Policy BL1 - West of Dickens Heath

My grounds of objection follow:-

Site 4 is still included – the intention to build a further 350 homes in Dickens Heath will not only impact the immediate vicinity of Dickens Heath but all the surrounding areas in Shirley including increased car users without any consideration for improved Routes for walkers/cyclists which Solihull should be putting in place equitably across the borough.

* 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.

*Existing pressures on GP surgeries and schools will be further exasperated.

I wish to strongly object to anymore houses being built in and around Majors Green and Dickens Heath.
I live on the nasty bend on Haslucks Green Road, and even during this current “lockdown” it can take up to 10 minutes to safely get off my drive. The local road infrastructure cannot handle any further increase in cars users. The amount of cars on the local roads will increase steadily anyway over the next decade as all the young families on Dickens Heath start having their children reach driving age.
I believed that following objections previously that a lot of this area is high grade Green Belt.
Any further building will be very detrimental to the Local wildlife sites and woodland.
Losing green areas and sports fields will be detrimental to the children and adults that use these facilities, possibly increasing anti-social behaviour in the area.
Another major concern is the flooding we see nearly every winter now, the fields and towpath locally take absolutely ages now to dry out as there is nowhere for the rainfall to go to.

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 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.
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.

As a resident on the edge of Dickens Heath village, I feel I must join my voice, yet again, with the many others in protest at the plans for unreasonable development in the area. As I see the large numbers of complainants, I can hardly believe that Solihull continuously persist in their onward rush to flood the area with housing development in view of the serious ecological, transport, sociological and infrastructure issues which Solihull seem to be trying to sweep under the carpet:
•Firstly, Site 4 (BL1) is in a high performing Green Belt area, which has not been taken into consideration in the Sustainability Appraisal Central Government Policy which is there to protect Green Belt and develop Brownfield sites first.
•The Sustainability Appraisal tries to prove that this site is sustainable, but the proposed mitigation measures which would need to be taken clearly prove that it is NOT, since many are unachievable. I do not believe that the Authority carried out a proper sustainability study before any sites were investigated; it appears the sites were decided on first, and sustainability studies made to fit the decisions.
•When we moved here in 2012 the facilities offered by Dickens Heath Village were very attractive; the setting, sense of community, convenient shops, library brought us here, particularly since my wife is in a wheelchair and getting around the village was convenient. Since the village has become a “rat run” for the developments in Tidbury Green, getting around the village has become a nightmare, I’ve witnessed some serious issues of road rage by the “village green” where large numbers of cars are parked on what has become a through road. This can only be severely aggravated by developments on Tythe Barn Lane. As residents, we were asked a few years ago to suggest parking restrictions in the village – I advocated yellow lines along the Dickens Heath Road straight through the village. Apparently, the police like a few parked cars scattered around to slow the traffic flow.
•Flooding has been a big issue in this area, leading to the need for piling for new housing; various attempts to cope with the surface water have not been entirely successful, and since this will be an increasing problem, it would cause severe problems for the future.
•The proposed developments will not be associated physically with the village, being outside the natural barriers – those needing to shop in Main Street will need to use cars, adding to the congestion. The original plans for the village stipulated a maximum distance of 10 mins walk to the shops, this will now no longer hold true. I understand there will be moves to create a new footpath leading into Birchy Close, where I live, making access from the new developments to the village; I believe this to be legally unachievable since Birchy Close is a private road owned by all residents. I, for one, will oppose this.
•The sports fields can be re-located, but why do it? It will cause disruption, not only to members of the clubs, but to wildlife.
•There are suggestions for a new bus route down Birchy Leasowes Lane – exit points at either end will be impossible for buses! At the Dickens Heath Road junction, the ancient woodland would inhibit any attempts to open out the junction’s visibility.
•It seems to me that an inevitable re-purposing of Tythe Barn Lane will eventually take place; a rebuilding of the old canal bridge, widening of the road right through to Norton Lane; turning the area into a huge area of housing needing surgeries, schools, shopping centres, and vast amounts of infrastructure, obliterating any of the green.
As you will see, I feel very strongly that Solihull are wilfully ploughing ahead with developments which will be disfiguring the area and causing huge ecological and physical problems for the area.

As a resident of Dickens Heath, I would like to object to the proposed development on the green belt land surrounding the village. Specifically, I would draw your attention to the following:
• There are numerous sports fields included so this will affect our children (and adults) who play rugby and football on these fields, including Leafield Athletic, Old Yardleians Rugby Club, Highgate Football Club and Wychall Wanderers Football Club.
• 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.
I personally believe there are multiple brown field and rejuvenation projects that would be a better use of the council's time and money.

As a resident of Dickens Heath, I would like to object to the proposed development on the green belt land surrounding the village. Specifically, I would draw your attention to the following:
• There are numerous sports fields included so this will affect our children (and adults) who play rugby and football on these fields, including Leafield Athletic, Old Yardleians Rugby Club, Highgate Football Club and Wychall Wanderers Football Club.
• 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.
I personally believe there are multiple brown field and rejuvenation projects that would be a better use of the council's time and money.

I would like to offer the following objections relating to Site 4 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 Yardleians Rugby Club, Highgate Football Club and Wychall Wanderers Football Club, as well as Fitbox bootcamp on the rugby field. It is vital that we allow people to exercise for their mental health as well as physical health and building over these fields will destroy that. Even if they relocate, it will cause unnecessary hardship and disruption to all those that currently train there so why force them to relocate when there are also so many other reasons not to build on this site.

- The land is high grade GREEN BELT – Government policy is to protect Green Belt and develop Brownfield land first. Have you fully explored brownfield land that could be built on instead of this? Why are you looking to build on this when it is high grade green belt?

- 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. Where will the deer etc go when the fields are built on?

- The narrow rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded. The roads are often used when there are problems on the motorway and there is often severe congestion right through the village at peak times.

- 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.

See attachment

Regarding proposed homes for Dickes Heath, Site 4.

I object on the following basis:

- 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 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.

To whom it may concern,

I’m writing to object to the local plan, particularly with respect to sites BL1, BL2 and BL3 in and around Tidbury Green, Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green. The existing infrastructure (schools, surgeries, roads) is already struggling, even before the completion of residences already underway, e.g. near Stratford road. Much of the traffic from these villages commutes to the M42 J4, and as such creates gridlock during rush hour. Building more houses along these already busy routes is only going to exacerbate the problem, and demand to travel to the M42 is only going to increase with HS2. The narrow, rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded.

With particular reference to site BL1, this site will be unassociated, both visually and physically, with the surrounding villages which have clearly defined boundaries. This site will start to fill in the gaps between villages, removing the unique character of the area and destroying the connectivity between local wildlife sites and ancient woodland, as highlighted by Natural England. The BL1 site 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.

I believe a full sustainability appraisal should have been carried out prior to site allocation, rather than trying to make the preselected site allocations fit the plan.

The first observation is that none of the proposed locations are not accurately identified by postcode or any precise map. As such this makes it difficult to properly consider each proposal and I believe the document should be reissued with detailed site locations as an appendix.
An example of the problem this causes is on page 177 paragraph 605 where I believe that the football clubs listed as affected by the site to the West of Dickens Heath are incorrect. Having cross referenced other documents I believe it is Wychall Wanderers ground that is part of the proposed site rather than Leafield Athletic. I would appreciate written confirmation of this. Assuming this is the case I would reiterate the point ,if your own staff cannot accurately interpret the proposed site locations then this document needs to be reissued.
The proposed site West of Dicken’s Heath (pages 175 and 176) is problematic for a number of reasons. The primary one being the fact the football pitches are currently used by hundreds of children of all ages as well as adults to participate in grass roots sport, principally football. The number of football pitches available has reduced significantly over recent years and it is imperative that those that are left are protected. The council will be well aware of the importance and benefits of regular sport and exercise for the mental and physical well being of our community. While the plan does suggest alternative sites should be sought it does not identify any and the likelihood of finding sites of the same capacity and quality in the vicinity is very low – if they existed, they would have been identified within the plan already. This is reason enough to reject the proposal to build on this site. If alternative sites do exist, they should be identified and evaluated as an alternative for meeting the housing needs now as it does not make sense to move football clubs without proper evaluation of all options.
Furthermore there are a number of other reasons why site 4, West of Dickens Heath is an unsuitable:
- The location is 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.
- The sustainability Appraisal tries to prove the site is sustainable when clearly it is not, as evidenced by the numerous mitigation measures to attempt to make it sustainable – some of which are not achievable
- 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 has been carried out correctly in the first place, prior to site allocation, rather than trying to force preselected site allocations to fit the plan
- The proposed development of 250 houses will be un-associated, both visually and physically, with the award-winning village of Dickens Heath. The character of the village will be adversely affected and the sense of community and identity compromised. The canal, woodlands and ancient hedgerows form a strong definable boundary to the existing village and this proposal sits outside that boundary
- Traffic and Parking in and around Dickens Heath are already a problem as the council has and continues (Regency Fields and Tidbury Heights for example) to allow the area to be overdeveloped. Traffic is stationary in Dicken’s Heath at peak times and exisiting Parking is not sufficient. The surrounding rural road network is overloaded and cannot take any additional traffic, they pavements (where they exist) and street lighting are also insufficient. The council has proven unable to address these problems and therefore should not put further stress on the infrastructure.
The proposed site West of Dickens Heath is completely unsuitable and this needs to be removed from the plan. Furthermore the plan needs to give more consideration to the regeneration of commercial areas of the borough. With both an increase in people working from home and fewer people visiting town centres and shops in general, there is a strong case for converting office and retail space into residential. This will provide for the housing need but also help the footfall in town centres bringing much needed trade to our retailers, many of who are local businesses and residents of Solihull.
I am also concerned that traffic flow has not been adequately considered in this plan. For example the A34 carries a huge amount of traffic an is already unable to adequately cope at peak times and yet the plan proposes to build 1000 dwellings on the site south of Dog Kennel Lane (page 177). This will significantly exacerbate what is already a problem. It would be much more logical to site these homes on the other side of Junction 4 of the M42 where the A3400 has the capacity to manage the traffic flow. There is a site at Blythe Valley off Kineton lane and it would make sense to expand this further so that the area can support local shops or Doctor’s surgery to make it more sustainable and benefitting residents of the existing development.
When I moved to Tidbury Green (part of Blythe in the plan) I relied on the local authority search which stated the area was green belt. While I understand and support the need for additional housing, I feel that Tidbury Green and the surrounding area’s Green Belt status and rural character have been ignored in Solihull Council's handling of recent planning proposals - the locality has met significantly more than its fair share of the boroughs housing needs. This is completely changing the feel and character area and this should not be allowed to continue, particularly as it is not sustainable and the infrastructure cannot cope.

See attachment

Remove site from plan.
Alternative sites such as Arden Green are readily available for development in the area and are more sustainable, do not flood, have a lower Green Belt score and enjoy sustainable transport links.

See attachment

Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate there is a mechanism to facilitate relocation of the existing sports provision south of Tythebarn Lane to a suitable site in the vicinity and thereby facilitate development on the site.
Evidence is required to justify Policy BL1 West of Dickens Heath
If these issues of soundness cannot be overcome paragraphs 225 and 226 should be amended to remove the estimated contribution of proposed site allocation BL1 from Delivery Phases I and II and Policy BL1 amended as necessary in the light of the findings of additional evidence gathering, negotiations with landowners, playing field search and masterplan work.

See attached

See attached document

Our Client, Mr Mc Bride, contends that insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate there is a mechanism to facilitate relocation of the existing
sports provision south of Tythe Barn Lane to a suitable site in the vicinity and thereby facilitate development on the site. This proposed allocation is, therefore, contrary to the deliverability and developability requirements for site allocations set out in NPPF Appendix 2: Glossary and it fails to satisfy NPPF paragraphs 67 and 175.

Our Client contends that evidence is required to justify Policy BL1 West of Dickens Heath, to robustly demonstrate that:
• the multiple complex land assembly issues have been overcome and there is agreement by all landowners to the site being brought forward on the development basis set out in the Concept Masterplan document; and
• there is a fully developed strategy with mechanisms in place to ensure playing pitches are replaced to release the land for residential development.
If these issues of soundness cannot be overcome our Client recommends that paragraphs 225 and 226 should be amended to remove the estimated contribution of
proposed site allocation BL1 from Delivery Phases I and II and Policy BL1 amended as necessary in the light of the findings of additional evidence gathering, negotiations
with landowners, playing field search and masterplan work.

see attached representation forms

Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate there is a mechanism to facilitate relocation of the existing sports provision south of Tythebarn Lane to a suitable site in the vicinity and thereby facilitate development on the site.
Evidence is required to justify Policy BL1 West of Dickens Heath
If these issues of soundness cannot be overcome paragraphs 225 and 226 should be amended to remove the estimated contribution of proposed site allocation BL1 from Delivery Phases I and II and Policy BL1 amended as necessary in the light of the findings of additional evidence gathering, negotiations with landowners, playing field search and masterplan work.

See attached

Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate there is a mechanism to facilitate relocation of the existing sports provision south of Tythebarn Lane to a suitable site in the vicinity and thereby facilitate development on the site.
Evidence is required to justify Policy BL1 West of Dickens Heath
If these issues of soundness cannot be overcome paragraphs 225 and 226 should be amended to remove the estimated contribution of proposed site allocation BL1 from Delivery Phases I and II and Policy BL1 amended as necessary in the light of the findings of additional evidence gathering, negotiations with landowners, playing field search and masterplan work.

See attached

Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate there is a mechanism to facilitate relocation of the existing sports provision south of Tythebarn Lane to a suitable site in the vicinity and thereby facilitate development on the site.
Evidence is required to justify Policy BL1 West of Dickens Heath
If these issues of soundness cannot be overcome paragraphs 225 and 226 should be amended to remove the estimated contribution of proposed site allocation BL1 from Delivery Phases I and II and Policy BL1 amended as necessary in the light of the findings of additional evidence gathering, negotiations with landowners, playing field search and masterplan work.

See attached

See attachment

- West Midlands Police has a statutory duty to secure maintenance of efficient and effective police force for its area
- Council statutorily required to consider crime, disorder and community safety in exercise of its duties, with aim to reduce crime.
- NPPF and PPG refer to designing out crime, supporting safe communities, working with police and security agencies, importance of considering and addressing crime and disorder, and fear of crime.
- PPG provides for planning obligations in policy requirements, understanding infrastructure evidence and costs and guidance for CIL.
- Vital that Police are not deprived of legitimate sources of funding so they’re not under-resourced
- If additional infrastructure for WMP is not provided, then Police’s ability to provide a safe and appropriate level of service will be seriously impacted by level of growth in the DSP.
- Important to note that increase in local population or number of households does not directly lead to an increase in central government funding or local taxation.
- Viability Assessment shows that police contributions are viable.
- Considered therefore contributions to policing are essential for delivery of DSP, and should be expressly stated in site policies and P21, not just Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
- Site policies should include more social infrastructure, such as ‘emergency services’ within likely infrastructure requirements, as within 2013 Local Plan.
- Site policies are unsound without reference to need for financial contributions to police infrastructure in list of ‘likely infrastructure requirements’
- Site policies are unsound without cross-referencing need to comply Policy P15
- Site policies are contrary to the requirements of NPPF Para.’s 34, 91, 95 and 127f) and PPG Para: 004 ID: 23b-004-20190901, Para: 017 ID: 25-017-20190901, and Para: 144 ID: 25-144-20190901.

See attached representations forms

Part of Site BL1 should be deleted from Plan.

See attached letter

Retain for later stages of delivery.

See attached letter.

Remove part of Site BL1, south of Tythe Barn Lane, from the Plan

See attached letter.

Remove part of Site BL1 (south of Tythe Barn Lane) from plan

See attached letter.

Remove part of Site BL1, south of Tythe Barn Lane, from plan

See attached letter.

Remove part of Site BL1 (south of Tythe Barn Lane) from Plan

See attached letter.

Remove part of Site BL1, south of Tythe Barn Lane, from plan.

See attached letter.

Due to regular flooding on site, should be re-classed as Flood Zone 2
Remove part of Site BL1, south of Tythe Barn Lane, from plan.

See attached letter.

Remove part of Site BL1 (south of Tythe Barn Lane) from plan.

See attached letter.