Hockley Heath

Showing comments and forms 1 to 20 of 20

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10577

Received: 30/10/2020

Respondent: Mrs Heidi Bartlett

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Use of Green Belt land.
School road not wide enough.
Pressure on surrounding country lanes.
More risk of flooding we already suffer from flooding in the village.
Pressure on electricity and gas supply we already suffer from power cuts.
Pressure on our sewage system.
Noise and car pollution.
Lack of pavement past the School.
Safety of Children going to and from School.
Entrance to School road from the Stratford road is not wide enough.
Lose of wildlife habitat.
Damage to the Canal.
Lack of public Transport to Secondary Schools.

Local school not able to cope with lots of new Children.

Change suggested by respondent:

Too many houses.
There are better locations in other areas outside of the main village.

Full text:

Use of Green Belt land.
School road not wide enough.
Pressure on surrounding country lanes.
More risk of flooding we already suffer from flooding in the village.
Pressure on electricity and gas supply we already suffer from power cuts.
Pressure on our sewage system.
Noise and car pollution.
Lack of pavement past the School.
Safety of Children going to and from School.
Entrance to School road from the Stratford road is not wide enough.
Lose of wildlife habitat.
Damage to the Canal.
Lack of public Transport to Secondary Schools.

Local school not able to cope with lots of new Children.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10607

Received: 14/11/2020

Respondent: Ms Cheryl Golding

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Plan inappropriate for size of the site and rural nature of village. It increases homes by c12% in a small area which is susceptible to flooding and impact on flooding of neighbouring roads and homes, Tutnall Drive flooded regularly at junction of School Road. HH Academy oversubscribed already. 90+ new homes will have a detrimental impact on road congestion and safety, narrow and already busy. Local homeowners mostly have 2 cars, so further 150+ additional cars likely, emission and environmental impact close to school. Ancient woodland/veteran trees detrimentally affected, wildlife also seriously impacted. Current amenities lower than elsewhere in borough.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove this site and also sites 49 and 328 (as well as other green belt sites in village communities within the borough), from the plan to retain green belt and rural nature of these villages. Use brownland in borough for new developments first to maintain the existing greenbelt as much as possible. If development has to be approved for the 3 sites in Hockley Heath, reduce number of dwellings to no more than 30 maximum to reduce impact on environment and emissions, to avoid overwhelming the village. Ensure speed bumps and other speed/traffic calming restrictions are put in place in the lane and an appropriate parking area is included for all school traffic within the site to reduce impact on side roads that are already problematic with pavements being blocked on both sides of side roads near the school. Create a wildlife/wetland reserve in the 3 sites instead, with proper flood management, preserve the wildlife and ancient woodland and veteran trees. There are resident bats in the trees off School Road. Improve all village amenities to ensure gutter/drain clearing is managed as regularly as in other areas in the borough. Drains are currently blocked with leaves, gutters and footpaths never cleared of weeds or fallen leaves and are hazardous to pedestrians. Ditches along School Road need to be maintained regularly, overgrown and flooding regularly as only cleared very infrequently. Improve and extend footpaths along School Road after Tutnall Drive junction towards Blythe Valley. Improve other facilities to include a health centre, reinstate a post office and improve bus services for less reliance on private vehicles. Canal path needs to be improved, it is muddy, waterlogged and impossible to use except after prolonged dry spells. Make Saddlers Wells Lane a one-way route to avoid congestion, already a weakened bridge and passing places used as dumping ground for waste which makes passing impossible,

Full text:

Plan inappropriate for size of the site and rural nature of village. It increases homes by c12% in a small area which is susceptible to flooding and impact on flooding of neighbouring roads and homes, Tutnall Drive flooded regularly at junction of School Road. HH Academy oversubscribed already. 90+ new homes will have a detrimental impact on road congestion and safety, narrow and already busy. Local homeowners mostly have 2 cars, so further 150+ additional cars likely, emission and environmental impact close to school. Ancient woodland/veteran trees detrimentally affected, wildlife also seriously impacted. Current amenities lower than elsewhere in borough.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10608

Received: 14/11/2020

Respondent: Mr John L Thomas

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The plan is inappropriate because it doesn't safeguard protected species e.g. bats in vicinity. School Road between Blackberry Way and Tutnall Drive floods, as well as does further towards Blythe Valley regularly during wet periods. Unlike other areas of the borough leaves and ditches are not cleared by council. The environment needs the trees/hedgerows to help what will be additional carbon emissions, but they also need to be maintained. Additional 90 houses with up to 2 cars per household will seriously impact on traffic in an already very busy narrow lane.

Change suggested by respondent:

A survey of wildlife needs to be carried out and impact of protected species considered and amenities put in place to support this. Thorough investigation and survey of anti-flooding measures needs to be conducted of the site and impact on surrounding areas before any future planning investment is carried out. There is no health centre in the village so a proposal for a centre should be included in the plan. There is no longer a direct bus service between Hockley Heath and Shirley shopping centre, so improvement to local bus services should be included (X20 service to Stratford-Upon-Avon has been discontinued). A plan for regular road/drain clearing needs to be included for the village. Traffic calming measures for School Road must be included.

Full text:

The plan is inappropriate because it doesn't safeguard protected species e.g. bats in vicinity. School Road between Blackberry Way and Tutnall Drive floods, as well as does further towards Blythe Valley regularly during wet periods. Unlike other areas of the borough leaves and ditches are not cleared by council. The environment needs the trees/hedgerows to help what will be additional carbon emissions, but they also need to be maintained. Additional 90 houses with up to 2 cars per household will seriously impact on traffic in an already very busy narrow lane.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10612

Received: 15/11/2020

Respondent: Mrs Sophie Mathieson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I think that the proposal for 90 homes to be built on the land opposite my house is extreme. Aside from the obvious objection to the loss of green belt, School Road already has issues with congestion around the school and the narrow lane further up is hazardous, particularly where two cars struggle to pass. Such an influx of traffic would be dangerous.

Change suggested by respondent:

A different site should be considered.

Full text:

I think that the proposal for 90 homes to be built on the land opposite my house is extreme. Aside from the obvious objection to the loss of green belt, School Road already has issues with congestion around the school and the narrow lane further up is hazardous, particularly where two cars struggle to pass. Such an influx of traffic would be dangerous.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10616

Received: 18/11/2020

Respondent: Ms Sian Tarbuck

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

This is another erosion of green belt land. Based on the logic applied here then ultimately all dwellings will be continuous. The village does not have amenities for this size of development and there is already increased traffic due to the Blyth Valley development on School Road. It also opens the door to more development by changing the boundary for green

Change suggested by respondent:

To not allow building on green belt land. The unique nature of the village being surrounded by countryside is being eroded

Full text:

This is another erosion of green belt land. Based on the logic applied here then ultimately all dwellings will be continuous. The village does not have amenities for this size of development and there is already increased traffic due to the Blyth Valley development on School Road. It also opens the door to more development by changing the boundary for green

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10649

Received: 28/11/2020

Respondent: Mr Guy Thompson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The draft plan has a subheading entitled Where Wellbeing and the Environment Matter. Serious flooding already occurs on the land in Hockley Heath that has been highlighted, whilst this is acknowledged and suggestions that steps will be taken to combat this, any development will only exacerbate the problem. Climate change will lead to increased frequency of flooding. Furthermore the road is so narrow it it does not have the capacity to cope with anymore traffic. A traffic impact assessment has not been carried out. The SMBC concept masterplan show part of the Historic Hedgerow being removed.

Change suggested by respondent:

HH1 needs to be completely reconsidered on many levels. For example local infrastructure is already inadequate with no medical facilities in the location; all other proposed sites do have medical facilities existing. There is no post office and wholly inadequate public transport provision. The village has very recently grown on previously undeveloped land now called Webb Grove (20 houses), a further 14 houses at Ashwood on School Road and the ongoing development of the 750 consented homes at Blythe Valley at the end of School Road, immediately adjacent to the Hockley Heath. This in itself is already causing increased traffic on School Road which due to its narrowness struggles to cope, not to mention the increased noise and environmental pollution, partly additionally caused by vehicle parked on the road. There have also been a further 17 new homes on Aylesbury Road, again on the edge of the village. All these new homes have been completed in the last 2-3 years putting extra strain on the limited facilities.

Full text:

The draft plan has a subheading entitled Where Wellbeing and the Environment Matter. Serious flooding already occurs on the land in Hockley Heath that has been highlighted, whilst this is acknowledged and suggestions that steps will be taken to combat this, any development will only exacerbate the problem. Climate change will lead to increased frequency of flooding. Furthermore the road is so narrow it it does not have the capacity to cope with anymore traffic. A traffic impact assessment has not been carried out. The SMBC concept masterplan show part of the Historic Hedgerow being removed.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10681

Received: 04/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Pamela May

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

From 16.30 -18.30 there is a line of traffic outside my property waiting to turn onto the Stratford Road. This road cannot cope with the traffic levels at present. Extra housing = extra cars = more congestion. What measures have Solihull Council put in place for extra capacity on local roadways,for extra capacity in Schools, extra capacity in Doctors and health care? for extra Police and other service do we as Solihull council taxpayers and resident of Hockley Heath have to accept substandard services? This removal of green belt is an atrocious lack of care for local community and environment.

Change suggested by respondent:

We wish to formally oppose and strongly disagree with the Draft Local Plan to remove the green belt in the area on School Road, Hockley Heath B94 6RA to provide a site for housing development. We also formally oppose and strongly disagree with the washed over green belt on School Road, Hockley Heath B94 6RA being removed which may result in two further plots being developed for dwellings in the future.
Mr Saqib Bhatti tweeted on twitter 2 weeks ago
“Today I asked the Prime Minister to commit to doing everything he can to protect our precious Green Belt which is so important to me and my constituents.
We must make sure we are building on brownfield sites first to protect our beautiful countryside. ?”

• As of 12th. October 2020.there are 102 sites on Brownfield Land Register (solihull.gov.uk)
Why are these sites not being utilized for development?
• As of 12th. October 2020. There are 42 properties for sale At Blythe Gate, Blythe Valley Park (a new build development in the local area) ( ref – https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/property/blythe-valley-park/?identifier=blythe-valley-park&page_size=25&q=Blythe%20valley%20park%20b90&search_source=refine&radius=0.25&view_type=list&pn=3
Plus, other various properties are for sale in the local area.
Do we really need more housing in the area?
• Due to over building and loss of green belt in the area water displacement is a real and dangerous problem

Watch: Amazing moment man goes for a swim on the Stratford Road

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/watch-amazing-moment-man-goes-14715705

• This does not just happen now and again but every time it rains.
• The impact on the local enviroment is plain to see.
• What wildlife will be lost due to a lack of natural habitat.
• A few extra planted trees will not cover all the green belt due to be lost.
• Once this area is built on there is no going back.

Explaining how now is the time for businesses and governments to look at how they do things; making the world a greener place, the duke said: “Someone has to put their head above the parapet and say, I care about this. To have the belief that if we all work together, we can make a difference."

• From approximately 16.30 until 18.30 every day there is a line of traffic outside my property waiting to turning onto the Stratford Road. The main Stratford Road cannot cope with the traffic levels at present. Extra housing = extra cars = more congestion. What is in place to combat this very worrying situation?
• What measures have Solihull Council put in place for extra capacity on local roadways
• What measures have Solihull Council put in place for extra capacity in Schools in the area?
• What measures have Solihull Council put in place for extra capacity in Doctors and health care?
• What measures have Solihull Council put in place for extra Police and other service?
• Or do we as Solihull council taxpayers and resident of Hockley Heath have to accept substandard services?


• This removal of green belt is an atrocious lack of care for local community and environment.
• It is purely for profit.

Full text:

From 16.30 -18.30 there is a line of traffic outside my property waiting to turn onto the Stratford Road. This road cannot cope with the traffic levels at present. Extra housing = extra cars = more congestion. What measures have Solihull Council put in place for extra capacity on local roadways,for extra capacity in Schools, extra capacity in Doctors and health care? for extra Police and other service do we as Solihull council taxpayers and resident of Hockley Heath have to accept substandard services? This removal of green belt is an atrocious lack of care for local community and environment.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10700

Received: 07/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Phil Barnett

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

In summary the traffic impact and the mitigation for school parking is not sufficient to support the addition of 141 properties (12% growth of the village)

Change suggested by respondent:

This site proposed is neither positively prepared or justified based on the traffic and ecological impact for the release of this site from green belt.

The site should be rejected from the local plan based on the minimal contribution to the housing needs when compared with larger developments within short distance at BVP, Dicken Heath and Cheswick Green.

The sustained disruption to the locale due to poor road flow and safety is not compensated by the addition of housing.

The proposed local plan has failed to represent the community of Hockley Heath by rejecting sites proposed in the call for land that would significantly increase housing that would make available community infrastructure levy that can make a material improvement in the community.

The selection of one 90 property site and the associated 51 properties on washed over green belt will not provide high enough levels of funding to give the village any noticeable services such as chemist, GP surgery, post office or more regular public transport.

Full text:

The selection of the site has not been assessed prior to publication for traffic flow and fundamental area of issue with the site.

The Ecological assessment states the need to retain woodland and hedge structure, this contradicts the mitigation of additional school parking where retained hedges and trees will act as a barrier to accessing the school.

The traffic calming and flow down school road is not capable of being improved due to the canal following the road to the west and properties to the east. The impact of larger development (BVP) needs to be considered on the impact of the traffic on School Road. To traffic flow from the west toward HH continues to increase with development of BVP and Cheswick Green.

The addition of up to 141 properties will significantly impact traffic flow and impede traffic and safety around both the school and the through fare connecting the communities of Cheswick Green and surrounding areas.

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10817

Received: 13/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Phil Brown

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The facts related to the Current village and links are not all still true, and have not been reflected in such a way that informs future decision making. The future plans are not detailed to consider the impacts of other developments on this one, such as traffic down School Road as a result of BVP or the impact on Dorridge Station Car Parking. There is no traffic/transport specific detail/plans that will support the development plans, other than high level meaningless words.

Change suggested by respondent:

658 - There is no bus service that links to Birmingham. The Railway station at Dorridge, does link with Birmingham and London, however the Car Park is already full before the morning peak is complete currently, meaning additional future capacity would need to be found, if additional houses are provided locally. this is also true for other developments proposed in the plan. There is no commentary of this need in the plan, and therefore where the funding for it would come from.
661 - The School is already full, how by increasing the size of the village by 17.7% (141 homes) does this not overwhelm it?
663 - The Concept Plan and the Local plan quote different numbers 100 in the concept and 90 in the local plan, in addition the concept plan makes no reference to the additional 51 houses that the local plan seems to "design in" by needlessly removing the Green Belt from the north side of School Road. There is no need to do this, if the intention is not to allow the extra building. Indeed by removing the green belt from that part of the road, this will lead to additional infill building on that side - further eroding the character and attractiveness of the the village, as it become just anther terrace of houses without the supporting infrastructure that is required. (existing plans for No 122 School Road are examples of infill building)
664 - The concept plan shows no evidence that there is any consideration for resolving the School Parking problem, indeed it will actually make the problem worse, particularly from a safety aspect as the access road to the new development is virtually opposite the School, and where most of the existing School parking occurs. There seems no control to mandate that the developer builds in the School parking relief capacity, other than local planning applications which at best are ineffective. In addition if the building alongside 84 and behind 84/86&90 is allowed this will further put pressure on the road and the ability to park for Schoolchildren. The impact of children coming from BVP (as it is a popular & successful school) will also increase the vehicle count at the peak School hours.
665 - This will do nothing. Will the Local Parish council be able to put traffic lights at the junction of School Road/Stratford Road to assist with the flow of vehicle out of School Road?
666 - School Road is already a busy road for Cyclists, which is to be supported. however the road is not suitable for the volume. Beyond Saddlerwell Lane , the road becomes a narrow unlit country lane, and given the speed and volume of traffic now using the road it is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident. There is nothing to describe what enhancements are considered, and how these might be funded, as only road widening would provide safety, but would destroy the character of the road, and be prohibitively expensive. In terms of Walking to the Village Centre, The current pavement is unlit, and currently in a state of disrepair in a number of locations (as the result of the additional building on Ashtons Nursery land). Despite complaints at the time the council have not resolved the issues. It is unclear if the plan would provide a safe walking environment from Saddlerswell Lane to the Village, and who would be expected to fund it.
667 - There are many contradictions in this compensation to loss of Green belt offer. Greenbelt is not just a piece of land that is not built on, it is the home for nature. The continuous hedgerow along School Road, and Saddlerswell Lane provides a route for both birds and Mammals to survive. There is a good population of Hedgehogs living in this area of the road, a Nationally endangered species, that need this style of habitat. Breaking it and replacing it with footpaths, and worse roads is not conducive to the ongoing survival in the area. Equally accessible Open land, be it new parkland or woodland planting, does not support the wild private habitat that the existing wildlife needs. By providing play areas along the route of the canal, will again be disruptive to the water based wildlife. This section of the canal is currently home to a nesting family of Kingfishers, which again are declining and need the seclusion to continue to successfully breed.
668 - I am not convinced that increasing the size of the village by 17.7% on home count is either limited or proportionate.
670 - Again seems to be confusing needs placed on the requirement. market and affordable, and smaller homes for young people and specialist housing for elderly. It is not one thing or the other. The needs are very different and the impact equally very different. With the exception of the latter, all will need to have the capability to have a car for each member of the household, as the limited public transport available is not geared to this sector, who would need to be commuting elsewhere for work (as there is non existing or proposed in the village) There is no mention I have seen of any traffic studies, or traffic plans that is monitoring the use of School Road, to see the impact of this and existing developments around. There has already been and increase ad a result of the Tutnel Road development, the additional houses at Ashtons Nursery, and the increasing use of the road as a result of both the Mount Dairy Farm and BVP development. It is a convieneint "Rat Run" route either from these areas to access the A3400, or from Hockley Heath as the shortest route to Shirley, and the larger shops and retail parks. As already stated it is a narrow, unlit country lane. Indeed given the nature of the edges to the road it is often necessary to stop if an oncoming car is approaching in the opposite direction at night to avoid damage to the car from the many pot holes at the edge of the road.
Is a town planning department capable of making the careful balance decisions, with the pressure from developers to build?
671 - Why? - where is the rational for this other than convenience and the ability to accommodate more building as described as No 49 and No 328, to start. Once it is approved, how many more infilled opportunities will arise, and be legitamised (Example 122 School Road) If the plan for the proposed allocation is to be agreed, then this should be removed to safeguard the remainder of the road for ongoing development.
672 - Not clear what the real number of the allocation is a here it is 90, but the Master Concept plan is 100, so either scope creep is already planned or the documents are wrong. Either way how does this document control the size? The plan does nothing to explain how the highway mitigation will be delivered, or if it will be mandated. If, because of the location of the development access road, the school parking is moved further up the School Road (away from the School) then additional crossings will be required at Tutnel Road to allow the Safety of the children at Morning peak, the afternoon is not so busy. Who will fund this? All of this could be done now if there was real concern for the safety of the children.
674 - It is not clear which part of School Road this plan seeks to "retain the historic landscape", as the look and feel as it is now will be destroyed from the School to Ashford Road if the additional status of green belt is removed from the north side of the road. There is no justification or benefit of doing this, other than to allow the additional building on that side of the road, which is outlined in 671. If that is the "implied" reason, why is it not clearly stated and the numbers included and the rest of the document and the same level of analysis given to the impact of these sites. What conditions as outlined in the Policy HH1 section would be assigned to the developers of those sites, and what then would the impact on the highway mitigation suggested in 672? This plan needs to be joined up to ensure the least worse outcome for the road, and the village.
A number of the houses on the North side of the road have large land areas, and by removing the Green Belt status will pave the way for windfall developments. The existing proposal for 122 School Road, is an example, where the current proposal is for infill, but that is to allow the existing property to be demolished to allow for an access road to the land at the rear, and then housing opportunity. Maintaining the green belt will allow this type of development to be controlled.

Full text:

The facts related to the Current village and links are not all still true, and have not been reflected in such a way that informs future decision making. The future plans are not detailed to consider the impacts of other developments on this one, such as traffic down School Road as a result of BVP or the impact on Dorridge Station Car Parking. There is no traffic/transport specific detail/plans that will support the development plans, other than high level meaningless words.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10925

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Porter

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Develop brown field and commercial property before greenbelt. Develop in a village with the roads, doctors, schools, post office, public transport before looking at villages with none of these!
The high street is on the massive decline and has been for the last few years...develop that into housing as everything infrastructure wise is there already.

Change suggested by respondent:

Before anymore development and to protect our children’s safety!
Please Widen to School Road to be able to withstand the increased traffic from developments and Blythe Valley.
Locate a Doctors Surgery, pharmacy and expand the School in the village before any further development.
Leave the precious Greenbelt land alone, use Brown field and empty properties first.
We have expanded in this village already with Foxes Meadow, the housing association homes on the Stratford Road and the exclusive Aylesbury house hotel development.... we shouldn’t expand anymore, we cannot cope with more people without work on the infrastructure.

Full text:

Firstly Greenbelt land should be protected. The Government have recently published a document stating that this is a major priority to safeguard our rural countryside and greenbelt areas. This is green belt land that is situated on a narrow quiet minor road, just outside a busy Primary School where aged 3 yr upwards walk around. No consideration or thought has been given to the massive Blythe Valley development which has just started having a fraction of houses finished and people moving in here, with no extra facilities provided at all at present, for example School spaces or Doctors etc. In Hockley Heath we don’t have a post office or Doctors or pharmacy for families making the reliance on car travel for everything ...putting more hazards onto this tiny road. We have no bus service into Birmingham anymore also with no post office, where is the economic infrastructure for this size of village. This development is increasing thenVillage way above the average levels a nationally, why this Village, which has a small Primary School that can not expand?
The land earmarked for development has wildlife and old Oak trees which will be destroyed, along with flooding for all the land, gardens and towpath surrounding this land if anything is built on this clay soil. Flooding is already a massive problem in this area, and with climate change we are predicated to have higher rain fall creating more flooding.
I am totally opposed to Green belt land being developed on. Solihull Council needs to really look at some empty commercial sites that lay empty as Businesses are not expanding or moving into this area, lost of empty shops on the high street, along with empty properties and brown field sites which should be developed all before anything Green to be touched.
The Land owner is rubbing his hands together at the wealth this will give him and his family so we can all be swamped with cars, noise and families with no schools or Doctors or Dentists to get their families into.
Fill all your empty residential and commercial buildings before comping to dig up our green belt land, leave our wildlife to flourish, and take your developments nearer villages that have roads built to withstand the increase in traffic and have a Doctors surgery and infrastructure to cope with this!

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 10984

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Jukes

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Additional housing is not required in hockley heath. There is a good range of affordable housing already available.

School road in particular struggles with the volume of traffic around school time and is heavily congested already.

The plan is not justified as the land opposite school road is flood land and home to many species of wildlife including bats. The animals currently on the land provide much joy to the village.

The little green belt left in the village itself is rapidly being selected to be built on leaving almost no open green land in the village.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove the land opposite school road from the plan.

Please keep some open green land within the village.

Full text:

Additional housing is not required in hockley heath. There is a good range of affordable housing already available.

School road in particular struggles with the volume of traffic around school time and is heavily congested already.

The plan is not justified as the land opposite school road is flood land and home to many species of wildlife including bats. The animals currently on the land provide much joy to the village.

The little green belt left in the village itself is rapidly being selected to be built on leaving almost no open green land in the village.

Support

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 11248

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mr T Khan

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The potential development of the two areas either side of School Road would appear to fulfil the Councils criteria for limited and proportionate expansion of the settlement.
Removing land to the north of School Road from the Green Belt would conform with the Council’s intention to address anomalies in Green Belt boundaries across the Borough (Paragraph 420 o the DSP).
This is also applicable to Jacobean Lane in Knowle.

Full text:

See attachments.

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14371

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Rosconn Strategic Land

Agent: DS Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

It is agreed that Hockley Heath should be a settlement where limited and proportionate development is accepted.
However, it is considered that the site on land r/o 2214 Stratford Road Hockley Heath, submitted originally as part of the Solihull DLP 2016 consultation (site 121) is located in a more central location within the settlement and exhibits equal if not better credentials in respect of Green Belt, accessibility, landscape and deliverability than Site 25, Land off School Road Hockley Heath

Change suggested by respondent:

And the addition of Land r/o Stratford Road Hockley Heath (Site Ref 121).

Full text:

See attached form and written representations

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14552

Received: 11/12/2020

Respondent: St Philips - Land at Stratford Road, Hockley Heath

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Site 503:
Firstly, St Philips considers that the scoring of land off Stratford Road with 9 at the Site Selection Step 1 is incorrect on the grounds that whilst its accessibility scores Low/Medium, its low-performance in the Green Belt Assessment warrants its scoring as a 6 at the very leas
The site would form a logical extension to the settlement of Hockley Heath. The site is modest in size and is bound by permanent physical features in all directions which would ensure development of the wider site remains contained and has negligible impact on the remaining Green Belt
There is existing development to the south of the site in the form of residential properties that form ribbon development along Aylesbury Road and Stratford Road. The proposed development will not extend beyond the limits of this current development, and will provide visual buffer planting along the northern site edge to create a defensible boundary.
The Vision Document submitted through the Call for Sites process and supporting this representation demonstrates that the release of the site from the Green Belt in Solihull would be logical and would not result in overall harm to the purposes of Green Belt.

Change suggested by respondent:

The land at Stratford Road should be included as an allocation, alongside draft Allocation HH1, which offers the potential to deliver up to 37 dwellings as a logical extension to Hockley Heath.

Full text:

see attached submission document

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14579

Received: 11/02/2021

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

site 49
Whilst our Client supports the proposed removal of Site No. 49 (Land adjacent 84 School Road, Hockley Heath) from the Green Belt and the proposed settlement boundary amendment at Hockley Heath (as shown on the Policies Map), our Client specifically objects to Paragraph 671 as currently worded and we make the case that the site 49 (Land adjacent 84 School Road, Hockley Heath) should be formally allocated for housing development or at the very least the current uncertainty that the wording of paragraph 671 should be amended.
The land is available now, offers a suitable location for development now, and has a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.
Paragraph 674 of the SLP accepts the case for the existing ribbon of development on the north side of School Road, which is without any significant gaps warrants removal from the Green Belt, which would include our Client’s site.

Change suggested by respondent:

Paragraphs 671 should be amended as detailed below:

‘In addition to the site south of School Road that would then fall within the settlement boundary, if the Green Belt boundary were amended as described above, there are also two smaller sites that will be considered appropriate for development as they would then also be within the settlement boundary. These sites are not being allocated as part of this plan but are being highlighted as they have been promoted for development by the landowner/developer and if the Green Belt boundary is changed as proposed on the Policies Map they would no longer be subject to Green Belt policy. The details of the scale of development would be established through the planning application process. These are as follows (using the call for site references and the SHELAA for potential indicative capacity):

49 Land adjacent to 84 School Road (capacity 21)

328 land at and to the rear of 84, 86 & 90 School Road (capacity 30)

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14652

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Rainier Developments Limited (Stratford Road Hockley Heath)

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Hockley Heath certainly contains a range of facilities for everyday needs, and includes a primary school. The one key service lacking in the village is a doctors surgery as noted in the Plan8 . However, there are no proposals within the Plan to address the lack of this facility which is a missed opportunity to create a more sustainable pattern of development. In fact, in proposing an allocation of only 90 dwellings and nothing else, the existing problem is only compounded by increasing the population in the settlement.
Based on the Spatial Strategy as drafted, a proportionate addition is supported by the Plan. Again, proportionate is not defined within the Plan. Hockley Heath has a population in excess of 2,000 with circa 800 households, and yet only one allocation is proposed for 90 dwellings and overall only 141 dwellings are expected to be delivered in the Plan period9 . An increase in the size of the settlement by circa 15% is a relatively small proportionate increase, and it is noted that the proposed increase in the size of Hockley Heath is significantly less than other settlements of similar size (such as Cheswick Green which is proposed to accommodate 1,000 dwellings).
The Spatial Strategy would therefore appear to support a much higher level of growth in Hockley Heath than has been allocated in the sites selected.
It is considered therefore that selecting one site of 90 dwellings in Hockley Heath does not reflect the Spatial Strategy, unnecessarily constrains growth in a sustainable location, and misses an opportunity to enhance the sustainability of the settlement through the delivery of key services in the form of land for a doctors surgery and new two form entry primary school on Site 417.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Site Selection should include an allocation of land west of Stratford Road, Hockley Heath

Full text:

see attached representation form

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14690

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Rainier Developments Limited (School Road Hockley Heath)

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Hockley Heath certainly contains a range of facilities for everyday needs, and includes a primary school. The one key service lacking in the village is a doctors surgery as noted in the Plan8 . However, there are no proposals within the Plan to address the lack of this facility which is a missed opportunity to create a more sustainable pattern of development. In fact, in proposing an allocation of only 90 dwellings and nothing else, the existing problem is only compounded by increasing the population in the settlement.
Based on the Spatial Strategy as drafted, a proportionate addition is supported by the Plan. Again, proportionate is not defined within the Plan. Hockley Heath has a population in excess of 2,000 with circa 800 households, and yet only one allocation is proposed for 90 dwellings and overall only 141 dwellings are expected to be delivered in the Plan period . An increase in the size of the settlement by circa 15% is a relatively small proportionate increase, and it is noted that the proposed increase in the size of Hockley Heath is significantly less than other settlements of similar size (such as Cheswick Green which is proposed to accommodate 1,000 dwellings).
The Spatial Strategy would therefore appear to support a much higher level of growth in Hockley Heath than has been allocated in the sites selected.
It is considered therefore that selecting one site of 90 dwellings in Hockley Heath does not reflect the Spatial Strategy, unnecessarily constrains growth in a sustainable location, and misses an opportunity to enhance the sustainability of the settlement through the delivery of key services in the form of land for a doctors surgery and new two form entry primary school on Site 416. It is in an accessible location, it is a lower performing site in Green Belt terms, and is therefore a Priority 5 site

Change suggested by respondent:

The Site Selection should include an allocation of land north School Road, Hockley Heath

Full text:

see attached representation form

Attachments:

Object

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 14705

Received: 11/12/2020

Respondent: Mr James Mc Bride

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 669 & 671:
The proposed settlement boundary amendment at Hockley Heath (as shown on the Policies Map) is unsound as it does not include any amendment to the boundary south of the settlement, contrary to national planning policy.

Land which is unnecessary to keep open has been retained within the Green Belt – contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 139b);
• Insufficient policy weight has been given to encouraging the development of all suitable land adjacent to the 2013 adopted settlement boundary for housing to avoid the need to adjust Green Belt boundaries beyond the plan period – contrary to NPPF paragraph 139 e); and
Insufficient account has been taken of the Hockley Heath Neighbourhood Plan Resident Survey Results Report (2018), which showed significantly less opposition to any new development being directed south of the settlement boundary, along Stratford Road – contrary to NPPF paragraphs 15 and 16 c).

Change suggested by respondent:

Paragraphs 669 and 671 should be amended as detailed below:
62. Paragraph 669:
‘The Green Belt boundary around Hockley Heath will need to be amended to accommodate the level of growth proposed for the settlement. To provide a logical,
strong and defensible new southern boundary to the north west of the settlement it is proposed to use the Stratford-upon-Avon Canal and to use the existing and strengthened vegetation boundary line to the south along Stratford Road.’
63. Paragraph 671:
‘In addition to the site south of School Road that would then fall within the settlement boundary, if the Green Belt boundary were amended as described above, there are
also three smaller sites that will be considered appropriate for development as they would then also be within the settlement boundary. These sites are not being allocated as part of this plan but are being highlighted as they have been promoted for development by the landowner/developer and if the Green Belt boundary is
changed as proposed on the Policies Map they would no longer be subject to Green Belt policy. The details of the scale of development would be established through the planning application process. These are as follows (using the call for site references and the SHELAA for potential indicative capacity):
• 49 Land adjacent to 84 School Road (capacity 21)
• 328 land at and to the rear of 84, 86 & 90 School Road (capacity 30)
• 14 Land at 2440, Stratford Road (capacity 8 to 15)

An amendment to the Policies Map is proposed as shown on enclosed Plan 201207
(or to follow the boundary line of land in our Client’s ownership if agreement is
reached under the Duty to Cooperate with Stratford-on-Avon Council).

Full text:

see attached representation forms

Support

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 15228

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mr S Kelly

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The potential development of the two areas either side of School Road would appear to fulfil the Councils criteria for limited and proportionate expansion of the settlement.
Removing land to the north of School Road from the Green Belt would conform with the Council’s intention to address anomalies in Green Belt boundaries across the Borough (Paragraph 420 o the DSP).
This is also applicable to Jacobean Lane in Knowle.

Full text:

See attachments.

Attachments:

Support

Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020

Representation ID: 15237

Received: 14/12/2020

Respondent: Mr J Green

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The potential development of the two areas either side of School Road would appear to fulfil the Councils criteria for limited and proportionate expansion of the settlement.
Removing land to the north of School Road from the Green Belt would conform with the Council’s intention to address anomalies in Green Belt boundaries across the Borough (Paragraph 420 o the DSP).
This is also applicable to Jacobean Lane in Knowle.

Full text:

See attachments.

Attachments: