rather than trying to make the pre-selected site allocations fit the Plan.
5. This proposed development will be un-associated, both visually and physically, with the award-winning Village of Dickens Heath. The character and setting of the Village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows. The proposal falls outside the Village’s built-up boundary.
6. Site 4 is surrounded by Local Wildlife Sites and Ancient Woodland. Although the Council state that to mitigate for the proposed development the area can be enhanced, they have not considered the very important connectivity of these important ecological sites. Indeed, Natural England have stated that “Ensure current ecological networks are not compromised, and future improvements in habitat connectivity are not prejudiced.”
7. Traffic & Village centre parking. The Traffic Study does propose some works to improve the congestion in peak hours but the situation will be further exacerbated by the huge number of new homes proposed in the Blythe area and South Shirley. The Council only propose to solve the Village Centre parking problem by controlling some on-street parking which will not solve the existing problem and will only be made worse with more development. The narrow, rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded.
8. The proposed development is not within a recognised walking distance from the Village Centre facilities, so further adds to the un-sustainability of the development. The Council state that a new footpath will be needed to the private road of Birchy Close to reduce the walking distance but this is legally unachievable. They suggest that a new bus route down Birchy Leasowes Lane could be provided but how will a bus exit the junction with Dickens Heath Road safely? At this junction the ancient woodland either side of this junction would inhibit any road improvement which has not been recommended. All the proposed footpaths are welcomed and should have been put in place many years ago to facilitate the extensions of the existing Village. The Village already acts as a commuter settlement with higher than average car ownership. Additional housing will only exacerbate the use of the car contributing to global warming.
9. Although the flooding report states that Site 4 is mostly in flood Zone 1, local residents have evidence that the sports fields flood nearly every year because of the increased rainfall due to climate change and the fact that this area is of bolder clay that restricts permeability. Even given the fact that a sustainable urban drainage (SUD) system is proposed, this all adds to the unsustainability of this site when other “Amber” sites have far less constraints. I have also seen that the flooding is not only confined to the playing fields. Tythe Barn Lane and also Tilehouse Lane flood due to the poor drainage. Any houses built on this area will be at risk of flooding and also making the existing problems worse due to the paving-over of large areas of the fields for build, roads and driveways.

10. There could be consideration shown to another local site that is currently not used and had previously applied for planning permission. The site that was Tidbury Green Golf Course should be considered as a site already developed and where there would be little or no impact on the surrounding community and sport provision. There would also be the ability to link the site with Witlocks End railway station which would be a much greener provision than more roads.

I have lived in Dickens Heath for 20 years. I have seen the amount of houses go up after being told no more would - the amount of issues that have risen from all these houses with no sufficient drainage so the roads and gardens flood (the fields that are left can't hold the water so how are more houses going to help?)
I have a horse near the village and since the new developments have been built, countless times now have we been vandalised e.g. broken into, things chucked in the field, people trying to get in the field with our horses (mostly kids because i assume they have nothing better to do), and now EVEN MORE housing is going up.. how is it going to help anything other than the fact a building company gets a big wad of cash. No concern to those who have been here from the start of Dickens Heath, no concern to those who have seen what it used to be like - a rural village surrounded by fields, farmers, livestock etc. But now roads are being ruined and nothing is done, crime rates are going up and nothing is done... see a correlation?
I'm sure if you even read this email you will probably think i'm talking nonsense. It used to be lovely and quiet and what is it now? You get yobs walking around doing drug deals outside your house, you get people going the wrong way around the roundabouts, people speeding down country lanes when there are working farms moving cattle, constant complaints about the state of the roads and about the flooding... but you don't choose to address the problems of those who have lived here from the start, you choose to listen to those who could move here and give you money.

Either:
Confirm the relocation of the sports pitches required to make BL1 deliverable
Consider whether a larger area of land around Tidbury Green such as land east of Tilehouse Lane (which is lower performing in Green Belt terms) could be part of the comprehensive strategy to deliver the housing as it does not require the relocation of sports pitches, and safeguard Site BL1 for longer term development

Policy BL1
References contained at point 5 of the policy clearly indicate that there is a significant question
mark over its deliverability. The policy states “Until such time as these facilities [existing sports
facilities south of Tythe Barn Lane] are appropriately relocated or robust plans have been
confirmed to secure a timely relocation that would prevent the closure of any associated
clubs….development of the site will not be supported”. Until the relocation of the sports
pitches that enable the deliverability to take place on site BL1 (land West of Dickens Heath) it
cannot be justified in policy terms. There are significant delays associated with resolving this
issue; firstly suitable alternative locations have to be found for the pitches to be relocated to;
and secondly, those sports pitches have to be laid out and often that takes a 2 to 3 year time
span to set them up because of the need for specialist grass and proper drainage and sub soil
preparation for that grass to be laid.
Paragraph 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’), requires plans to “be
prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable”. Savills emphasis
This reference provides a very real risk to the deliverability of this allocation and something we
consider the Council should not be leaving to aspiration or fortune. The proposed allocation of
the 350 homes is being put at jeopardy where alternative locations cannot be found for the
existing sports pitches and on this basis the site should only be safeguarded at this stage and
an alternative site such as site 192 (land east of Tilehouse Lane, Tidbury Green) be included
in the plan as this site is not the subject of these deliverability concerns and performs lower in
Green Belt terms than BL1.

We consider that there are several options the Council have to make this allocation sound.
Firstly they should confirm the latest position on the progress made on the relocation of the
sports pitches required to make BL1 deliverable. As written BL1 is not justified or effective as
the text (bullet 5) is clear that until these facilities are relocated or robust plans the relocation
has not been confirmed “development of this site will not be supported”. This is not positive
planning and puts much needed housing delivery at risk. Secondly the Council could consider
whether a larger area of land around Tidbury Green such as land east of Tilehouse Green
land could be considered as part of the comprehensive strategy to deliver the housing as it
does not require the relocation of sports pitches. This could mean that some or all of the
sports pitches remain in situ. Until the position regarding the sports pitches is made clear then
either the allocation should be downgraded to safeguarded land or an alternative allocation is
provided that is deliverable site such as the site to the south (site 192 ) - land east of
Tilehouse Lane, Tidbury Green.
In Green Belt terms site 192 scores 6 which is less (i.e. lower performing in Green Belt terms)
than the proposed allocation BL1 (score of 7). In landscape sensitivity terms site 192 scores
the same (as they are in the same sub area - LCA2) as BL1.
In allocating site 192 and safeguarding site BL1, we consider the plan would be more effective
and sound. This representation should be read in conjunction with representations made to
policies P1 and P5 which are fundamental to the Borough’s housing strategy.

Policy P1
Officially, the Government state that the HS2 Interchange station will be completed by 2026. Given delays that often happen on large infrastructure project, we consider that this timescale is likely to be pushed back. Paragraph 280 of the draft plan states that the HS2 line is ex-pected to open between 2029 – 33. Paragraph 89 of the plan refers to 2,740 homes being delivered up to 2036. If the plan is adopted in early 2022, with two years lead in for planning and a year for site works, development may not begin until 2025. This allows for eleven years to develop out the 2,740 units. If this was spread out over eleven years equally, this would equate to 249 dwellings per annum. This is a very high level of delivery, that we do not con-sider has been adequately demonstrated as being deliverable, considering delays in delivery of the HS2 Station.
It should be noted that in 2018, the Hub Framework stated that delivery of 2,240 homes during the plan period would include up to 550 homes being delivered at the NEC up to 2022. We have reviewed Solihull’s online application register and cannot see reference to an application for residential development at the NEC. We therefore consider that the levels of delivery en-visaged, even in the early stages of the plan period are overambitious. We therefore consider that this policy is not effective in the way that it is currently drafted. Furthermore, we under-stand that UK Hub requires a new connector road from the Coventry Road to a new motorway junction on the M42, being a “just in time” for JLR and its Damson Parkway units. Whilst it has received in-principle go-ahead, the land has to be purchased and the road has to be built which could involve a significant delay.
We have requested further information form the Council in relation to the planned trajectory and stages of delivery of these housing numbers. We understand that such details are not available. We are therefore also not aware of how much of this housing delivery the Council considers will be required to be delivered before the HS2 station is completed.

We therefore request further information in relation the planned delivery of the site and reas-surance that the delivery of the HS2 station does not prejudice the delivery of the 2,740 homes to be delivered up to 2036. Notwithstanding we challenge the assumed delivery rate proposed by the Council in this location and the provision of circa 20% of the overall dwelling provision in a single location in a high density format which does not accord with the Bor-ough’s housing requirement for predominantly family housing.
We request confirmation from the Council of the amount of housing and related infrastructure that will be coming forward for completion before this date. A whole community is needed to be formed from scratch. Although this is not beyond the realms of possibility, we request further evidence from the Council to ensure that conclusions regarding housing delivery are effective to deliver a sound plan.
The proposals for circa 20% of the housing target in a single location should be reviewed as they are not considered to be sound, deliverable or provide an effective or justified strategy.

Policy P4A
We do not consider that this policy is effective (NPPF paragraph 35) as it does not provide
developers with flexibility and the mix of housing should be considered at the application stage
in accordance with the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment 2020 (‘HEDNA’).
For example, as stated under point 9 of Policy P4A, it may be appropriate for sites that
are within the town centre to provide a higher percentage of 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings compared
to a site on the edge of a rural settlement. The HEDNA sets out a range for of mixes for
each dwelling size. We support the Council providing some guidance on housing mix but this
should accord with the mix proposed in the HEDNA.
The NPPF (Annex 2) sets out a definition of affordable housing and identifies affordable housing
tenures which includes: affordable housing for rent, starter homes, discounted market
sales and affordable routes to home ownership. Policy P4A sets out a proposed tenure requirement
for 65% social rent and 35% shared ownership within the Borough. The HEDNA
has been used as the evidence base to support this policy. The HEDNA has identified that
there is a need for affordable rent within the Borough (paragraph 7.101). The HEDNA also
states that there is a clear requirement for both social and affordable rent but has recommended
to the Council that they do not propose a rigid mix on the split between social and
affordable rented housing. Furthermore, shared ownership is a narrow offer of affordable
housing that is not social rented. Intermediate housing is considered to be a more appropriate
definition to use.
Affordable Rent is also encouraged by Homes England and should be included in the Council’s
list of tenures. Nevertheless, Policy P4A makes no provision for affordable rent. Therefore we request that the Policy P4A is amended to refer to both affordable rent and social rent.

The HEDNA sets out range for the proposed affordable housing mix which provides flexibility,
it is not clear how or why the Council has chosen to apply fixed percentage requirements for
social rented and shared ownership homes. Each application for residential development
should be considered on its merits and the type and mix of affordable housing should be discussed
with the Council’s housing and planning departments at the pre-application stage. We
consider that this will make the policy more effective than simply applying a fixed blanket approach
across all residential sites in the borough.
Policy P4A (bullet 6) should be amended to include reference to a requirement for social and
affordable rent rather than purely social rent. The policy should also be amended to replace
“shared ownership” with “intermediate housing” which includes Shared Ownership, Shared
Equity, Discounted Market Housing for Sale etc

Policy P4C
Point 1 of Policy P4C lists a range of criteria that the Council will have regard to when negotiating housing mix on allocated and windfall major development sites. Within the list it notes that the “current indicative Borough-wide needs assessment” and “the existing mix of market housing and local housing demand” will be taken into account. Point 3 of Policy P4C goes on to set out specific requirements for housing mix. We do not consider that this policy is effective (NPPF paragraph 35) as it does not provide developers with flexibility and the mix of housing should be considered at application stage in accordance with the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment 2020 (‘HEDNA’).
Paragraph 122 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the importance of planning policies to make efficient use of land taking into account: the identified need for different types of housing, local market conditions and viability, the availability and capacity of infrastructure, the desirability of maintaining an area’s character and setting and the importance of securing well-designed and attractive places. The housing mix proposed in the HEDNA provides a range for each dwelling type which reflects the ‘latest’ evidence in 2020. However, many sites are different in character and surroundings and therefore a blanket approach to the unit mix is not considered appropriate or sound. Furthermore, market demand can change and so this ‘latest’ evidence may not be representative of need when planning applications are submitted in the future. As developers and national housebuilders have a focus on building and products that are deliverable and meet market needs, the policy should not provide a fixed dwelling mix and a blanket approach to the size and mix should be avoided as not all residential sites will be appropriate for this mix. A rigid approach to mix and house type could have a negative effect on development viability, leading to inflexibility and result in unnecessary delays to developments coming forward.
In addition to the above, the policy does not make any reference to the approach that may be required where there is an existing proposed housing mix set out in ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans (‘NP’).

We request that the Council removes reference to mix (point 3) from Policy P4C and instead refer indicative housing mix ranges in accordance with the HEDNA within the explanatory text. Developers should be ‘encouraged’ and not ‘required’ to accord with the mixes set out in the explanatory text. This is the approach the LPA has taken to density requirements (Policy P5) in the Submission Draft and we consider this flexible approach should be used for market housing mix. Market demand at the time of the application should play an important role in determining the mix of dwellings delivered on a site.

Policy P4D
Policy P4D requires allocated sites of 100 dwellings or more to contribute 5% of open market
dwellings in the form of self and custom build plots on each of the development sites. We
object to this requirement and do not consider that the Council has provided sufficient
evidence to justify a threshold of 100 dwellings or for these sites to contribute 5% self and
custom build homes. The PPG (Reference ID: 57-025-201760728) sets out ways in which the
Council should consider supporting self and custom build homes which includes: developing
policies in their Local Plan for self-build and custom housebuilding and “engaging with
landowners who own sites that are suitable for housing and encouraging them to consider
self-build and custom housebuilding” [Savills emphasis]. There is no requirement in the PPG
for self or custom build plots to be provided as part of new housing allocations and landowners
should only be ‘encouraged to consider’ promoting their land for self and custom build
housing. The policy has been prepared without any regard to the potential for unintended
consequences arising from this approach which could have a negative impact on the policy
delivering the 5% self or custom built homes. We consider the policy to be ineffective.
Paragraph 195 of the Submission Draft states that there are 370 individual entries on the
Council’s ‘Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Register’. The register may provide an
indication of the level of interest, but this needs to be analysed in further detail to uncover the
specific requirements of respondents. Furthermore, this register does not test whether people
have the means to acquire the land and privately construct their own property or whether their
requirements align with being located on a large new housing development. Without this
exercise having been undertaken and supporting the Council’s conclusions, we do not
consider that Policy P4d to be justified or effective.
Furthermore, there are also practical issues to consider in providing self and custom building housing plots on an allocated site. For example, the day to day operation of such sites and
consideration of potential health and safety issues of having multiple individual construction
sites within one development. Other considerations that do not appear to be factored in
include where a large housing site is the subject of a design code. What approach in the
Council expecting self-build projects to take in the design of their “bespoke” self or custom
built home?

Policy P4E
Policy P4E requires major residential development sites to be built to Category M4(2) building regulations and at least 5% of dwellings to be wheelchair user friendly. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that Councils have the option to “set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access” where there is a justified need (Savills emphasis) for this requirement (Reference ID: 56-002-20160519). The PPG does not state what level of provision should be required within Local Plan policies.
Requiring all new dwellings to be built to the Category M4(2) standards will result in larger dwellings and in turn less dwellings being delivered per net developable hectare. The NPPF is clear that planning policies should support development that makes efficient use of land (Paragraph 122). Furthermore, as a Green Belt authority with limited brownfield redevelopment opportunities (Housing Land Supply table on page 69 of the consultation document) and part of a Housing Market Area with a shortfall in housing (NPPF Paragraph 123), Solihull Council should be making the most efficient use of land on the Green Belt sites proposed to be released in order to avoid significant Green Belt release in future Local Plan Reviews. We therefore consider that the requirement to build all dwellings to Category M4(2) standards should be evidenced and balanced against the need to make the most efficient use of land available. Without this approach, the policy will not be consistent with national planning policy or effective, making Policy P4E unsound.
In addition to the above, the PPG is clear that “Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied” (Reference ID: 56-008-20160519) [Savills emphasis]. Policy P4E includes 4 criteria (Point 5) for how the policy will be applied flexibly which relate to: viability; the need to achieve a successful development; and whether the standards would prejudice the realisation of other planning objectives. However, none of the criteria make reference to the suitability of a site to accommodate accessible dwellings, for example their topography or local demographic requirements. We consider that the policy should be amended to accord with the PPG guidance or evidence provided which justifies the position being proposed in the policy.
Policy P4E also requires developments of 300+ dwellings to provide specialist housing or care bed spaces. By taking this approach it is appears that there is a disconnect between the Council’s housing strategy and the health and well-being of the various communities with differing specialist and health requirements across the Borough. Although the policy does not state how many dwellings or care bed spaces should be provided as part of the development, the viability appraisal has assumed that 0.5ha of land on each site will be delivered and has concluded that this will improve viability on the site as the land can be sold to a specialist provider. No evidence is provided to justify 0.5ha provision. In our experience a full care village will require sites larger than this and so the requirement put forward in this policy may only cover part of the specialist housing requirement it needs to.
We consider that this requirement is ambiguous and not shaped by effective engagement between the Council, developers and specialist care providers (NPPF paragraph 16) for the following three reasons:
1. There is no clear evidence which demonstrates or justifies how the Council has cho-sen the 300 dwellings threshold;
2. Point 6 of Policy P4E lists criteria where applications for specialist housing will be supported, for example, the site needs to be accessible to shops and services and the specialist housing needs to meet specialist building regulations. It is not clear whether this criteria will also be used to determine whether the 300+dwelling sites are actually suitable locations for specialist housing or care bed spaces; and
3. It is unclear whether all specialist and senior living providers will be interested in sites as small as 0.5ha and whether it is appropriate for specialist sites to be dispersed around the borough rather than provision being met on a few specifically allocated sites in suitable and accessible locations. Providers of open market housing and spe-cialist / senior living accommodation are usually different. Therefore, it is not as sim-ple as seeking these specialist requirements to be provided as part of the larger resi-dential allocations. Careful consideration of the demographic and health needs of each community need to be assessed and understood to enable appropriate sites to be identified that will meet the specialist and elderly care accommodation needs that is required for each community.
We consider that the requirement for 300+ dwellings sites to deliver specialist housing or care bed spaces should be removed from this policy and instead specific and suitable sites which accord with Point 6 of Policy P4E should be allocated within the plan to deliver this provision.

The requirement for all dwellings to be built to Category M4(2) standards should be removed unless evidence can be provided to justify this blanket approach or a percentage requirement that is evidenced based on an appropriate assessment of need to ensure that developments can still make the most efficient use of land in accordance with the NPPF (paragraphs 122 and 123).
The criteria listed under Point 5 of Policy P4E should be amended to state “Site specific factors which may make step-free access unsuitable or unviable”. For example not every site identified is flat and able to accommodate level access in a uniform matter.
The requirement for 300+ dwellings to deliver specialist housing or care beds paces should be removed from this policy and specific sites for specialist and senior living should be allocated to deliver this specialist provision. This will ensure that the requirements of Point 6 are met.

Policy P5
Policy P5 states that the Council will allocate at least 5,270 dwellings to meet their housing
requirement of 15,017 dwellings between 2020 – 2036. This equates to 938 dwellings per
annum. The proposed number of allocated dwellings has decreased by 1,040 dwellings
between the Draft version of the Local Plan Review document (January 2019) (6,310
dwellings) and the Submission Draft (5,270 dwellings). From our understanding, three
allocations have been removed since the Draft version (Sharmans Cross Road, Jensen House
and TRW/The Green) for 790 dwellings, four allocations have increased their capacity (East of
Solihull, Lavender Hall Farm, Oak Farm and Pheasant Oak Farm) by 235 dwellings and seven
of the remaining allocations have seen a reduction in their capacity by 485 dwellings.
Furthermore, 600 dwellings have been added to the windfall category. Given that this is
meant to be a plan-led process we do not consider this approach to meet the test of the plan
being positively prepared.
We do not support the proposed reduction in the number of allocated sites and the reduction
in site capacity for seven of the proposed allocations. As we have stated in our separate
response to Policy P4E, the NPPF is clear that planning policies should support development
that makes efficient use of land (Paragraph 122). Furthermore, as a Green Belt authority with
limited brownfield redevelopment opportunities (Housing Land Supply table on page 69 of the
consultation document) and part of a Housing Market Area with a shortfall in housing (NPPF
Paragraph 123), the Council should be making the most efficient use of land on the Green Belt
sites proposed to be released in order to avoid significant Green Belt release in future Local
Plan Reviews.
The Housing Land Supply in the table of page 69 of the Submission Draft document states
that across the plan period the UK Central Hub area is expected to deliver 2,740 dwellings;
2,240 dwellings at the NEC and 500 dwellings at Arden Cross. This equates to around 18% of
the proposed housing requirement for the Borough (15,017 dwellings). Due to the amount of
development proposed in this area, we consider that the majority of dwellings delivered will be
apartments. The Council should be seeking to deliver a balanced housing portfolio across the
Borough. By relying on 18% of the provision in one location and all potentially high density
living which doesn’t meet the needs of most families, we do not consider the Council to be
presenting a positively prepared plan nor is this strategy considered to be justified or effective.
Furthermore, having reviewed the evidence base for the UK Central Hub area, we do not
consider that 2,740 dwellings will be delivered at the NEC and Arden Cross between now and
2036. Firstly, the evidence documents seem to show different housing figures for the sites For
example, the NEC masterplan (2018) states that 2,500 dwellings could potentially be
accommodated on the site (page 34) whereas the Hub Framework Plan (2018) states that
1,780 dwellings could be delivered at the NEC. The Hub Framework Plan also sets out
potential timescales for development coming forward. Table 1 sets out a land use trajectory
which states that between 2018 – 2033 only 1,675 dwellings are expected to be delivered on
the Arden Cross and NEC sites. Between 2018 – 2022, circa 130 - 550 dwellings were
expected to be delivered at the NEC. With no planning application submitted at the NEC, we
consider it unlikely that any dwellings will be delivered by 2022. In light of this, we do not
consider that the expected housing delivery for UK Central of 2,740 dwellings up to 2036 to be
justified or supported by any of the Council’s evidence base and is therefore considered
unsound. We consider that the target for the anticipated number of houses to be delivered at
UK Central should be reduced to a more realistic level and additional housing sites added to
the portfolio rather than being overly focussed around UK Central or simply added to the
windfall provision. If almost 20% of the Council’s housing target is to be met by high density
accommodation in a single location, then this needs to be evidenced and justified as it
represents a departure from the Borough’s previous housing strategy and prevailing demand
for family housing. The constraints associated with the timing in the delivery of HS2 are also
not clear or explained.
Windfall provision has increased by 600 dwellings between the Draft version of the Local Plan
Review document and the Submission Draft and is 50 dwellings per annum more than the
adopted Local Plan. The NPPF states that there must be “compelling evidence” that windfall
sites will provide a reliable and realistic source of supply having regard to the strategic
housing land availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future
trends (paragraph 70). As Solihull is constrained by Green Belt and there are only limited
deliverable brownfield land opportunities (77 dwellings identified on page 69 of the Submission
Draft document), we do not consider that 200 dwellings per annum of windfall dwellings is
realistic or an effective way to plan for the future. Rather than relying on windfall provision, the
Council should have additional sites identified and allocated and/or safeguarded for residential
development.
In relation to the contribution towards the HMA’s housing need, Solihull is currently proposing
to contribute 2,105 dwellings towards the Housing Market Area shortfall (paragraph 2.28 of the
Submission Draft document). We do not consider that this is a sufficient contribution from
Solihull Council towards the contributions (North Warwickshire is contributing an additional
3790 dwellings to support the Greater Birmingham HMA shortfall) and there is no evidence to
justify how the 2,105 dwelling “offer” was calculated. The most recent HMA Position Statement
states that the remaining shortfall up to 2031 is now estimated to be 2,597 dwellings.
However, it is now apparent that there will be a shortfall post-2031 (minimum 29,260
dwellings). As the plan period for the Submission Draft will cover up to 2036, we consider that
this should be addressed within the Local Plan Review. Once an agreement is in place
between the HMA authorities as to the distribution of the shortfall, a Statement of Common
Ground should be prepared to demonstrate to the Inspector that Solihull has complied with the
duty to cooperate (PPG Reference ID: 61-010-20190315) and that Solihull has addressed key
strategic matters through effective joint working and not deferred them to a subsequent Local Plan Review (PPG Reference ID: 61-022-20190315).
The housing need figure should be calculated at the start of the plan-making process and kept
under review until the Local Plan Review document is submitted for Examination (PPG
reference 2a-008-20190220). This is important for Solihull as at the same time as consulting
on the ‘White Paper – Planning for the Future’ document (August 2020), the Government has
also confirmed its intention to review the standard methodology. Using the Government’s
revised standard methodology that was published for consultation, the minimum housing need
figure for Solihull could increase by 25% to 1,011 dwellings per annum (16,176 dwellings
between 2020-2036). This could equate to a total minimum housing requirement of 3,264
more dwellings than the proposed housing requirement figure between now and 2036.
We consider that the Council could plan for this additional growth by considering the two
scenarios that may emerge from the Standard Method calculations. The first option could be
what the Council is currently planning for which is using the current Standard Method figure of
807 dwellings. The second option that the Council should also consider is the revised
Standard Method which could see the annual housing need increasing to 1,011 dwellings. In
order to demonstrate a robust approach at Examination and to be able to present a positively
prepared Local Plan (NPPF paragraph 35), we consider that the Council should plan for
additional growth than currently proposed and identify additional sites which could be
allocated if the Inspector requires the Council to plan for growth in accordance with the revised
standard methodology figure or if they agree with our findings set out above, that the UK
Central Hub area is unlikely to deliver 2,740 dwellings by 2036. The Council should recognise
and test a range of housing growth options that may be derived from changes to the standard
method and wider HMA growth requirements and plan for these options.
Point 6 of Policy P5 sets out that appropriate density of new housing will be based on a variety
of factors which are listed in the policy. We support the flexibility provided within this policy,
however, in order to comply with national policy, we consider that the criteria listed under Point
6 should be the same criteria that are listed under paragraph 122 of the NPPF. Paragraph 122
states that in order to make efficient use of land, planning policies should consider: the
identified need for different types of housing, local market conditions and viability, the
availability and capacity of infrastructure, the desirability of maintaining an area’s character
and setting and the importance of securing well-designed and attractive places. Currently,
Point 6 makes no reference to local market conditions and viability which we consider is an
important consideration that should be taken into account when identifying the appropriate
density and mix for each site.
In addition to the above, the indicative densities set out under paragraph 240 of the
Submission Draft state that the Council will seek to achieve indicative densities of 40dph for
houses, 90dph – 150dph for apartments and 50-70dph mixed areas at the UK Central Hub
area. The Arden Cross Masterplan shows 13.04ha of land designated for residential use
(Page 47). 500 dwellings are expected to be delivered during this plan period once HS2 is
completed. Although they are not expected to all be delivered in this plan period, if 3,000
dwellings are expected on the Arden Cross site, densities will need to be circa 250dph –
300dph in order to achieve the Council’s target. This is a significant increase on the densities
of development currently achieved in Solihull and the Council will need to ensure that the
impact of these densities is reflected and considered in the Local Plan Review document.
In summary, we consider that the Council should seek to allocate additional sites for
residential development within the plan because we consider that:
1. the UK Central Hub site will be unlikely to deliver 2,740 dwellings up to 2036 which
could leave a shortfall of circa 700 – 1,000 dwellings;
2. the revised Standard Methodology could increase the Council’s minimum housing
need by 25%; and,
3. the proposed contribution towards the HMA shortfall is not a sufficient or justified contribution
in light of the identified shortfall post-2031 which should be addressed in the Local Plan Review as the plan period runs until 2036.
In light of the above, the Council will need to identify additional sites to meet their increased
housing need requirements. Our client’s site at land east of Tilehouse Lane, Tidbury Green
(Site reference 192) is being promoted for circa 300 dwellings and public open space. The site
is located immediately adjacent to Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green in area which has been
expanded and is identified for further expansion in the Submission Draft given its accessibility
and sustainability.
In the Council’s evidence base site 192:
 is located within a lower performing Green Belt parcel;
 is located within a Medium / Low landscape parcel;
 has ‘Medium / High’ accessibility;
 is a Category 1 site in the Site Assessment Paper as it performs well against the suitability,
availability and achievability assessments.
In summary, our client’s site is strongly performing potential development site in the Council’s
evidence base and should be considered for a residential allocation to assist the Council in
meeting their housing needs. It would provide a logical extension to the proposed allocation
(BL1) land West of Dickens Heath.

Having reviewed the evidence base, we consider that the UK Central Hub area will not deliver
2,740 dwellings in this plan period, an additional contribution should be made towards the
HMA shortfall and the revised standard methodology requirement should be taken into
consideration by the Council before submitting the Local Plan for Examination. Furthermore,
the most recent reduction in some allocations and an the revised plan strategy of adding
another 600 homes to the windfall provision should be reviewed. We consider that the
Council should allocate additional housing sites and select those which have performed well
against the Council’s evidence base criteria and are in sustainable locations.
The land being promoted by Bloor Homes (site 192) should be considered as an additional
allocation being a high performing site adjacent to the proposed allocation (BL1) land west of
Dickens Heath.
Amend Point 6 of Policy P5 to accord with the criteria listed in NPPF Paragraph 122 and
amend the indicative densities table on page 76 to set out more realistic densities for the UK
Central Hub area if 5,000 dwellings are going to be delivered on the UK Central Site
(paragraph 830 of the Submission Draft document).

Policy P9
Policy P9 proposes to set additional requirements on development sites in order to reduce energy demand and minimise carbon dioxide emissions. The requirements include all new dwellings having to:
 achieve a 30% reduction in energy demand over and above the requirements of Build-ing Regulations Part L;
 be net zero carbon from 2025;
 provide at least 15% of energy from renewables; and,
 provide at least 1 charging point for electric vehicles.
To justify the proposed 30% uplift, the Council’s ‘Protecting the Environment’ Topic Paper (October 2020) refers to paragraph 148 of the NPPF which states that “the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate… It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions…and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure”. These requirements are considered to be over and above the requirements of the PPG which states that Local Plans “can set energy performance standards for new housing or the adaptation of buildings to provide dwellings, that are higher than the building regulations, but only up to the equivalent of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes” (Reference ID: 6-012-20190315).
The PPG also states that if a Council is “considering policies on local requirements for the sustainability of other buildings, local planning authorities will wish to consider if there are nationally described standards and the impact on viability of development” (Reference ID: 6-009-20150327). Viability has been tested on the Governments preferred interim standard which shows that 30% uplift is “generally viable at 2020 land and sales values” (paragraph 113 of the Protecting the Environment Topic Paper). The Protecting the Environment Topic Paper refers to precedents set elsewhere in the UK. Having reviewed the examples given, London seeks 35% uplift but Milton Keynes and Reading only seek a 19% uplift. We do not consider that Solihull has sufficiently justified why it is proposing an uplift of 30%.
In relation to developments providing at least 15% of energy from renewables, consideration should be given to the capital cost and land take involved to achieve this requirement which we do not consider has been undertaken in the Council’s evidence base. Furthermore, it should be noted that it is now the case that sourcing energy from the National Grid can actually, in some cases be more sustainable than small scale renewable energy production as each year they are sourcing more of their energy from renewable sources.
The Council’s viability appraisal sets out that circa £6,000 per dwelling has been allowed for in order to meet the future homes standard and provide electric vehicle charging required by Policy P9. We consider that this is a significant amount of money per dwelling just to meet energy requirements without any of the other requirements being sought in the plan to be taken into account e.g. affordable housing, specialist housing, accessible dwellings, Green – Belt compensation and other S106 contributions and CIL monies that will be sought by the Council and statutory consultees.

Amend Policy P9 to ‘encourage’ development to apply the energy hierarchy to reduce energy demand and minimise carbon dioxide emissions. The policy should state that this will be subject to viability and suitability considerations at the application stage. The requirement to reduce energy demand to over and above Building Regulations Part L should be removed as this does not comply with the PPG.

Policy P10
We note that reference is made to the requirement for a “net gain” in biodiversity of at least
10% compared with the pre-development baseline. It is not clear whether the Council intend to
bring a 10% requirement in ahead of the Environment Bill being passed, which is potentially
before the Plan’s scheduled adoption. We do not consider that the Council is justified in
bringing this requirement forward ahead of the Bill being progressed through parliament, and
secondary legislation has been passed and brought into effect.
We support reference to Natural England standing advice in relation to ancient woodland and
veteran trees. This is the most appropriate guidance to take note of in respect of these trees.
16 i makes reference to development proposals being required to demonstrate that they have
considered impact on tranquility. We request that the Council clarify what is meant the
reference to “tranquility”, and how the impact on tranquility can be effectively measured. We
are unsure how this will be assessed as part of a planning application. Without this evidence
we do not consider the policy as written to be justified or effective.

The requirement for a biodiversity net gain of 10% should be removed from this
policy and any requirements left to SPD once the Environment Bill is passed and
secondary legislation has been brought in.

Policy P15
Bloor Homes consider that climate change considerations should be a ‘fabric first’ approach to build i.e. building in such efficiencies to new homes that reduce the call on energy demand in the first place and avoids ‘retro fits’.
We generally support the approach to this draft policy but suggest that amendments are required to 2iv and 7 to make the policy more effective.

We request that the following amendments are made to the wording of this policy:
Point 2 iv of this policy should be amended as follows: “Where possible, make appropriate provision for water management within development, without causing unacceptable harm to retained features, utilising innovative design solutions.” The reason for adding “where possible” is to ensure that allowance can be made for site specific constraints such as ground conditions that may be present preventing delivery of SuDS.

Policy P17
When defining Green Belt boundaries, the NPPF states that Local Plans should “be able to
demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan
period” (Paragraph 139e). The Council’s evidence base acknowledges that there are limited
brownfield opportunities left in Solihull and so to meet their housing needs Green Belt release
is needed for this Local Plan Review and may therefore will be needed again in future reviews.
The NPPF encourages Councils to identify areas of safeguarded land in order to meet longerterm
development needs beyond the plan period (paragraph 139c). However, the Council has
not sought to safeguard any land for development as part of the Local Plan Review. This is
particularly surprising where the housing requirement for the Borough has been the subject of
several key influences, including proposed changes to the standard method and the HMA
shortfall (Birmingham and Black Country).
In order to be consistent with national policy, we consider that the Council should identify
areas of land that could be released from the Green Belt in this Local Plan Review and
safeguarded for future development should the Council not be able to meet their housing
needs or the housing needs of the HMA during the next plan period.
As stated in our separate response to Policy P5, a significant HMA housing shortfall is
expected from 2031 so it is likely that Solihull will need to contribute additional dwellings to
assist in addressing this shortfall. Therefore, safeguarding land for the future is needed in
order to meet the longer term development needs of the HMA.
When identifying potential sites to release from the Green Belt and safeguard, the Council
should choose sites in lower performing Green Belt parcels, which are adjacent to sustainable
settlements, accessible and considered suitable, achievable and deliverable in the Council’s SHELAA (Category 1). Our client’s land at Our client’s site at land east of Tilehouse Lane,
Tidbury Green (Site reference 192) is being promoted for circa 300 dwellings and public open
space. The site is located immediately adjacent to Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green in area
which has been expanded and is identified for further expansion (BL1 – Land west of Dickens
Heath) in the Submission Draft given its accessibility and sustainability.
In the Council’s evidence base site 192:
 is located within a lower performing Green Belt parcel;
 is located within a Medium / Low landscape parcel;
 has ‘Medium / High’ accessibility;
 is a Category 1 site in the Site Assessment Paper as it performs well against the suitability,
availability and achievability assessments.

To provide a plan which is more effective and responsive to these variables we consider that
the Council should have tested a number of scenarios and provided appropriate allocations
and safeguarded areas to enable them to flexibly respond to the ever changing
circumstances. We request that the Council consider identifying areas of land that could be
released from the Green Belt in this Local Plan Review and safeguarded for future
development should the Council not be able to meet their housing needs or the housing needs
of the HMA during the next plan period.
We consider that additional allocations and/or safeguarded ;and should be identified and in
that regard we consider that site 192 (land east of Tilehouse Lane, Tidbury Green) is a
suitable and sustainable opportunity that is deliverable.

Policy P17A
The planning practice guidance states that compensatory improvements to environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt will be incorporated into a Section 106 agreement. The NPPF (paragraph 138) does not specifically state that Green Belt compensation has to be sought through S106 contributions. The PPG states that compensation can be secured through CIL or conditions and the S106 can be used to set out the long-term maintenance of sites (Reference ID: 64-002-20190722). As Solihull is a CIL charging authority, we consider that the Council should also set out Green Belt compensation projects which can be paid for through CIL. The PPG states that when setting out policies for compensatory improvements, they may be “informed by supporting evidence of landscape, biodiversity or recreational needs and opportunities including those set out in local strategies, and could for instance include: new or enhanced green infrastructure; woodland planting; landscape and visual enhancements (beyond those needed to mitigate the immediate impacts of the proposal); improvements to biodiversity, habitat connectivity and natural capital; new or enhanced walking and cycle routes; and improved access to new, enhanced or existing recreational and playing field provision” (Reference ID: 64-002-20190722). As local communities receive a percentage of the CIL contribution this could enable the local communities to identify the projects that they would like compensation to fund.
In terms of Green Belt compensation, there may be circumstances where the Green Belt compensation cannot be provided effectively on site or it could significantly reduce the net developable area of the proposed allocation. Where these circumstance exist, the Council should have an effective strategy in place that enables off site contributions to be made to Green Belt mitigation in other locations e.g. through the identification of donor sites.
Additionally, the Council has not provided any indication of how the level of compensation will be determined. We request that a formula or calculation be provided in order to determine the level of contribution that may be provided to allow developers to plan for this requirement on top of the other contributions / requirements being sought in the Local Plan Review.

We request that the Council amend Policy P17A to refer to the use of CIL as well as S106 agreements to set out the Green Belt compensation projects. We also seek confirmation from the Council as to the level of compensation that will be requested for sites removed from the Green Belt.

Policy P18
We object to the requirement at 2 vii for all new development to deliver new and improved health services. This is not justified and therefore not effective due to requirement being placed on all development sites without site specific consideration. Delivering new and improved health facilities as part of all new developments. New health facilities should not be a blanket requirement no all new developments and should be considered on a site by site basis. Where improvements are needed in health services or facilities, but a new building or facility is not required, then financial contributions could be sought to improve existing facilities.

We propose that the policy is amended to allow for financial contributions where improvements are identified as the necessary mitigation to make development acceptable in planning terms.

Policy P20
We object to the requirement in point 10 that new development should look to accommodate the needs of existing population. Although it is likely that the existing population will use any open space provided, it should be recognised that any contribution or enhancement to be agreed through a section 106 agreement should be directly related to the development and take account of the tests of Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and NPPF paragraph 54 and 56. In essence new development should only seek to mitigate the impacts arising from tat development and not resolve existing deficiencies.

Point 10 of the policy should be amended to remove the reference to providing for the open space needs of the existing population as this would be contrary to Reg122.

As a resident of Dickens Heath for some 28 years, I originally support the first development of 750 dwellings but cannot support this new development. I object to planning 350 more houses in Dickens Heath site BL1 for the following reasons:

The proposed site is classed as flood zone 1, however, the area floods every single year, and the drains in the area cannot cope. The surface water drains are designed for a rural area, not an urban one. The drains are basically open ditches that are poorly maintained. Every time there is heavy rainfall on Tilehouse Lane and Tythe Barn Lane the drains are overflowing with water lying on the roads. The last time flooding warnings were ignored by the Solihull council, the development by Bellway Homes on Dickens Heath Road (0.25 miles away) ended up flooding the newly built houses and families had to vacate from their homes within the first year of living there. This has resulted in the insurance companies increasing premiums in this area. The area is wet and prone to flooding already with rugby and football matches often postponed during the winter periods due to waterlogging. This area is of bolder clay that restricts permeability. Given the fact that a sustainable urban drainage (SUD) system is proposed, proves the unsustainability of this site when other “Amber” sites have far fewer constraints.

The whole foul sewerage system will have to be upgraded/replaced and the current pump station on Tythe Barn Lane will not be able to cope with the extra demand which will result in the overflowing of sewerage.

The area is a habitat for natural wildlife with foxes, deer, badgers, and bats often seen on Tythe Barn Lane and surrounding fields, Unfortunately, they are also often found dead in the roads in this area. The building on these fields will disturb wildlife and take away their habitat. These objections were ignored by the Council previously when the new Bellway Development and our house on Dickens Heath Road were twice occupied by bats. It should not be allowed to build 350 houses only a few yards from where these animals live (Tythe Barn). This development will result in more street lights and lighting from houses which will affect their feeding and foraging and will lead to the needless deaths of a species that has an already declining population. There has been no bat survey report nor any mitigation plan/method statement in the planning application. Site BL1 is a Green Belt area, which has not been taken into consideration in the Sustainability Appraisal. Central Government Policy is to protect the Green Belt and develop on Brownfield land first.

The increase of residents in Dickens Heath will put added pressure on Solihull Health Partnership which is at a breaking point. To get a doctor's appointment it takes a month due to the waiting times. The council is already failing its current constituents with the lack of services, why put added pressure on this issue by adding a further 350 homes to the local area. Additional to this, the Whitlocks End Station car park was only extended a few years ago and it already cannot facilitate the growing population in the local area. There are new housing plots on Tilehouse Lane and Lowbrook Lane which are less than a mile from the proposed plot. Locals in the area should not suffer from being unable to use facilities due to the council accepting ill-thought-out developments. The extra strain on the Council and local schools will result in the busing of not just secondary school children but also nursey / junior school children or an increase in car trips. The Council has reduced the opening times for the library due to budget restrictions and does not have the budget to maintain what it has let alone add to its commitments to the residents of the Borough.

Traffic on Dickens Heath Road is overflowing with traffic during rush hour. This traffic flows up Tythe Barn Lane. The roads and village were never built for this level of traffic it currently has and there are no plans to facilitate the growing population in the area. The first road design for the village was to discourage cars (improve buses and train links) and restrict parking. Adding another 350 houses when there are unfinished new building plots less than a mile away will make the area an incredibly inconvenient place to live. The Traffic Study does propose some works to improve the congestion in peak hours but the situation will be further exacerbated by the huge number of new homes proposed in the area and South Shirley. The Council only propose to solve the Village Centre parking problem by controlling some on-street parking which will not solve the existing problem and will only be made worse with more development. The narrow, rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded. The roads are breaking up at the moment resulting in several very large potholes which are dangerous to all road users and damaging vehicles.

There are two football clubs, a rugby club and a fit box club in the area proposed to build these new houses. Local sport, leisure, and physical activity can help people to live longer, healthier lives. This makes them fundamental to achieving councils’ aspirations for their communities. In the current economic climate and the face of national challenges such as obesity and mental health, these sports clubs need to stay in the local area. Other fields can be allocated but some upheaval to the clubs and members will result in more traffic.

The proposed development of 350 houses will not blend both visually and physically, with the award-winning Village of Dickens Heath and spoil the street scene. The character and setting of the Village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows.

The proposed development is not within a recognized walking distance from the Village Centre facilities, so further adds to the un-sustainability of the development. The Council state that a new footpath will be needed to the private road of Birchy Close to reduce the walking distance but this is legally unachievable. A suggested new bus route down Birchy Leasowes Lane (which has a 40MPH speed limit?) could be provided but a bus physically cannot exit the junctions with Dickens Heath Road and Tllehouse Lane safely. At Dickens Heath junction, the ancient woodland and settling ponds on either side of this junction would inhibit any road improvement which has very little vision splay back toward the Village. The junction at Tilehouse Raod is waiting for a serious accident with the vision splay towards the station very poor and the sharp bend towards Tilbury Green making it very difficult to exit.

The Sustainability Appraisal tries to prove that this Site is sustainable when it clearly is not, owing to the numerous mitigation measures proposed to try and make it sustainable, some of which are unachievable. Over 39% of the 15,000 homes proposed in Solihull is based in Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green. There has been no consideration for the upheaval these mitigation measures such as road closures will have on the residents who already have to deal with so much traffic due to the many new housing estates continually being built in the area.

I sincerely hope my above points are considered and this is not just a tick box exercise for the Council who I realize also have to find areas for housing to accommodate residents of Birmingham.

I objective based on the following issues :

1. The land is high grade green belt and Government policy is to protect Green Belt and develop Brownfield land first.

2. Given I live next to the site I witness 1st hand the local wildlife – birds, deer, badgers, owls, bats, foxes within this development, the development will be detrimental to this wildlife, the ancient woodland/trees that are in and around this proposed site.
3. The narrow rural road network cannot take further development, the roads are already overloaded, we regularly see queuing traffic, and now not just at peak times. Due to size of Dickens heath we are now seeing more large format vehicles – lorries, vans and the roads struggle already.
With more development will come more cars and increased road usage and logically this queuing traffic will increase - as a result I am also increasingly concerned about air pollution and the impacts on health – and that there is no plan or consideration for this issue.
4. The proposed site is mostly in flood Zone 1, these fields flood every winter, and when there is a particularly heavy rainfall – this area mainly consists of bolder clay that restricts permeability. With increased development the removal of trees I am concerned that flooding will increase.
5. There are numerous sports fields included in this development - this reduces the access to activities that keep people fit physically and mentally - effecting local children and adults who play rugby and football on these fields. We should be protecting and encouraging sports in age where fitness is more important than ever. In the plan there is no confirmed replacement for these.

6. On the grounds of sustainability, many of the mitigation measures included in the plan are not achievable, therefore it isn’t sustainable. Other sites are more sustainable.
7. The character and setting of Dickens Heath as a village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows – this development will expand the village – to the point where it merges with other surrounding villages/towns & other surrounding developments.

I objective based on the following issues :

1. The land is high grade green belt and Government policy is to protect Green Belt and develop Brownfield land first.

2. Given I live next to the site I witness 1st hand the local wildlife – birds, deer, badgers, owls, bats, foxes within this development, the development will be detrimental to this wildlife, the ancient woodland/trees that are in and around this proposed site.
3. The narrow rural road network cannot take further development, the roads are already overloaded, we regularly see queuing traffic, and now not just at peak times. Due to size of Dickens heath we are now seeing more large format vehicles – lorries, vans and the roads struggle already.
With more development will come more cars and increased road usage and logically this queuing traffic will increase - as a result I am also increasingly concerned about air pollution and the impacts on health – and that there is no plan or consideration for this issue.
4. The proposed site is mostly in flood Zone 1, these fields flood every winter, and when there is a particularly heavy rainfall – this area mainly consists of bolder clay that restricts permeability. With increased development the removal of trees I am concerned that flooding will increase.
5. There are numerous sports fields included in this development - this reduces the access to activities that keep people fit physically and mentally - effecting local children and adults who play rugby and football on these fields. We should be protecting and encouraging sports in age where fitness is more important than ever. In the plan there is no confirmed replacement for these.

6. On the grounds of sustainability, many of the mitigation measures included in the plan are not achievable, therefore it isn’t sustainable. Other sites are more sustainable.
7. The character and setting of Dickens Heath as a village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows – this development will expand the village – to the point where it merges with other surrounding villages/towns & other surrounding developments.

Dear Sir,
I am writing to register my objections to the proposed further development of Dickens Heath. My objections are as follows:
I have lived in **** since 1984, and would like to remind the council of how residents of Dickens Heath were deceived by Solihull Council as to the initial scope of development of Dickens Heath Village.
Prior to the initial development the crime rate in Birchy Close and surrounding area was zero, now anti social behaviour is a big problem with gangs of young people and drugs to the becoming a tremendous problem. Why do you continue to develop and destroy our community and local countryside?
With regard to the proposed plans in particular around SITE 4, this would adversely impact on the community of Dickens Heath, Wythall, Tidbury Green and Earlswood even more, after already being majorly hit by extra houses being built in the area. The negative impact will be enourmous with, People, families, particularly teenagers and youngsters who use the sports facilities of Old Yardleyians and Highgate United and other outdoor sporting facilities, having no where to go for recreational activities. As well as the corridor that these facilities provide for wild life. Monk jack deer already have had their natural environment destroyed and are struggling to fine areas to reside in.
The road network in the area cannot cope with the existing traffic. One only has to travel towards Shirley or Solihull between 8 & 9am to endure the traffic jam. There is only one main route through Dickens heath from the surrounding areas and this road is nowhere near substantial enough for the traffic load now without anymore being added. The main road still allows people to park on and therefore restricts it down to one lane which causes major traffic jams and is dangerous and difficult for emergency vehicles to get through. When there is a problem on the nearby M42 traffic is often diverted this way too and the road can not withstand all these extra vehicles, particularly large lorries, the Dustbin and recycling lorries struggle as it is.
I trust you will take my concerns into account in your considerations and not turn what was one a beautiful semi rural area with a lovely community spirit into a hell hole of a place to live. We have already had more than our fair share of extra development in this small area.

I have monitored the proposals on this site over the last few years and have contributed my thoughts to the local community.

Firstly, unlike members of Solihull Council and in particular the planning committee, I was actually born on this area, not hospital, I was raised here and still living here. Over a 20 year period I was part of the committee at one of the sports clubs, extending facilities, working with governing bodies, including sport England. Blood Sweat and tears go into these clubs and it way more than just a muddy field where kids kick about! There are in region of 40 teams on these facilities, Men, Women, Kids and it is a community in its self, offering support to the players and their families and extended families who all enjoy a breath of fresh air, exercise, meals, snack, drinks and paid roles even if to glass collectors, cleaners, kitchen staff as well as many volunteering roles. It is where kids learn values not just to play a game.

The sports fields are not being relocated fairly or following Sport England recommendation of Like for Like. Far from it! The upheaval itself is huge and with all the history & effort gone into building their clubs it is not acceptable to have it all taken away. In fact it is a preposterous idea of which we residents believe not enough thought or consideration has gone into.

1. The Council have not undergone a proper scrutiny of all other more sustainable sites in a sequential test that would have fewer constraints if the Sustainability Appraisal had been carried out correctly in the first place, before the site allocation, rather than trying to make the pre-selected site allocations fit the Plan.
2. This proposed development will be un-associated, both visually and physically, with the award-winning Village of Dickens Heath. The character and setting of the Village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows. The proposal falls outside the Village’s built-up boundary.
3. Site 4 is surrounded by Local Wildlife Sites and Ancient Woodland. Although the Council state that to mitigate for the proposed development the area can be enhanced, they have not considered the very important connectivity of these important ecological sites. Indeed, Natural England have stated that “Ensure current ecological networks are not compromised, and future improvements in habitat connectivity are not prejudiced.”
4. Traffic & Village centre parking. The Traffic Study does propose some works to improve the congestion in peak hours but the situation will be further exacerbated by the huge number of new homes proposed in the Blythe area and South Shirley. The Council only propose to solve the Village Centre parking problem by controlling some on-street parking which will not solve the existing problem and will only be made worse with more development. The narrow, rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded.
5. The proposed development is not within a recognised walking distance from the Village Centre facilities, so further adds to the un-sustainability of the development. The Council state that a new footpath will be needed to the private road of Birchy Close to reduce the walking distance but this is legally unachievable. They suggest that a new bus route down Birchy Leasowes Lane could be provided but how will a bus exit the junction with Dickens Heath Road safely? At this junction the ancient woodland either side of this junction would inhibit any road improvement which has not been recommended. All the proposed footpaths are welcomed and should have been put in place many years ago to facilitate the extensions of the existing Village. The Village already acts as a commuter settlement with higher than average car ownership. Additional housing will only exacerbate the use of the car contributing to global warming.
6. Although the flooding report states that Site 4 is mostly in flood Zone 1, local residents have evidence that the sports fields flood nearly every year because of the increased rainfall due to climate change and the fact that this area is of bolder clay that restricts permeability. Even given the fact that a sustainable urban drainage (SUD) system is proposed, this all adds to the unsustainability of this site when other “Amber” sites have far less constraints.

Finally the infrastructure of Tilehouse Lane and Tythe Barn Lane is noy equipped for this development nor does it have the ability to be adapted accordingly. They are country lanes running on their maximum with regards to road widths and utility supplies.

I would like my objections taken into account along with all the other hundreds from the Village of Dickens Heath alone.

I would like to object to the proposed site plan BL1 on the following :

Believe the plan/amount of houses should be recalcalculated due to covid/change of circumstances to which people now work from home, town centres now unused, which could be converted into living accommodation.

Site 4, west of Dickens Heath (also referenced as BL1) is in a high performing Green Belt area, which has not been taken into consideration in the Sustainability Appraisal. Central Government Policy is to protect green belt and develop Brownfield sites first.

The Sustainability Appraisal tries to prove that this Site is sustainable when it clearly is not, owing to the numerous mitigation measures proposed to try and make it sustainable, some of which are unachievable.

The Council have not undergone a proper scrutiny of all other more sustainable sites in a sequential test that would have fewer constraints if the Sustainability Appraisal had been carried out correctly in the first place, before the site allocation, rather than trying to make the pre-selected sites fit the Plan

This proposed development will be un-associated, both, both visually and physically, with the award-winning Village of Dickens Heath. The character and setting of the Village will be adversely affected, sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong defendable boundaries to the village, being the canals, woodlands and ancient hedgerows. This site falls outside the village's built up boundary.

Site 4 is surrounded by Local Wildlife Sites and Ancient Woodland. Although the Council state that to mitigate for the proposed development the area can be enhanced, they have not consdered the very important connectivity of these important ecological sites. Natural England state that 'ensure current ecological networks are not compramised, and future improvements in habitat connectivity are not prejudiced'. Daily we have wildlife making its way across our garden as a thoroughfare to the top of Birchy Close.

Traffic and Village centre parking. The Traffic Study does propose some works to improve the congestion in peak hours but the situation will be further exacerbated by the huge number of new homes proposed in the Blythe area and South Shirley. The Council only propose to solve the Village Centre parking problem by controlling some on-street parking which will not solve the existing problem and will only be made worse with more development. The narrow, rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded.

The proposed development is not within a recognised walking distance from the VillageCentre facilities, so further adds to the un-sustainability of the development. The Council
state that a new footpath will be needed to the private road of Birchy Close to reduce the walking distance but this is legally unachievable. They suggest that a new bus route ddownBirchy Leasowes Lane could be provided but how will a bus exit the junction with Dickens Heath Road safely? At this junction the ancient woodland either side of this junction would inhibit any road improvement which has not been recommended. All the proposed footpaths are welcomed and should have been put in place many years ago to facilitate the extensions of the existing Village. The Village already acts as a commuter settlement with higher than average car ownership. Additional housing will only exacerbate the use of the car contributing to global warming.
Although the flooding report states that Site 4 is mostly in flood Zone 1, this cannot be true, our garden (inc neighbours) are regularly flooded, and not just in the winter making them unuseable, so cannot understand why it is rated as Zone 1. The sports fields which are directly behind/at the side of our garden is not useable most of the year due to flooding.

Please relook at the proposal, and reconsider what other areas are far better suited for development.

I would like to cite my opposition to the proposal to build 350 homes on the sports fields site in Dickens Heath. I have two main concerns:

As developments in this area have grown and green space has lessened, the site has become increasingly important for wildlife. Site 4 is surrounded by local wildlife sites and ancient woodland and this building project will devastate the populations of deer, badgers, bats and other wildlife that roam in these fields and adjoining woodland.

I am also seriously concerned about the loss of community green space and sports facilities; the land is home to various sports clubs including Old Yardleians Rugby Club, Highgate Football Club and Wychall Wanderers Football Club, as well as Fitbox bootcamp on the rugby field and I am most concerned about the potential loss of these facilities for local people. Sporting activities are vital to the social, emotional and physical wellbeing of children and adults alike and I cannot overstate the negative effect that losing these facilities would have.

There are also concerns around the site being prone to significant flooding and the impact that the increase in traffic would have on a narrow road system that is already struggling to cope, which I am sure other objectors will discuss in more detail.

I do hope that you incorporate the voices of local people into your considerations and that you feel able to support us by refusing permission for the redevelopment of Site 4.

There are a number of potential problems with this development:

1) There has not been a full analysis carried out on the number of new homes that could be developed on Brownfield land around Solihull Town Centre following the closure of many shops and office facilities so surely this needs to be investigated before any high performing green belt sites are released. Isn’t it Central Government Policy is to protect the Green Belt and develop Brown Field sites first?
2) Development of the proposed site will undoubtedly have a significant adverse effect on the local Wildlife sites and also Ancient Woodland.
3) Development of the site is un-sustainable despite claims to the contrary from the Sustainability Appraisal, this is also indicated by the vast amount of mitigation that the council has already suggested would be needed to permit the development to proceed.
4) The proposed re-location of the Sports Fields is fundamentally flawed. The upheaval to the club members and relocation of the facilities is not practical, also the proposed new site is insufficient for the needs of the clubs involved.
5) The proposed development will not integrate with the existing award winning village of Dickens Heath. The character of the village will be adversely affected and it’s identity compromised.
6) Site 4 / BL1 is surrounded by both local Wildlife Sites and Ancient Woodland. Natural England have clearly stated that current ecological networks should not be compromised and future improvements in habitat connectivity are not prejudiced, have the council taken this into consideration?
7) Traffic & Parking - This is probably one of the most significant problems in the village as it stands today. Any plans to expand this further will only exacerbate the problem further not to mention provide the potential for a more serious accident in an area which is already significantly overdeveloped.
8) The proposed development is not within “easy” walking distance from the village centre facilities which further adds to the un-sustainability of the development. The council have stated that a new footpath would be needed to the PRIVATE road of Birchy Close to reduce the walking distance but this is not viable or legally achievable?
9) The Village is already serving as a commuter settlement due to the increased levels of car ownership, any additional housing will only exacerbate this and contribute further to pollution levels and global warming.
10) The council’s flooding report states that Site 4 is mostly in Flood Zone 1, however those of us that actually live in these areas are able to testify otherwise, for example the sports fields flood multiple time every year now as a result of increased rainfall and the known fact that the area has a high content of bolder clay that inhibits and restricts drainage. Any further dwellings will again only exacerbate this problem.

I trust my comments and input will be taken into consideration at the appropriate time along with the views of other residents who are opposed to this proposal.

I objective based on the following issues :

1. The land is high grade green belt and Government policy is to protect Green Belt and develop Brownfield land first.

2. Given I live next to the site I witness 1st hand the local wildlife – birds, deer, badgers, owls, bats, foxes within this development, the development will be detrimental to this wildlife, the ancient woodland/trees that are in and around this proposed site.
3. The narrow rural road network cannot take further development, the roads are already overloaded, we regularly see queuing traffic, and now not just at peak times. Due to size of Dickens heath we are now seeing more large format vehicles – lorries, vans and the roads struggle already.
With more development will come more cars and increased road usage and logically this queuing traffic will increase - as a result I am also increasingly concerned about air pollution and the impacts on health – and that there is no plan or consideration for this issue.
4. The proposed site is mostly in flood Zone 1, these fields flood every winter, and when there is a particularly heavy rainfall – this area mainly consists of bolder clay that restricts permeability. With increased development the removal of trees I am concerned that flooding will increase.
5. There are numerous sports fields included in this development - this reduces the access to activities that keep people fit physically and mentally - effecting local children and adults who play rugby and football on these fields. We should be protecting and encouraging sports in age where fitness is more important than ever. In the plan there is no confirmed replacement for these.

6. On the grounds of sustainability, many of the mitigation measures included in the plan are not achievable, therefore it isn’t sustainable. Other sites are more sustainable.
7. The character and setting of Dickens Heath as a village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows – this development will expand the village – to the point where it merges with other surrounding villages/towns & other surrounding developments.

As a resident of Rumbush Lane in Dickens Heath, I am registering my objection to the above proposed plans for additional housing.

1) The road network is already overloaded a d cannot take more traffic. Specifically, Tythe Barn Lane is a complete rat run and clogged with traffic at peak times, yet does not even have double yellow lines to prevent roadside parking,
as we do on parts of Rumbush Lane

2) The plans involve building on green belt land and on playing fields used by local residents

3) There are already issues with flooding in Dickens Heath, for on low-lying parts of Dickens Heath Road; this development involves building on flood plans currently in flood which will further natural reduce flood drainage

4) Further development threatens the defined boundaries of the village and its character; many choose to live here because it is a village with a thriving centre outside the town - this development risks us becoming yet another town in the wider West Midlands conurbation

There are other brownfield sites available - please reconsider whether ‘bolting on’ to an existing, successful VILLAGE really is the best option.

I wish you to register this email as my submission and objection to the proposals in the Solihull Local Plan dated October 2020. In particular I am writing to object to the proposals under Blythe BL1. My objections are as follows:
1. I moved to the above address in the spring of this year and in that short time I have encountered numerous incidents of flooding in my road and the surrounding area. The water table is high, my garden is already sodden from the rain this week and the culvert on my boundary appears as a river, despite the beginning of the culvert only being some 10 years beyond my property. Traffic already suffers from being diverted when the road floods and alternate routes need to be taken. I am aware that this year, since I’ve moved here, Haslucks Green Road, Birchy Leasowes Lane, Houndsfield Road, Norton Lane / Rumbush Lane junction and Dickens Heath village itself have all had diversions because of flooding in the roads.
2. My property overlooks the fields in question, which are immediately adjacent. There is an enormous amount of wildlife in these fields. There are daily sightings of deer and foxes. We have owls, bats, woodpeckers and any amount of beautiful birds who will lose their extensive rich habitat if the proposed development takes place.
3. The village of Dickens Heath is within my walking distance but it is already at capacity. Parking is frequently an issue, even with the slowdown of lockdown and tier 3 it is impossible to pop into the village to collect a takeaway or do some essential shopping at the one shop (Tesco) without being prepared to wait for a parking space. The character of the village will be detrimentally changed with a large development on this site as it appears that the proposals would increase the capacity of dwellings by some 20%. There is only one doctors surgery AND NO POST OFFICE in Dickens Heath. Despite the proposals for a walkway or a cycle path, this would not sufficiently service the additional population with their daily needs and the roads, which are already busy and overloaded, would not be able to cope.
4. Birchy Leasowes Lane is narrow. Traffic already has to slow down to pass oncoming traffic. The road cannot be widened as it has drainage ditches both sides. The end of Birchy Leasowes Lane at the junction with Tilehouse Lane is a traffic blackspot as faster moving traffic in the latter road speeds around the bend at the point of the junction and there is no proper visibility.
5. The site itself is prime greenbelt land. It is the government’s policy to use available brownfields sites in priority. The site is not suitable for development. It is prone to flooding within its boundaries.
6. The Solihull Local Plan (paragraph 65) discusses spatial strategy. I suggest that the land in question is not highly accessible. It is bounded by two lanes and a B road which is already at capacity. One of the lanes is so narrow that it has traffic calming bollards only allowing one vehicle through at once. There is a suggestion that the proposed settlement will be able to take advantage of the existing facilities in the village. The village cannot cope with such expansion. It was not designed for such an expansion and the village is already larger than originally planned for. The nearest primary school is at capacity and has no chance of expansion. The second nearest primary school would be a drive away (not a walk) for most of the new development.
7. There is a suggestion that some of the proposed new housing would be for those wishing to downsize or for those needing care. Nearby Shirley Town, along the busy A34, has several new developments catering for this need and far outnumbers other types of housing.
8. There are bus stops around the village. The service is poor, buses are rare. Prior to the pandemic the car park at Whitlocks End station was at capacity, in fact there is no space to be had in the car park after 7.30am. so public transport will need to be enhanced.
9. There is a suggestion that the existing sports facilities, football clubs etc will be rehoused. They are perfect where they are. Moving them may not be adequate and would inevitably mean more cars on the roads as the existing ones are accessed from the urban edge of Birmingham, and not through the countryside.

I objective based on the following issues :

1. The land is high grade green belt and Government policy is to protect Green Belt and develop Brownfield land first.

2. Given I live next to the site I witness 1st hand the local wildlife – birds, deer, badgers, owls, bats, foxes within this development, the development will be detrimental to this wildlife, the ancient woodland/trees that are in and around this proposed site.
3. The narrow rural road network cannot take further development, the roads are already overloaded, we regularly see queuing traffic, and now not just at peak times. Due to size of Dickens heath we are now seeing more large format vehicles – lorries, vans and the roads struggle already.
With more development will come more cars and increased road usage and logically this queuing traffic will increase - as a result I am also increasingly concerned about air pollution and the impacts on health – and that there is no plan or consideration for this issue.
4. The proposed site is mostly in flood Zone 1, these fields flood every winter, and when there is a particularly heavy rainfall – this area mainly consists of bolder clay that restricts permeability. With increased development the removal of trees I am concerned that flooding will increase.
5. There are numerous sports fields included in this development - this reduces the access to activities that keep people fit physically and mentally - effecting local children and adults who play rugby and football on these fields. We should be protecting and encouraging sports in age where fitness is more important than ever. In the plan there is no confirmed replacement for these.

6. On the grounds of sustainability, many of the mitigation measures included in the plan are not achievable, therefore it isn’t sustainable. Other sites are more sustainable.
7. The character and setting of Dickens Heath as a village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows – this development will expand the village – to the point where it merges with other surrounding villages/towns & other surrounding developments.

I objective based on the following issues :

1. The land is high grade green belt and Government policy is to protect Green Belt and develop Brownfield land first.

2. Given I live next to the site I witness 1st hand the local wildlife – birds, deer, badgers, owls, bats, foxes within this development, the development will be detrimental to this wildlife, the ancient woodland/trees that are in and around this proposed site.
3. The narrow rural road network cannot take further development, the roads are already overloaded, we regularly see queuing traffic, and now not just at peak times. Due to size of Dickens heath we are now seeing more large format vehicles – lorries, vans and the roads struggle already.
With more development will come more cars and increased road usage and logically this queuing traffic will increase - as a result I am also increasingly concerned about air pollution and the impacts on health – and that there is no plan or consideration for this issue.
4. The proposed site is mostly in flood Zone 1, these fields flood every winter, and when there is a particularly heavy rainfall – this area mainly consists of bolder clay that restricts permeability. With increased development the removal of trees I am concerned that flooding will increase.
5. There are numerous sports fields included in this development - this reduces the access to activities that keep people fit physically and mentally - effecting local children and adults who play rugby and football on these fields. We should be protecting and encouraging sports in age where fitness is more important than ever. In the plan there is no confirmed replacement for these.

6. On the grounds of sustainability, many of the mitigation measures included in the plan are not achievable, therefore it isn’t sustainable. Other sites are more sustainable.
7. The character and setting of Dickens Heath as a village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows – this development will expand the village – to the point where it merges with other surrounding villages/towns & other surrounding developments.

I objective based on the following issues :

My objections are as follows:

* There are numerous sports fields included so this will affect our children (and adults) who play rugby and football on these fields, including Old Yardleians Rugby Club, Highgate Football Club and Wychall Wanderers Football Club, as well as Fitbox boot camp on the rugby field.

* The land is high grade GREEN BELT – Government policy is to protect Green Belt and develop Brownfield land first.

* Site 4 is surrounded by Local Wildlife Sites and Ancient Woodland – this will be so detrimental to the deer, badgers, bats and other wildlife that roam in these fields and adjoining woodland.

* The narrow rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded.

* Site 4 is mostly in flood Zone 1, these fields flood every winter and whenever there is a particularly heavy rainfall as the area is of bolder clay that restricts permeability.

* Sustainability – Some of the mitigation measures included in the Plan are not achievable, therefore it isn’t sustainable. Other sites are more sustainable.

* The character and setting of the Village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows.

I objective based on the following issues :

My objections are as follows:

* There are numerous sports fields included so this will affect our children (and adults) who play rugby and football on these fields, including Old Yardleians Rugby Club, Highgate Football Club and Wychall Wanderers Football Club, as well as Fitbox boot camp on the rugby field.

* The land is high grade GREEN BELT – Government policy is to protect Green Belt and develop Brownfield land first.

* Site 4 is surrounded by Local Wildlife Sites and Ancient Woodland – this will be so detrimental to the deer, badgers, bats and other wildlife that roam in these fields and adjoining woodland.

* The narrow rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded.

* Site 4 is mostly in flood Zone 1, these fields flood every winter and whenever there is a particularly heavy rainfall as the area is of bolder clay that restricts permeability.

* Sustainability – Some of the mitigation measures included in the Plan are not achievable, therefore it isn’t sustainable. Other sites are more sustainable.

* The character and setting of the Village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows.

look at brown sites to use as alternatives

I am writing to object to the plans to build on site number 4 for the following reasons:

The land is high grade GREEN BELT and therefore I cannot understand why it is now being considered for building on, Surely this land should continue to be protected?

As GREEN BELT land the site and the surrounding area is home to so much WILDLIFE and ANCIENT WOODLAND!
Would you want your home to be destroyed to build on? What about Deer, badgers, bats and other wildlife
What makes it acceptable to destroy this green belt land and animals HAVE NO VOICE.

On a different note the local infrastructure is already struggling and cannot support more housing. It is already overloaded, 350 more houses would overloaded it even more, therefore more traffic, pressure on school places and the affect on air quality for residents.

Site 4 floods quite often, whenever there is a heavy rain which is frequent, this would cause further issues.

The character of Dickens heath will also be affected and numerous sports fields would be affected.
So our children and adults could not play rugby, football, go to bootcamp. What about the populations MENTAL HEALTH ? we all know this has already been compromised with the current pandemic,

Please reconsider using site 4 and look at brown sites to use as alternatives, that have previously been built on, please please leave the countryside alone for future generations to enjoy, we will have none left it this building continues at the current rate, it is absolutely devastating!!!

Please accept this as an objection on the current development proposals (including site 4) which will have knock on impact on residents in neighbouring Majors Green.

My objections include

- this is green belt land. Green belt should be preserved, with brown field sites being redeveloped first.
- I have witnessed numerous deers which will be made homeless
- you will be negatively impact the local nature
- the combined impacts of the developments of Solihull, Bromsgrove and Birmingham are unsustainable given the infrastructure. The roads are already experiencing heavy traffic, lots of wueues and unwelcome car emmissions
- numerous sports fields are included in the proposals which are essential for health and fitness. Current provisions enjoy plenty of options for parking and overflow being located near to the train station. Replacement proposals will reduce facilities and will result in parking problems and further car traffic and emissions as they wont be appropriately located.
- Site 4 is surrounded by Local Wildlife Sites and Ancient Woodland – this will be so detrimental to the deer, badgers, bats and other wildlife that roam in these fields and adjoining woodland. The wildlife corridor will be detrimentally impacted.
- The narrow rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded.
- The pavements, lighting and road infrasture in neighbouring Majors Green is not able to cope with futher development. Increased traffic unduly impacts the 'neighbours' without any investment.
- Site 4 is mostly in flood Zone 1, these fields flood every winter and whenever there is a particularly heavy rainfall as the area is of bolder clay that restricts permeability. The whole area is prone to flooding and any knock on impacts downstream needs to be calculated and mitigated.
- Sustainability – Some of the mitigation measures included in the Plan are not achievable, therefore it isn’t sustainable. Other sites are more sustainable.
- The definable boundary of Dickens Heath is being compromised and merged at the expense of green belt land.

Consultation Response to Draft Local Plan Shirley South Green Belt residential Development

I strongly OBJECT to this proposed residential development for the reasons I will refer to below:

The maintenance of sustainability of the development lack any consideration for the destruction of local habitat and ecological balance of this area. This is a time when greater consideration should be given to the environment.

The Shirley South area has the main burden of residential development in Solihull. I must highlight that Shirley and Blyth Valley area has already sustained significant redevelopment over the past 5 years.
Minor road improvements are the Councils only response and does not address the significant increased levels of traffic.
Why is Shirley taking the extra housing burden? Why is the additional housing not being absorbed within the Greater Birmingham's initiative to utilise the Brown Field First site strategy promoted by Andy Street.
Why is the council intent on devouring large swathes of ecological sensitive Green Belt?
This makes a complete mockery of the boroughs motto Urbs et Rure

The site is adjacent to Whitlock End/ Dickens Heath and is close to four local wildlife sites.
It is also only one kilometre from a further 6 significant ecological natural sites.
This development is too close to these sensitive sites and will have a catastrophic effect on the areas; flora, fauna and wildlife, not to mention the quality of life for human inhabitants.
These ecological sensitive high grade greenbelt sites perpetually flood and are therefore natural soak ways that mitigate local flood risk. Thoughtless development like this creates flood problems and removes the flood protection from the surrounding area it currently protects.
The Shirley area is a based on an ancient rural district, with lanes, bridle paths and narrow roads without pavement in many places. It has poor public transport, thereby making it a pedestrian and car dependant area. By increasing residential development this will exponentially increase car usage for each new household; the increase will be a 200% in car usage with a further potential increase of 200% because of natural family development. This development does not consider employment in rurally established areas; they are by their very nature further away from employment, creating further stress on a low-key rural infrastructure, over time this grows further as families develop with the school runs and further education.
Problems concerning utility infrastructure such as gas, water electricity and sewage and water pressure of existing utilities infrastructure is near to breaking point. 3 years ago the entire estate had a blackout over night which was a result of very old infrastructure which has not been improved and will have to support additional homes.
There is constant bolting on of new developments to existing services, which is, essentially on to the original rural setup. This is short sighted and piece meal, leading to an eventual collapse due to inadequate planning. This is highlights the council’s agenda to purely expand the council tax revenue base and has no consideration of the utility infrastructure for the current residents.
Solihull Council must bear in mind the recent changes to the High Street brought about by the pandemic and changes in people shopping habits, which have created a significant change to the retail structure in this area. Many units are falling empty all over the borough; Shirley is a prime example, with the loss of Morrisons and closure of shops on the High street (even charity organisations have vacated) and stores Parkgate closing down. In addition, many units in Solihull town centre are empty, with a huge hole being created with the planned relocation of M&S. This calls for a completelynew look at utilising the vacant units that will be left by the devastating impact of the aforementioned shopping and the reuse of brown field sites.

Another consequence of this development is the disproportionate effect that it will have on doctors and the wider health care provision. The existing GP surgeries and dentists are already full to breaking point and additional residents will only increase the problem. The existing system is stretched to breaking point with COVID as well as more residential developments already under construction. This will exponentially increase demand due to pressure of later life care, which is more complex and demanding. The health provision is exacerbated by the down grading of Solihull hospital surely this significant health resource should be upgraded rather than downgraded now to secure the existing population.
The Shirley South community is 100% against and OBJECTING this proposal. The Shirley South residents will not allow this Borough council to destroy the ecological balance, quality of life of existing residents any further with short-term revenue generation schemes.
The community of Solihull, South Shirley and the Blythe want to set trends with good sustainable development not shoddy cash grabs with disastrous environmental consequences.

Below are the reasons I object to planning 350 more houses in dickens heath site BL1:

• Flooding - the site is classed as flood zone 1, however the area floods every single year and the drains in the area cannot cope. Every time there is heavy rainfall on Tilehouse Lane and Tythe Barn Lane the drains are overflowing with water into the roads. The last time flooding warnings were ignored by Solihull council, the plot on Dickens Heath road (0.25 miles away) ended up flooding the newly built houses and families had to vacate from their homes within the first year of living there. The area cannot facilitate houses and by building more you put the houses in the surrounding area at risk of flooding also. This area is of bolder clay that restricts permeability. Given the fact that a sustainable urban drainage (SUD) system is proposed, proves the unsustainability of this site when other “Amber” sites have far less constraints.

• Green Belt - the land is high performing green belt area. The area is a habitat for natural wildlife. I personally have seen foxes, deer, and bats on numerous occasions on my walks on Tythe Barn lane and building on these plots will disturb wildlife and take away their homes. These objections were ignored by the council when the new plot on dickens heath road was proposed however it did seriously disturb and confuse the wildlife in the area. Two times bats flew into my aunty’s home on dickens heath road when the building works began, which proves the bats were disturbed and couldn’t find their roots. The area on Tythe Barn Lane is high grade green belt for a reason, it is there to protect natural wildlife. The barn on Tythe Barn Lane has never been able to be redeveloped due to it becoming a habitat for the bats. Bats are protected animals and it is illegal to disturb their habitat. We should not be allowed to build 350 houses only a few yards from where these animals live. It will lead to more street lights and lighting from houses which will affect their feeding and foraging and will lead to the needless deaths of a species that has a already declining population. There has been no bat survey report nor any mitigation plan/method statement into planning application. Site BL1 is a Green Belt area, which has not been taken into consideration in the Sustainability Appraisal. Central Government Policy is to protect the Green Belt and develop on Brownfield land first.


• Facilities - Solihull Heath Partnership is at breaking point and the move to telephone / video consultations has highlighted this (all evidence re this is available locally). I have not been able to book a much-needed doctors appointment for over a month due to the waiting times over the phone. The council is already failing it's current constituents with the lack of services, why put added pressure to this issue by adding a further 350 homes to the local area. As you are aware configuring a new GP surgery or expanding existing ones would be , if even possible a lengthy process. This would mean the health of all in this area would be significantly compromised and who is going to take responsibility for this?
Additional to this, Whitlocks End car park was only extended a few years ago and it already cannot facilitate the growing population in the local area. There are new housing plots on Tilehouse lane and Low brook lane which are less than a mile from the proposed plot. Locals in the area should not suffer from being unable to use facilities due to the council accepting ill thought-out plots.

• Traffic - every morning Dickens’s heath road is overflowing with traffic during rush hour. This traffic flows up Tythe Barn Lane. The roads and village were never built for level of traffic it currently has and there are no plans to facilitate the growing population in the area. Adding another 350 houses when there are unfinished new build plots less than a mile away will make the area an incredibly inconvenient place to live. The Traffic Study does propose some works to improve the congestion in peak hours but the situation will be further exacerbated by the huge number of new homes proposed in the area and South Shirley. The Council only propose to solve the Village Centre parking problem by controlling some on-street parking which will not solve the existing problem and will only be made worse with more development. The narrow, rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded.

• Sports - there are two football clubs, a rugby club and a fitbox club on the area proposed to build these new houses. Local sport, leisure and physical activity can help people to live longer, healthier lives. This makes them fundamental to achieving councils’ aspirations for their communities. In the current economic climate and in the face of national challenges such as obesity and mental health, it is vital for these sports clubs to stay in the local area. Yes the fields can be relocated but at some upheaval to the clubs and members, so why move them in the first place?

• Not in keeping with the character of the Village - This proposed development of 350 houses will be un-associated, both visually and physically, with the award-winning Village of Dickens Heath. The character and setting of the Village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows.

• Proposals are not legal - The proposed development is not within a recognised walking distance from the Village Centre facilities, so further adds to the un-sustainability of the development. The Council state that a new footpath will be needed to the private road of Birchy Close to reduce the walking distance but this is legally unachievable. A suggested new bus route down Birchy Leasowes Lane could be provided but a bus physically cannot exit the junction with Dickens Heath Road safely. At this junction the ancient woodland either side of this junction would inhibit any road improvement which has not been recommended.

• Unsustainable - The Sustainability Appraisal tries to prove that this Site is sustainable when it clearly is not, owing to the numerous mitigation measures proposed to try and make it sustainable, some of which are unachievable. Over 39% of the 15,000 homes proposed in Solihull is based in Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green. There has been no consideration for the upheaval these mitigation measures such as road closures will have on the residents who already have to deal with so much traffic due to the many new housing estates continually being built in the area.

I wish to make objections to the plan to develop the above site.

I believe that the council should re-visit the calculation for housing required, taking into consideration the effect of covid and the closing of shops/offices, all of which could be utilitsed to provide housing.

Site 4 is Green Belt and due to government policy should be only used when all brownfield sites have been taken up.

Also I object to the sports field being re-located? why do this, this site should not be included in the plan as I beleive the Sustainability Appraisal has not fully taken into account the issues with this site.

The site is not close to Dickens Heath and the issue of providing a bus service is rediculous, just creating further traffic / emissions. A bus travelling down Birchy Leasowes would be chaotic, the road is far too narrow.

It would be too far for people to walk into Dickens Heath Village, which means they would be driving, and the village cannot sustain any further vehicles, already cars are parked everywhere.

You state that the area is Flood Zone 1 - I find this unbelievable, gardens regularly flood, whatever the season in Birchy Close, also the playing fields in this area is seldom used due to flooding.

There is a wildlife connectivity that runs along the perimeter of the houses of Birchy Close, which allow deer, foxes etc to travel which would be lost.

The secondary schools are oversubscribed, and residents cannot have their choice of school.

The village would be lost with further expansion, and would become part of Tidbury Green/Whitlocks End.

Our area is and has taken far more housing than other areas of Solihull, and we are fedup of being the 'dumping ground' for new homes.

I am writing to object to the council’s latest plans to build yet more housing in the green belt area, destroying ancient woodland and hedgerows, adding to increased traffic and therefore air pollution . I am sure my objections will fall on deaf ears as over the years I have watched this council repeatedly ignore the green belt protection and fine ways around it in order to build more and more housing. We are currently experiencing a pandemic like no other and again and again it has highlighted the poor mental health of many people, particularly young people. Open space and fresh air has been identified as a key measure people can take in order to improve their mental health and well being. The brain responds positively to being able to see open space and horizons. And yet, as a council, you are planning to destroy the little open space we have left in the area. The cost of poor mental health to the country is enormous and as a society, we should be doing all we can to prevent mental health decline and to support active living in peaceful countryside. As residents in the local area, we should continue to have our football clubs and our walks through ancient woodland, our time for peace and reflection. It is laughable to call this new development DIckens Heath as it is too far removed from the village centre to be able to access amenities easily and will probably lead to more driving. More houses means more people means more cars. You created a ‘village’ many years ago when Dickens Heath was first built but in reality it has become nothing more than. A giant housing development, a conurbation of Birmingham and Solihull.
I believe Solihull council has an appalling track record when it comes to protecting the green belt and wildlife, and supporting the mental well-being of its residents. As someone who works at the forefront of that, I see the results of those poor, financially driven decisions on a daily basis.

Stop destroying our open spaces. Leave something for the future that others can enjoy. Keep Solihull a lovely place to live.

I moved to Dickens Heath in late 1999 as I appreciated the green belt and welcomed having a peaceful life with limited traffic and somewhere to safely walk my dog.

Rolling forward 20 years and it's now overcrowded, roads are gridlocked, and a slither of green belt left.

I do not believe any further developments should happen to this area, the infrastructure can barely cope now and i would hate to think if development continues at this pace what life would be like in just 5 years. I for one would vote with my feet and implore others to follow suit whilst sharing our views in social media.

In light of the recent decision to press forward with the development of the above site, please see below a list of objections that should all be viewed as reason enough to refuse planning permission.

-There are numerous sports fields included so this will affect our children (and adults) who play rugby and football on these fields, including Old Yardleians Rugby Club, Highgate Football Club and Wychall Wanderers Football Club, as well as Fitbox boot camp on the rugby field.
- The land is high grade GREEN BELT – Government policy is to protect Green Belt and develop Brownfield land first. Development that is opposed by Andy Street, Saqib Bhatti and the Prime Minister as stated in parliament.
- Site 4 is surrounded by Local Wildlife Sites and Ancient Woodland – this will be so detrimental to the deer, badgers, bats and other wildlife that roam in these fields and adjoining woodland.
- The narrow rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded.
- Site 4 is mostly in flood Zone 1, these fields flood every winter and whenever there is a particularly heavy rainfall as the area is of bolder clay that restricts permeability.
- Sustainability – Some of the mitigation measures included in the Plan are not achievable, therefore it isn’t sustainable. Other sites are more sustainable.
- The character and setting of the Village will be adversely affected and sense of community and identity compromised. There are strong, definable boundaries to the existing Village being the canal and the woodlands and ancient hedgerows.