04 Dickens Heath - West of Dickens Heath

Proposed housing developments in Shirley and Solihull

I wanted to lodge my huge concerns over the proposed new housing developments in Shirley and Solihull. As a Shirley resident, who primarily moved to the area four years ago to be nearer local countryside I am astonished by the amount of new housing planned. We already have growing congestion around the Bills Lane and Tile House Lane areas but have the pressure that these thousands of homes will put on local services been taken into consideration? For example, Solihull hospital has had so many of its facilities cut or completely removed. What about school places? Let alone the amount of sports pitches that will be built on and the subsequent recreation amenities removed. I find the prospect of such large scale changes quite stressful and really worry about the impact it will have on mine and my family's future in this area. We already feel that the existing infrastructure in the area cannot cope with the current demands made upon it.

Re: Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan

We love Solihull !
One of the reasons Solihull is a desirable place to live is that unlike the overdeveloped sprawl of other areas it has some breathing space - Urbs In Rure!
The proposed housing developments contained in the Draft Plan are a massive over development of the Borough and challenge the very reason that makes it a good place to live.
Future generations will thank the Council if this element of the plan is scaled back, particularly in Shirley which bears a disproportionate burden of 41% of the proposed
units on allocated new housing sites.
Solihull could be a beacon by holding up a hand and resisting over development and saying that breathing space is important in our overcrowded island.

see detailed response to policies and 4 supporting documents supporting proposed sites

I wish to register my objection to proposed houses on allocation 04 &13
The roads are already congested & dangerous around Majors Green & natural habitat will be lost forever.

see attached letter and supporting annotated map

Allocation 13 and Allocation 4

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to register my objection to the loss of allocation 13 to residential use.
I live on Falstaff Road in Shirley and within a few minutes of leaving my house, my family and I can be in green countryside. It is a very well used natural environment, that provides a much welcomed break from the urban environment.
I moved from one part of Solihull to Shirley 3 years ago and the ability to be in the countryside within a few minutes was key to our decision to move to Shirley. I regularly use this area for running, walking with family and in particular taking my 4 year old daughter out to learn about nature and wildlife. I can honestly say that the inability to access this green space would have changed our decision to move to this part of Shirley.
The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes. The addition of thousands on new homes in such a small area will compound congestion.
My concern as a parent is the impact on local schools. My daughter attends the infant school within this area and she is already in a class of 30 children. The influx of more families could lead to a decrease in the quality of education being provided due to the stretch in resources.

I am also writing to register my objection to the loss of allocation 4 to residential use. I know this area well due to family being located in neighbouring Major's Green. I would be extremely concerned about the impact on local roads which are already very congested.
In addition, there is a large number of sports clubs and facilities currently in allocation 4. Sport clubs are community hubs which play an important role in both adult and children's physical and mental well-being. To lose such a large cluster of sports clubs would impact on the physical and mental well being of the residents in the local community. To transition people to other sports clubs is not a successful option due to the high rate of drop in participation when change occurs.
Yours Sincerely

see attached

see attached

Please find attached our response on behalf of Mark Horgan to the Draft Local Plan Review consultation. We have also attached our Scope, Issues and Options (January 2016) submission for your reference.

Letter responding to draft local plan review.

see letter
I would like to state for the record, my strong objection to the proposal for 700 new dwellings on Site Allocation 4 (west of Dickens Heath) in the Solihull Local Plan Review.

see response and supporting documents

Views on Allocation 13

These are my objections and comments on Allocation 13. I am writing to register my formal objection to Allocation 13.
- The area is currently semi-rural. Building on Allocation 13 as well as the other proposed locations will make Shirley an urban area of sprawling housing.
- Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements". The Council have not explored all other options and have not considered all options across the Solihull borough.
- Traffic along the A34 is already problematic and this will only become worse. I live on Burman Road and that road together with surrounding roads will become busier and more congested.
- The addition of housing in Allocation 13 together with the other proposed areas totals in excess of 2000. Assuming that families are the main occupants there may be at least an additional 2000 children - where are the proposals for the new primary schools that would be required as well as at least one secondary school? There will also need to be more medical facilities.
- Allocation 13 is a popular recreation and amenity area and is an area of environmental importance and benefit. There will also be an impact on recreation areas.
Before developing greenfield sites, it is necessary to prove that all options have been explored - what about development on sites surrounding Birmingham airport, close to the HS2 link or spreading the housing provision across Solihull rather than impact in one defined area.
Please bear these valid points points when making your final decision.

see attached response and supporting documents

To whom it may concern

Re Spatial Planning Council House Solihull - Local Plan Review Shirley - South Shirley

I am writing in response to the consultation on the Local Plan Review and wish to draw the following concerns in respect of the draft consultation proposals in this area:

* To retain and enhance the existing amenity fields and the green corridor to the bridleway, with access to Bills Lane, the canal and the countryside beyond.
* There to be no secondary vehicle access roads via the Woodlands or Badger Residential Estate.
* We object to the concentration of 2550 homes in such close proximity to the South Shirley area and seek a fairer distribution across the borough.
* That there should be retention of a wider Green Belt between South Shirley and the built area of Dickens Heath.

I hope that the views of residents will incorporated into making a more inclusive and fair plan for the borough.

i wish to object to the proposed buildings of 41% share of houses in Shirley Solihull. As I live on Marshall Lake Road and the traffic is already dire,the thought of so much more traffic and congestion around this area is ridiculous. Green belt land and wildlife are more important to people than houses which they cannot afford I feel. Traffic pollution is not good for anyone's health or safety, whereas open spaces and fields,peace and quiet,bridal paths,dog walking areas,canals and rippling streams are most beneficial to health and well being.
'IF IT AINT BROKE....DONT FIX IT'

Allocation 13
To whom it may concern

My children and grandchildren live in Shirley and cannot afford to buy a house. Affordable housing is needed in the area so I fully support Allocation 13 but not on the sports fields at Dickens Heath.
Regards

Proposed housing in Shirley

The proposed plans for such a large amount of housing, adding to that already in Dickens Heath and the further traffic congestion this would bring to the area is, in my opinion, totally short sighted. My objections are:

* The congestion on the Stratford Road up to the motorway connection is already very bad and getting worse especially during commuting times.
* Dog Kennel Lane, by its very name is a lane and the amount of traffic from your proposed building would make it untenable for most journeys as it would be completely jammed.
* The exit from Tanworth Lane onto Blackford Road and Dog Kennel Lane is already a nightmare when people are trying to exit Tanworth Lane as the traffic from Dickens Heath is constant with little leeway to move out of Tanworth Lane. This is already an accident waiting to happen!
* We have had a large amount of retail expansion in this area over the past few years. The Sears Retail Park, plus the stores on the Stratford Road bordering the island at Stratford Road/Blackford Road and Marshall Lake Road, make it very difficult and we are virtual prisoners in our homes as the Stratford Road is grid locked as is Marshall Lake Road and Blossomfield Road, virtually all the way into Solihull.
* I firmly believe we have 'done our bit' for the area with all the above and would like my objections recognised.
* Surely it would be much safer and more manageable for the housing to be built at Catherine de Barnes where there is more room and less problems with the amount of traffic these builds would generate.
* I feel this proposal would have far reaching negative implications in that many people would not travel to this area as it would be a travel bottle neck and be avoided being detrimental to the NEC and surrounding businesses.

Allocation 13 and Allocation 4

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to register my objection to the loss of allocation 13 to residential use.
I live on Falstaff Road in Shirley and within a few minutes of leaving my house, my family and I can be in green countryside. It is a very well used natural environment, that provides a much welcomed break from the urban environment.
The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes. The addition of thousands on new homes in such a small area will compound congestion.

I am also writing to register my objection to the loss of allocation 4 to residential use. I know this area well due to family being located in neighbouring Major's Green. I would be extremely concerned about the impact on local roads which are already very congested.
In addition, there is a large number of sports clubs and facilities currently in allocation 4. Sport clubs are community hubs which play an important role in both adult and children's physical and mental well-being. To lose such a large cluster of sports clubs would impact on the physical and mental well being of the residents in the local community. To transition people to other sports clubs is not a successful option due to the high rate of drop in participation when change occurs.
Yours faithful,

see attached

I would like to lodge my objection to the proposed extension of Dickens Heath to the Bromsgrove border.

As a resident of Majors Green there are several reasons I object:

The further erosion of the Green Belt and open lands - this is not good for the environment we live in on a local or bigger scale. We have seen continued erosion of this land around us over many years and it needs to stop.

The impact of further houses on the existing residents. Dickens Heath has already created a much higher flow of traffic on the local roads. The already high flow have caused serious concern and damage to Majors Green residents and properties. To the point of residents almost being very seriously hurt. We cannot cope with any further traffic.

Dickens Heath itself is already very congested. Having no choice but to use the roads through Dickens Heath the volume of traffic is unmanageable through the village itself. The congestion level in the village and the amount of traffic coming out of the village is very high. Furthermore the roads are very narrow with cars parked on each side. The development itself is already over crowded.

I would like to object to any further development and ask that the proposal be refused and no further houses to built.

Objection: Sites 4 and 13 Dickens Heath of the Draught Local Plan

I write to register my objection to the proposed development of the green belt land around Dickens Heath.
National Planning Policy requires that very special circumstances must be demonstrated in order to allow for the development of green belt land. SMBC may be able to achieve this by drawing attention to the difficulties of identifying sufficient brown field sites in conjunction with a plan led approach towards addressing those difficulties in order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF and that the NPPF is unrealistic unless building on greenbelt is allowed when no other route available.

However I feel the spirit of these NPPF requirements and the very definite and absolute statements made by Central Government are attempted to be circumnavigated by SMBC. This by way of using the very special circumstance rule to not just build on green belt land but in the case of Dickens Heath to eradicate the last remaining slender green corridors between Dickens Heath, Tidbury Green, Majors Green and Shirley. This would undisputedly create major urban sprawl between individual communities and wider Solihull by way of eradicating those final remnants of green belt which presently separate these communities. This would impinge on, not just the one semi-rural community of Dickens Heath but also the surrounding communities and greater locale.

I strongly believe and agree with Central Government that the very special needs rule is not about permitting the destroying of community identities by allowing urban sprawl to eradicate the last yards of natural green separation; it is the complete opposite to this. It is really about allowing developments on green belt land in a controlled and responsible manner when absolutely no other option route is available. I do not believe SMBC have proved by sequential testing that there is absolutely no alternative green belt land available that would not eradicate divisions between communities and illiminate any possibility of wildlife commute and habitat.

As stated any necessary last option development of green belt should not destroy rural communities by way of allowing large scale urban sprawl and not eradicate green corridors completely which would serious impede free transit of species and varied cross pollination. I believe the responsibility of an authority, when forced to build on green belt should be to do so in a way which retains existing linked green areas around those communities by adopting a landscape scaled approach towards the reason for, purpose of, and essential preservation of green belt land around rural or semi rural communities. This being in line with Central Government's target to reverse decline of species by 2025 which is a necessity if the UK's commitment towards the World Target is to be at all achievable. We all have our part to play and Borough Councils, above all else, should shoulder their responsibilities as role models in a leading and positive manner.

In addition to the above it has been proven that contact with nature promotes health and well being in all of us. Committing to urban sprawl will increasingly deny not just one community of that contact but also the other communities the sprawl links to. I consider this a totally irresponsible and unacceptable way for a borough council to conduct its affairs.

Over recent years the Dickens Heath area has already absorbed a large bulks of development which seems unquestionably more than a fair share of the boroughs housing needs. This losing Dickens Heath substantial amounts of outer green belt as well as outstripping the originally planned infrastructure and concept by well over double the number of originally intended households. The redesign of Garden Squares having now also completely ruled out the possibility of additional commercial premises within Dickens Heath to at last achieve the originally planned footfall and extra public parking to, in turn, boost trade for it's presently struggling services infrastructure and shops. The woefully inadequate present village centre situation being literally locked in concrete by more flawed planning.

In addition to this indisputable present outstripping of infrastructure, the locations for these newly proposed sites would incur an increased reliance on the current services and commercial area of Dickens Heath; this would be totally impractical from an accessibility point of view. It would also not be in line with the 800yrd planning rules forcing travel by car to local services and village centre, where again, over development has already created major parking and road capacity issues. This with several hundred dwellings still under construction within the original concept area of Dickens Heath itself. No matter how these newly proposed extra developments of the DLP are viewed, they can not in any way be seen as betterment of Dickens Heath Village. In addition to this, there can be no doubt that new developments on such a large scale would without doubt seriously compound the current planning flaws already built into Dickens Heath which have themselves been brought about by ongoing disregard for infrastructure capacity and the original village concept. It can be expected that the result of continuing along this overbuild path will without question result in community dysfunction at a seriously high level.

Considering the above points, it is considered that SMBC have not demonstrated a fair approach towards distribution of housings needs around the borough. Nor have they demonstrated that all alternatives have been openly and fairly explored. Have not displayed transparency or provided evidence for rejecting the development of a completely new rural community with its own infrastructure and own green belt separation within the borough. Housing development at the scale outlined in the DLP can not reasonable be tagged onto existing communities and especially those with an an infrastructure that has already been outstripped with apparent disregarded for the very real community issues that have already been created with apparently no concept of how these might be addressed at present levels let alone almost doubling the present number of Dickens Heath households with these two proposed new sites.

Considering the previous points l feel that the design and development of a purpose built, self contained new rural community within the borough would be a far more responsible and productive way to reach SMBC's housing quota while allowing for a plan that could better harmonise with protecting the general biodiversity of that chosen new area while also preserving the slender but essential green belt come green corridor separation of these particular existing communities. The call for sites must have returned development opportunities that, with some additional compulsory purchase, the cost of which would be passed on to the developer, would provide a new community sized parcel of land.

It is felt that this would be a far more responsible approach than cherry picking the easy ones for tagging development onto an existing community with an already outstripped infrastructure. One combined new community would also help to keep house prices down, as lots of smaller developments forces separate installation of that many more main service to each site.

I would strongly urge Solihull Council to reconsider what seems to be a flawed approach to this problem and in particular the proposal for sites 4 and 13 around Dickens Heath

site 4 objection

Herewith my thoughts concerning the local plan review, I send them by email because of the issues with the web portal.

1. The proposed developments on allocations 4, 11, 12, 13 are closely clustered. This will clearly impact road usage as well as require additional provision for schools, medical and other facilities. As a resident of Blackford road I am aware of the steady increase in traffic from the existing developments in and around Dickens Heath. It would appear that the highway usage and plan is a critical part of the proposal. Further, a lot of local traffic is caused by Dickens Heath pupils travelling by car to Alderbrook or other schools in Solihull. In summary, I can't see how the scheme is supposed to work sustainably without understanding the plan for additional services and roads.
2. The use of the 'TRW' site seems very logical. The land has limited recreational value and is clearly underutilised. Given the existing developments on the site it seems logical to extend the 3-4 storey buildings and provide housing local to the Shirley industrial area (including Cranmore) within walking distance.
3. Allocation 13 is the exact opposite and I oppose its use for housing. It is a valuable green space for recreation, nature and acting as a buffer between Dickens Heath and Shirley. Unless the previously planned 'Shirley Relief Road' is reinstated it is difficult to see it offering any improvement in the already busy traffic in the area. This allocation in particular would cause Shirley and Dickens Heath to merge into a mass of over-corded small local roads and housing.
4. A more general observation is that across Solihull there are a number of large ground level car parks. These don't strike me as a very efficient use of space, especially when they are near to shops/services or travel connections. Has adequate consideration been given to reviewing these for re-development and incorporation of housing?
5. Further to the point about local traffic above (1) I believe that additional provision will be required for car commuters to Solihull, the motorway network and to the rail network. The local railway station at Whitlocks End is already overloaded with cars. If more housing was within walking distance of this or other rail stations, it would relieve the pressure. The commute to the M42 in the morning is already difficult and I believe specific improvements are required to allow the traffic out of Shirley (to the motorway) to not be delayed by traffic coming in to the Cranmore businesses, as they currently do. Improvements to Dog Kennel Lane and the connecting roundabouts on the A34 and at Dickens Heath road could ease this. It would appear that this needs to be planned and enacted before the developments commence to minimise the impact and allow maximum flexibility in planning new roads/connections.

Please find attached Persimmon Homes Central's representations in response to the draft plan published November 2016. Also attached are our site specific representations regarding our site at Tythe Barn Lane, Dickens Heath, which forms part of the strategic allocation.

Dear sirs

Please find a statement in connection with the local plan review.
I strongly object to any additional development in Dickens Heath.
We have suffered too much fringe development and over development in recent years together with an appalling lack of infrastructure improvements and highway maintenance works, to such an extent the surrounding road networks are verging on third world standard!
Dickens Heath is a new village, it was designed as a contemporary village and should remain so, Local plan proposals seek to eradicate the village and extend the boundaries into surrounding rural/semi-rural settlements whereby Dickens Heath village actually becomes part of Shirley conurbation!

As a resident of Dickens Heath for over 13 years, I wish to strongly object to the allocation of Site 4 for residential development of 700 dwellings.
Dickens Heath is a planned new village with clearly defined limits. It is unique in Solihull as having emerged through the Unitary Development Plan process as an entirely new community. It has an architectural character of its own. It is not an urban extension. It differs therefore from previous urban development in the Borough of Solihull, planned and carried out in previous decades as large-scale urban extensions: Chelmsley Wood (1960s/70s) and Cranmore-Widney (1970s-80s).
Dickens Heath should be identified in the Local Plan as having a particular character and design and that there should be limits to its continued growth in terms of numbers and direction; the Village should be protected and conserved as a new village, together with its character and setting in the countryside.
The housing proposals for Dickens Heath in the Plan Review do not comply with the stated Policies as set out in both the existing adopted Local Plan and this Local Plan Review. It would be unsustainable and would no longer make Dickens Heath a "special place". In the Vision for the Borough, Dickens Heath is addressed at paragraph 87:

"... whilst retaining its intrinsic character of distinctive villages separated by open countryside". The proposed major development of Site 4 would not be in accordance with this stated policy.

The Government has consistently committed to protecting the Green Belt and stated that the single issue of unmet housing demand is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt. It is my opinion as a Developer professional that there are a substantial number of other sites in the Borough more suitable for development. No robust and detailed appraisal of alternative sites has been carried out in a sequential test. The Council has not fully examined the infrastructure requirements that would justify and mitigate altering the Green Belt. Permanence is a feature of Green Belt and any decision to change its status should be considered carefully. Areas of land which are assessed in the Atkins Green Belt Assessment as having a score of 7 or higher - presumably because they perform best against the criteria for being in the Green Belt - should not therefore be removed from the Green Belt. Instead some of those higher performing sites have been proposed for removal from the Green Belt for no logical reason.

The proposed large-scale housing allocations on Green Belt land in Dickens Heath Parish would be a major expansion of the urban area and would reduce or remove key gaps between settlements such as Majors Green. The attractive rural setting of Dickens Heath will be partly lost to development. In Dickens Heath Parish, access to the countryside and recreational opportunities will be reduced, not improved.

There is also a disproportionate amount of the additional housing proposed in the Plan Review proposed to be located in the Blythe Ward - Parishes of Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green. 45% of all the proposed additional housing would be sited in these two Parishes. I consider that this is an excessive burden placed on such a small area. It notes that there are no housing proposals at all in the Dorridge & Hockley Heath Ward, although this comprises a significant part of the Borough and has a number of locations suggested for development in the 'call for sites' and identified in the SHELAA (Housing Land Availability Assessment). None of these have been properly assessed in the analysis conducted to arrive at the final suggested allocations. There should be a preference for smaller sized housing allocations rather than the almost entirely proposed large scale mass housing locations controlled by a few national house builders. Indeed, the Government promote the use of SME builders in developing small scale housing for local needs as suggested in the recent Housing White Paper. There appears to be little cognizance of this vital tool for local employment and economic benefit within the proposals.
The Plan should be revised to reduce the number and scale of large allocations, and to replace some of these with a wider range of small/medium housing sites which would be delivered faster and can be absorbed more easily into their communities.

The proposed allocation of Site 4 does not accord with Government policy to protect Green Belt from development. An example is the Secretary of State's statement in the Commons on 18 July 2016:

"The Green Belt is absolutely sacrosanct. We have made that clear: it was in the Conservative party manifesto and that will not change. The Green Belt remains special. Unless there are very exceptional circumstances, we should not be carrying out any development on it."

In addition, the opening paragraph of the Solihull Local Plan Review states:-

"At the heart of planning is the need to plan positively for sustainable development. One of the principal ways this is achieved is by having a local plan to guide the development of an area. Having a local plan is key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities."
"Sustainability will be a key focus of the Review including sustainable transport accessibility."
"The vision recognises the importance of the Borough's distinctive rural settlements and wider rural area."
"Growth in rural settlements will be considered in the context of emerging Neighbourhood Plans and the capacity of local infrastructure or the potential for new capacity."

The new Housing White Paper includes further strengthening of policy on Green Belt as well as asking for smaller sites to be made available for development by local builders and those wanting to self-build. Build more homes on public sector land; Local Authority to be allowed to sell land with the benefit of planning permission; encourage estate regeneration.

Green belt to be used as a last resort (once LA have demonstrated that they have examined fully all reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements) and the impact is to be off-set by compensatory measures.
"Green Belt land will continue to be protected in order to meet its strategic purposes, including countryside protection, in accordance with established principles and the NPPF."
I do not agree that exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated to release, in particular, the Housing Allocation Site 4 from the Green Belt. There has not been a sequential test carried out to identify which sites are the most sustainable. There are other small and medium sized sites now within the Green Belt which have a lower score in the Atkins Assessment than Site 4, and would be more sustainable with less adverse effects.

Proposed Housing Allocation Site 4 would not be in a sustainable location and would create substantial car traffic. While it would be close to Whitlock's End railway station, the rail service at that station gives access to Central Birmingham and to Stratford-upon-Avon. It does not provide a service to Solihull Town Centre, for which there is only a slow and indirect bus service or across the Borough to UK Central. There would no direct access from Site 4 to the services and facilities in Dickens Heath village itself, as there would be no direct road or cycleway to the village centre. Cycle and pedestrian access to the village centre was a core principle of the design for Dickens Heath.

If Site 4 is included in the Local Plan, there would be a major loss of sports grounds and playing fields. Sport England as a Statutory consultee would object to any loss of sports grounds especially those which are regularly used. Taking a sustainable approach would consider replacement elsewhere a waste of money and resources, it is doubtful any new facilities will be used by the greater community in higher volumes. If the current facilities are in need of renovation, there are grants and charitable donations available to support such schemes negating the need to sell to developers for a fast buck.

The Green Belt which would be lost to Site 4 contains a variety of different types of sports facilities. The proposed replacement sports facility on Site 4 between Tythe Barn Lane and the Stratford Canal would not adequately replace the many sports clubs' requirements. There are already many objections to the loss of the several current sports fields and facilities; these are used by people from a large area of the Conurbation and surrounding towns.

The suggested replacement new sports facilities - which appear to be included as part of the housing allocation - are more urban and would include significant built development and car parking. They would be too large and intensive to be capable of being appropriate development in Green Belt. The openness of the Green Belt, which the current sports fields preserve effectively, would be lost. There would be no guarantee that that new sports area would not be the subject of further housing development proposals later. It should be entirely removed from the Housing Allocation site if that allocation remains despite the Parish Council's deep concerns about it in principle. We have actually fallen victim to this very trick in Dickens Heath less than two years ago. The current Bellway development had a MUGA pitch designed within the site proposals only to be removed at the 11th hour without any public consultation, due - we are told - to Solihull MBC's refusal to take on the ownership and future maintenance! A fantastic result for the developer who managed to increase the number of oversized multi million pound executive houses realizing substantial windfall profits and reduced community benefit contribution costs.

Additionally, and significantly, the valuable and popular Akamba Heritage Centre on Tythe Barn Lane would be lost, which is also a good local employer. This is because the land on which it stands would be redeveloped for car parking and new more intensive set of sports facilities. Akamba offers an unusual leisure and recreation experience and its character contributes to the quality of the environment. It merits protection under Policy P10. There is no prospect of any community benefit from the Site 4 proposal which could outweigh the loss of it as an existing leisure, cultural and recreation facility. The Housing Allocation Site 4 proposals would force its closure.

This has not been the case in proposing Site 4 against the evidence provided in the Green Belt Review with the Green Belt in this location scoring 7 & 8 due to the coalescence with neighbouring settlements. Site 13 has a lower Green Belt score of 6. Another main issue of the SLPR is the challenge of protecting the environment, particularly the Green Belt/rural character and building into the Review an emphasis on sustainability/climate change. Site 4 is would significantly adversely affect the Village character and rural setting and would be unsustainable as the proposed development is more than accepted walking distance of 800 metres to the centre of the Village. As this increased traffic would place an unacceptable burden on the already inadequate, congested road system and the existing Village centre car parking shortage, the proposals would not be in accordance with the stated policy or with the policies also stated below.

"Sustainable development will be a central focus for the Review and will take into consideration effects on communities, HS2 and flood risk."
In the Scope, Issues and Options Consultation - Summary of Representations and the Council's Response, it is stated on Page 25:-
"The Council will seek through a managed growth approach to ensure that growth does not result in deterioration in the quality of life of residents and visitors."
"Enhancing Solihull as a place where people aspire to live, learn, work and play, whilst recognising and protecting character and local distinctiveness."

The original concept design for Dickens Heath by John Simpson stated that "A village works as one cohesive entity because the perception is that everything is within easy walking distance". The emphasis for the scheme as a whole is on accessibility where the majority of the residents will be no more than 5 minutes walking time from the centre. The majority of the Housing Allocation Site 4 location would exceed this walking distance, so the new residents would favour the use of cars to the village amenities (where car parking is already a major problem). In transport terms Site 4 would be entirely unsustainable.

The highway network for the original John Simpson design of the Village was for only 700 dwellings. This figure was subsequently increased to a long term maximum of 1,500 dwellings with some highway improvements, but the current highway network is unsuitable for the current 2,200 dwellings plus the increased through traffic from Tidbury Green when the Lowbrook Farm and Tidbury Green Farm developments are completed, never mind an additional 700 dwellings plus the cut-through traffic that also now use the road network. Again, on highway safety grounds the proposals are unsustainable. If major further development was to take place, major road improvements would have to be carried out. However, this would mean the removal of established hedgerows and mature trees which greatly add to and enhance the character and setting of the Village and the central Village road network was not designed for such usage. In addition it is not possible to upgrade the internal Village road network through which additional traffic would have to travel. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Development of 700 additional dwellings would have a cumulative severe impact on the area.
In John Simpson's 1991 Proof of Evidence in Para. 2.04.1, he states:-
"In general Dickens Heath has strong boundaries defined by the Stratford-upon-Avon Canal on two sides and a site of interest to Nature Conservation (SINC)". The SINC comprises of an ancient woodland which forms a natural boundary to the north-west.
John Simpson's Report goes on to analyse the McAlpine proposals where the site for the new village would be moved north-west. In Para. 3.01.3 states that,
"The combination of the woodland SINC, the woodland with tree preservation orders (TPO) and the existing housing provide a further barrier to development running north-south and splitting the site in two." This proposed extension to the Village would have the effect of elongating the settlement pattern to the north-west which cannot be linked by footpaths to the existing built areas, would have the effect of denying Dickens Heath of its village character and so the Village would lose its identity and become a town. The UDPs stated that for the Village to work in the sense of being "a recognisable community with a distinctive character", the inhabitants of the village would need to feel close to the centre of activity and identify with it. This will not be possible for the new residents of the proposed site.
One of the main reasons put forward by McAlpines was the close proximity of Whitlock's End station; the same reason Solihull Council has for including site 4 in the Local Plan Review. This reason alone does not outweigh the substantial unsustainable elements of this proposal.
There would also be a loss of ecological value as there are two badger setts on the sports fields. Bats, sparrow hawks, greater spotted wood peckers also fly over the site for foraging.
To build houses on Site 4, there would need to be extensive piling. There is evidence from neighbouring sites that piling had to go to depths of 8 metres owing to the presence of boulder clay. The cost of developing this site would therefore also be unsustainable and a considerable amount of fill material would have to be brought in as the site is liable to flooding during sustained wet periods.
The Solihull LPR states, "Development will be expected to preserve or enhance heritage assets as appropriate to their significance, conserve local character and distinctiveness and create or sustain a sense of place."
The proposed major extension to Dickens Heath would seriously undermine the Village status as a unique, nationally important model for a new village.
For the reasons given above, I strongly urge Solihull Council to remove the proposed allocation of Site 4 west of Dickens Heath from the Plan.

Please find attached an objection to the allocation of Site 4 for 700 dwellings.
As a resident of Dickens Heath for 18 years, I wish to strongly object to the allocation of Site 4 for residential development of 700 dwellings.
Dickens Heath is a planned new village with clearly defined limits. It is unique in Solihull as having emerged through the Unitary Development Plan process as an entirely new community. It has an architectural character of its own. It is not an urban extension. It differs therefore from previous urban development in the Borough of Solihull, planned and carried out in previous decades as large-scale urban extensions: Chelmsley Wood (1960s/70s) and Cranmore-Widney (1970s-80s).
Dickens Heath should be identified in the Local Plan as having a particular character and design and that there should be limits to its continued growth in terms of numbers and direction; the Village should be protected and conserved as a new village, together with its character and setting in the countryside.
The housing proposals for Dickens Heath in the Plan Review do not comply with the stated Policies as set out in both the existing adopted Local Plan and this Local Plan Review. It would be unsustainable and would no longer make Dickens Heath a "special place". In the Vision for the Borough, Dickens Heath is addressed at paragraph 87:

"... whilst retaining its intrinsic character of distinctive villages separated by open countryside". The proposed major development of Site 4 would not be in accordance with this stated policy.

The Government has consistently committed to protecting the Green Belt and stated that the single issue of unmet housing demand is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt. Other sites in the Borough are more suitable for development. No robust and detailed appraisal of alternative sites has been carried out in a sequential test. The Council has not fully examined the infrastructure requirements that would justify and mitigate altering the Green Belt. Permanence is a feature of Green Belt and any decision to change its status should be considered carefully. Areas of land which are assessed in the Atkins Green Belt Assessment as having a score of 7 or higher - presumably because they perform best against the criteria for being in the Green Belt - should not therefore be removed from the Green Belt. Instead some of those higher performing sites have been proposed for removal from the Green Belt for no logical reason.

The proposed large-scale housing allocations on Green Belt land in Dickens Heath Parish would be a major expansion of the urban area and would reduce or remove key gaps between settlements such as Majors Green. The attractive rural setting of Dickens Heath will be partly lost to development. In Dickens Heath Parish, access to the countryside and recreational opportunities will be reduced, not improved.

There is also a disproportionate amount of the additional housing proposed in the Plan Review proposed to be located in the Blythe Ward - Parishes of Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green. 45% of all the proposed additional housing would be sited in these two Parishes. I consider that this is an excessive burden placed on such a small area. It notes that there are no housing proposals at all in the Dorridge & Hockley Heath Ward, although this comprises a significant part of the Borough and has a number of locations suggested for development in the 'call for sites' and identified in the SHELAA (Housing Land Availability Assessment). None of these have been properly assessed in the analysis conducted to arrive at the final suggested allocations. There should be a preference for small/medium sized housing allocations rather than the almost entirely proposed large housing locations which would be controlled by a few main house builders as suggested in the recent Housing White Paper.
The Plan should be revised to reduce the number and scale of large allocations, and to replace some of these with a wider range of small/medium housing sites which would be delivered faster and can be absorbed more easily into their communities.

The proposed allocation of Site 4 does not accord with Government policy to protect Green Belt from development. An example is the Secretary of State's statement in the Commons on 18 July 2016:

"The Green Belt is absolutely sacrosanct. We have made that clear: it was in the Conservative party manifesto and that will not change. The Green Belt remains special. Unless there are very exceptional circumstances, we should not be carrying out any development on it."

In addition, the opening paragraph of the Solihull Local Plan Review states:-

"At the heart of planning is the need to plan positively for sustainable development. One of the principal ways this is achieved is by having a local plan to guide the development of an area. Having a local plan is key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities."
"Sustainability will be a key focus of the Review including sustainable transport accessibility."
"The vision recognises the importance of the Borough's distinctive rural settlements and wider rural area."
"Growth in rural settlements will be considered in the context of emerging Neighbourhood Plans and the capacity of local infrastructure or the potential for new capacity."

The new Housing White Paper includes further strengthening of policy on Green Belt as well as asking for smaller sites to be made available for development by local builders and those wanting to self-build. Build more homes on public sector land; Local Authority to be allowed to sell land with the benefit of planning permission; encourage estate regeneration.

Green belt to be used as a last resort (once LA have demonstrated that they have examined fully all reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements) and the impact is to be off-set by compensatory measures.
"Green Belt land will continue to be protected in order to meet its strategic purposes, including countryside protection, in accordance with established principles and the NPPF."
I do not agree that exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated to release, in particular, the Housing Allocation Site 4 from the Green Belt. There has not been a sequential test carried out to identify which sites are the most sustainable. There are other small and medium sized sites now within the Green Belt which have a lower score in the Atkins Assessment than Site 4, and would be more sustainable with less adverse effects.

Proposed Housing Allocation Site 4 would not be in a sustainable location and would create substantial car traffic. While it would be close to Whitlock's End railway station, the rail service at that station gives access to Central Birmingham and to Stratford-upon-Avon. It does not provide a service to Solihull Town Centre, for which there is only a slow and indirect bus service or across the Borough to UK Central. There would no direct access from Site 4 to the services and facilities in Dickens Heath village itself, as there would be no direct road or cycleway to the village centre. Cycle and pedestrian access to the village centre was a core principle of the design for Dickens Heath.

If Site 4 is included in the Local Plan, there would be a major loss of sports grounds and playing fields. The Green Belt which would be lost to Site 4 contains a variety of different types of sports facilities. The proposed replacement sports facility on Site 4 between Tythe Barn Lane and the Stratford Canal would not adequately replace the many sports clubs' requirements. There are already many objections to the loss of the several current sports fields and facilities; these are used by people from a large area of the Conurbation and surrounding towns.

The suggested replacement new sports facilities - which appear to be included as part of the housing allocation - are more urban and would include significant built development and car parking. They would be too large and intensive to be capable of being appropriate development in Green Belt. The openness of the Green Belt, which the current sports fields preserve effectively, would be lost. There would be no guarantee that that new sports area would not be the subject of further housing development proposals later. It should be entirely removed from the Housing Allocation site if that allocation remains despite the Parish Council's deep concerns about it in principle.

Additionally, and significantly, the valuable and popular Akamba Heritage Centre on Tythe Barn Lane would be lost, which is also a good local employer. This is because the land on which it stands would be redeveloped for car parking and new more intensive set of sports facilities. Akamba offers an unusual leisure and recreation experience and its character contributes to the quality of the environment. It merits protection under Policy P10. There is no prospect of any community benefit from the Site 4 proposal which could outweigh the loss of it as an existing leisure, cultural and recreation facility. The Housing Allocation Site 4 proposals would force its closure.

This has not been the case in proposing Site 4 against the evidence provided in the Green Belt Review with the Green Belt in this location scoring 7 & 8 due to the coalescence with neighbouring settlements. Site 13 has a lower Green Belt score of 6. Another main issue of the SLPR is the challenge of protecting the environment, particularly the Green Belt/rural character and building into the Review an emphasis on sustainability/climate change. Site 4 is would significantly adversely affect the Village character and rural setting and would be unsustainable as the proposed development is more than accepted walking distance of 800 metres to the centre of the Village. As this increased traffic would place an unacceptable burden on the already inadequate, congested road system and the existing Village centre car parking shortage, the proposals would not be in accordance with the stated policy or with the policies also stated below.

"Sustainable development will be a central focus for the Review and will take into consideration effects on communities, HS2 and flood risk."
In the Scope, Issues and Options Consultation - Summary of Representations and the Council's Response, it is stated on Page 25:-
"The Council will seek through a managed growth approach to ensure that growth does not result in deterioration in the quality of life of residents and visitors."
"Enhancing Solihull as a place where people aspire to live, learn, work and play, whilst recognising and protecting character and local distinctiveness."

The original concept design for Dickens Heath by John Simpson stated that "A village works as one cohesive entity because the perception is that everything is within easy walking distance". The emphasis for the scheme as a whole is on accessibility where the majority of the residents will be no more than 5 minutes walking time from the centre. The majority of the Housing Allocation Site 4 location would exceed this walking distance, so the new residents would favour the use of cars to the village amenities (where car parking is already a major problem). In transport terms Site 4 would be entirely unsustainable.

The highway network for the original John Simpson design of the Village was for only 700 dwellings. This figure was subsequently increased to a long term maximum of 1,500 dwellings with some highway improvements, but the current highway network is unsuitable for the current 2,200 dwellings plus the increased through traffic from Tidbury Green when the Lowbrook Farm and Tidbury Green Farm developments are completed, never mind an additional 700 dwellings plus the cut-through traffic that also now use the road network. Again on highway safety grounds the proposals are unsustainable. If major further development was to take place, major road improvements would have to be carried out. However, this would mean the removal of established hedgerows and mature trees which greatly add to and enhance the character and setting of the Village and the central Village road network was not designed for such usage. In addition it is not possible to upgrade the internal Village road network through which additional traffic would have to travel. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Development of 700 additional dwellings would have a cumulative severe impact on the area.
In John Simpson's 1991 Proof of Evidence in Para. 2.04.1, he states:-
"In general Dickens Heath has strong boundaries defined by the Stratford-upon-Avon Canal on two sides and a site of interest to Nature Conservation (SINC)". The SINC comprises of an ancient woodland which forms a natural boundary to the north-west.
John Simpson's Report goes on to analyse the McAlpine proposals where the site for the new village would be moved north-west. In Para. 3.01.3 states that,
"The combination of the woodland SINC, the woodland with tree preservation orders (TPO) and the existing housing provide a further barrier to development running north-south and splitting the site in two." This proposed extension to the Village would have the effect of elongating the settlement pattern to the north-west which cannot be linked by footpaths to the existing built areas, would have the effect of denying Dickens Heath of its village character and so the Village would lose its identity and become a town. The UDPs stated that for the Village to work in the sense of being "a recognisable community with a distinctive character", the inhabitants of the village would need to feel close to the centre of activity and identify with it. This will not be possible for the new residents of the proposed site.
One of the main reasons put forward by McAlpines was the close proximity of Whitlock's End station; the same reason Solihull Council has for including site 4 in the Local Plan Review. This reason alone does not outweigh the substantial unsustainable elements of this proposal.
There would also be a loss of ecological value as there are two badger setts on the sports fields. Bats, sparrow hawks, greater spotted wood peckers also fly over the site for foraging.
To build houses on Site 4, there would need to be extensive piling. There is evidence from neighbouring sites that piling had to go to depths of 8 metres owing to the presence of boulder clay. The cost of developing this site would therefore also be unsustainable and a considerable amount of fill material would have to be brought in as the site is liable to flooding during sustained wet periods.
The Solihull LPR states, "Development will be expected to preserve or enhance heritage assets as appropriate to their significance, conserve local character and distinctiveness and create or sustain a sense of place."
The proposed major extension to Dickens Heath would seriously undermine the Village status as a unique, nationally important model for a new village.
For the reasons given above, I strongly urge Solihull Council to remove the proposed allocation of Site 4 west of Dickens Heath from the Plan.

I am writing to object to Allocation 4 Land West of Dickens Heath set out in Solihull's Draft Local Plan and provide detail of my objection below:
Maintaining greenbelt, such as that between Dickens Heath and neighbouring Majors Green, which allocation 4 encroaches upon, is vital to preventing 'urban sprawl', and stopping towns 'joining up'. In this instance, the urban sprawl of Solihull, and Dickens Heath towards Majors Green and Wythall in Worcestershire.
The development of allocation 4 and/or 2, would both worsen already congested roads and accident 'hot spots' on the west and north of Dickens Heath on junctions of Haslucks Green Road and Tilehouse lane, and Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane.
Transport and infrastructure serving the area of Dickens Heath and Majors Green, which is already woefully under-serviced, would need to be vastly improved at significant financial cost, to service the proposed development (at allocation 4) and curb the likely environmental impact of increased road usage associated with development in this area. Developments close to HS2, and allocation 11 at TRW would allow for developments of a similar size but are already excellently served by existing transport infrastructure, and where it would be comparatively cost effective to increase capacity. Alternative Brownfield sites should be re-developed, or their use maximised prior to beginning to consider the needless destruction of precious greenbelt on the site of allocation 4. There is plenty of other, more suitable land locally that could be built on, and a similar housing capacity could be achieved significantly more cost effectively. In 2014, a Campaign to Protect Rural England report found that there is enough suitable brownfield land, available now, for at least one million new homes. A number of which are identified in Solihull's Draft Local Plan, including allocation 11 at TRW and Blythe Valley. The Government Planning Policy states that changes to "Green Belt boundaries should only be considered in exceptional circumstances" and development in this area fails to meet the exceptions stated including (i) building for agriculture (ii) extension of existing building (iii) infilling in villages. This particular area of Green belt provides for well established and long standing opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation, which could
be destroyed under the current Draft Plan, or moved at unnecessary great financial cost.




The proposed development in allocation 4, exceeds the capacity of existing public amenities and infrastructure, including schools, a medical centre and shops built specifically for the existing Dickens Heath Development. Additionally, Dickens Heath already provides for some further additional housing within its existing boundaries, which are still in development. Solihull's Draft Local Plan itself recognises Dickens Heath as an "attractive" "multi-award winning village", whose development was guided by an "architect-led master plan". In addition a stated objective of Green Belt allocation is "preserving the character" of areas. Comparatively higher-density development, which is out of character with the existing development, as set out in allocation 4 of the Solihull Draft Local Plan serves to be detrimental to the character of both Dickens Heath and Majors Green. Indeed they will 'merge' together should the plans for allocation 4 go ahead. It is my hope that you will take into consideration the strong views of the majority of residents of Majors Green in the consultation.

see attached letter

Objections to Draft Local Plan for 6150 new homes in Solihull district.

I would like to object strongly to 41% of the proposed new homes being built in the South Shirley area, in particular Allocation 13. The building of what will be 2550 new homes in the south Shirley area will have serious implications for the local community.

1. The 2550 homes in South Shirley, allocations 4,11, 12 and 13 will have a serious impact on what are already congested roads: Bills Lane, Tamworth Lane, Dog Kennel Lane, Stratford Rd (A34) and M42, Haslucks Green Rd and Blackford Rd.
1. The loss of green belt between Badgers Estate and Woodlands Estate and the proposed Allocation 13 will impact on the health and wellbeing of the local community, as this area is used by so many for exercise, recreation and dog walking.
2. Affects on local services, schools and GP surgeries will be hit the most. Whilst Solihull Hospital will be affected with longer waiting lists or patients moved to Heartlands Hospital which will effect patients and relatives alike.
3. The plan will also remove six sports and recreational fields from the area.
4. The area of Badgers estate next to Allocation 13 is prone to flooding and many properties have suffered damp. Any removal of old trees and vast areas of tarmac and building will make this problem far worse.
5. The building of high density housing is not good and it leads to disputes over parking, noise and many other social issues that are raised through a lack of space to live.



I would ask Solihull MBC to revise its plan to build these 2550 new homes in the areas of South Shirley and Dickens Heath as it is grossly unfair to its people. It is widely known that the council has identified more possible sites that would have less an impact on the people and families of these areas. I would therefore ask Solihull MBC to consider the people who already live here first and foremost.