Policy BL1 - West of Dickens Heath
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 15192
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Jennifer East
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
- Object to BL1, BL2 and BL3.
- Existing Infrastructure (schools, surgeries and roads) is already struggling even both the completion of existing permissions.
- Traffic in Tidbury Green, Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green during rush hour creates gridlock. New houses will exacerbate the problem.
- Road network of narrow rural road network is already overloaded.
- full sustainability appraisal should have been carried out prior to site allocation rather than trying to make the preselected site allocations fit the plan.
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.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 15205
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Archaeology Warwickshire
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
As highlighted on pg. 19 of the 2020 Archaeological Assessment undertaken by the Warwickshire County Council Archaeological Information and Advice team on behalf of SMBC*, this site has significant archaeological potential. This potential, and the need for further archaeological assessment in advance of the submission of any planning application is not referenced in this policy. As the results of the assessment may influence the final form of the development across this area, it should be.
*Warwickshire County Council, 2020. 'Archaeological Assessment to Inform the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Local Plan. Additional Sites, 2020'. Warwick: Archaeological Information and Advice
The policy should reference the significant archaeological potential of this area and highlight that, prior to the submission of any planning application, a detailed archaeological assessment, including evaluative fieldwork, should be undertaken. It should further advise that results of the assessment should inform the development of a strategy, if appropriate, to mitigate the potential archaeological impact of the proposed development and that this strategy may include designing the development to avoid impacting any archaeological features present which are worthy of conservation.
This will help to ensure that any application is submitted with sufficient archaeological information to enable a reasoned and informed planning decision to be made.
As highlighted on pg. 19 of the 2020 Archaeological Assessment undertaken by the Warwickshire County Council Archaeological Information and Advice team on behalf of SMBC*, this site has significant archaeological potential. This potential, and the need for further archaeological assessment in advance of the submission of any planning application is not referenced in this policy. As the results of the assessment may influence the final form of the development across this area, it should be.
*Warwickshire County Council, 2020. 'Archaeological Assessment to Inform the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Local Plan. Additional Sites, 2020'. Warwick: Archaeological Information and Advice
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 15232
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Mr S Kelly
Agent: DS Planning
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
- Proposed allocation does not conform to statement in introduction to Blythe Chapter, that villages in Blythe have a distinct nature within and separated by attractive countryside and Green Belt giving villages a sense of remoteness.
- Development would result in coalescence of Dickens Heath with Whitlocks End and Majors Green.
- Intrinsic character of Dickens Heath village would be lost through an ill-thought out addition to the west of village. Insensitive treatment for an award-winning settlement.
- Concept masterplan does not reference how it would complement or enhance village of Dickens Heath.
- BL1 has been dismissed as an allocation at number of previous Local Plan/UDP Inquiries.
- Impact of BL1 considerably more devastating coalescence effect than de-allocated former Site 13.
- Despite reduction in capacity on site, the perception of coalescence persists.
- Lack of alternative sports pitches provision is cause of concern.
- Should have been resolved before got to DSP stage.
- Residual traffic concerns, particularly route to Shirley on narrow and winding roads & junctions.
- No contextual thought gone into allocating BL1, site cannot be considered available, achievable or deliverable, and should be deleted from the plan.
Delete Site BL1 from plan
See attachments.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 15241
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Mr J Green
Agent: DS Planning
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
- Proposed allocation does not conform to statement in introduction to Blythe Chapter, that villages in Blythe have a distinct nature within and separated by attractive countryside and Green Belt giving villages a sense of remoteness.
- Development would result in coalescence of Dickens Heath with Whitlocks End and Majors Green.
- Intrinsic character of Dickens Heath village would be lost through an ill-thought out addition to the west of village. Insensitive treatment for an award-winning settlement.
- Concept masterplan does not reference how it would complement or enhance village of Dickens Heath.
- BL1 has been dismissed as an allocation at number of previous Local Plan/UDP Inquiries.
- Impact of BL1 considerably more devastating coalescence effect than de-allocated former Site 13.
- Despite reduction in capacity on site, the perception of coalescence persists.
- Lack of alternative sports pitches provision is cause of concern.
- Should have been resolved before got to DSP stage.
- Residual traffic concerns, particularly route to Shirley on narrow and winding roads & junctions.
- No contextual thought gone into allocating BL1, site cannot be considered available, achievable or deliverable, and should be deleted from the plan.
Delete Site BL1 from plan
See attachments.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 15247
Received: 13/12/2020
Respondent: Iain McDowall
Number of people: 2
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to Policy BL1;
already excessive development in the area - area is greenbelt - Increased traffic/congestion - Over (more suitable) sites have been overlooked - Site will cause coalescence/loss of identity - Village centre can only be accessed by car - Birchy Leasowes to dangerous to use - Loss of wildlife and damage to the environment.
I wish to object to the proposed development at site BL1 for the following reasons.
1. There has already been excessive development in the area with Dickens Heath more than doubling in size; Tidbury Heights on Fulford Heath Road and Regency Fields.
2. We were told that the area would Green Belt after the building of Tidbury Heights and Regency Fields.
3. Traffic levels have significantly increased with the resulting congestion.
4. There are other sites in Solihull Borough that are more sustainable and with better facilities that seem to have been ‘overlooked’ eg Dorridge, Knowle, Hampton in Arden and others.
5. The building of the site will cause coalescence between Tidbury Green, Majors Green, Dickens Heath and Shirley with the resulting loss of identity.
6. Access to Dickens Heath Village Centre can only be achieved by car.
7. Vehicles and any bus will use Birchy Leasowes Lane which is narrow with dangerous junctions at either end. Many local people will not use this road because of the danger.
8. There will be the inevitable loss of wildlife and damage to the environment.