Draft Local Plan Review

We understand that the Council is required to keep a register of individuals interested in identifying sites that would allow for self or custom housebuilding. By its nature we would expect that individuals requirements may be quite unique and therefore may not fit within allocated sites especially those identified for a large number of houses. We would therefore favour the Council identifying a number of smaller sites that would allow for this type of build in pockets across the Borough.

The number of homes being planned is based on current projection need and therefore difficult to challenge. It is encouraging that development is to be phased to ensure no excessive supply. However, Policy needs to include reviews and to be written to ensure that if projected demand does not materialise the number can be reduced. The impact of Brexit, HS2 etc really cannot be accurately predicted between now and 2033. HHPC would urge SMBC to commit to a review of the SHMA in five years.

Any indications of development within the greenbelt or rural exception should be included in the proposed final phases of the plan. This would afford them the maximum protection and ensure they were only developed if absolutely necessary, where there is no change in demand and insufficient windfall sites.
HHPC intend to work with the community and landowners to review the potential for including development sites within our Neighbourhood Plan. We support SMBC's decision, as evidenced in the Topic Papers paragraphs 417-422, that Hockley Heath is not suitable for growth, and would reiterate our intent to review this as part of the broader Neighbourhood Plan development process. Bringing sites back into the LP as a result of the consultation process would be wholly inappropriate, given the evidence and conclusions within the evidence base.

As Hockley Heath is not included within the plan there are no details of proposed improvements to infrastructure. At a recent community event there was significant concern over the current lack of transport infrastructure and facilities and the likely impact upon them from;
Existing and proposed developments within Hockley Heath
Neighbouring developments, in particular Blythe Valley
Developments across the Warwickshire border
Promoting Quality of Place
Also of concern is the lack of policy references relating to the impact of the Local Plan on education provision across Solihull, and specifically in the Rural Area surrounding Hockley Heath (e.g. mitigating the impact of BVP).

Agree - existing sites should be expanded first, and we agree with the Green Belt exceptions wording.

At Hockley Heath's consultative event there was great concern over the level of traffic in the village - particularly on School Road and Stratford Road. The roads were described as inadequate, unsafe, narrow, rural and unable to cope with traffic today, let alone future developments. SMBC should instigate formal traffic monitoring to validate the traffic management study with respect to BVP, and HHPC would welcome discussions in this regard.
We acknowledge and welcome the plan's commitment to ensuring new developments are located in locations where reliance on the private car is low, and the statement that developments should be focussed in the most accessible locations, and do not result in the reduction of safety for users of the highway or other transport network.
A freight management strategy which removes the heaviest vehicles from residential roads is a positive move and would be welcomed in Hockley Heath as the Stratford Road (A34) is a relief road for the M40 / M42 network at times of accidents, roadworks and excessive traffic. HHPC would expect SMBC to support HHPC attempts to mitigate traffic impacts from developments, and policy wording to this effect would be welcomed.
The consultative event also demonstrated residents' desire for more cycle lanes / paths and it is disappointing there is so little mention of plans to extend the existing network.
HHPC support the conclusion that a bypass in Hockley Heath is no longer deemed necessary.

Hockley Heath largely supports the plan's policies for protecting the environment but is disappointed there is so little mention of the village within the need to protect the natural environment. HHPC would welcome more reference to the canal infrastructure with feedback from Canals & Rivers Trust and historic reference to historic place of "Oakley Heath".
We would also welcome more alternative transport links such as cycle lanes to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
We would also point out that at our consultative event, there was discussion on the issue of poor drainage and flooding of Hockley Heath's roads after rain. This is particularly evident on Stratford Road, and in the gardens of houses on School Road. Requiring developers to have proper sewerage infrastructure for any new developments is a must.
We would add that with the frequent dumping of household and other waste in the roads around our village, the plan's requirement to address the waste capacity in Solihull is welcomed.

P15/ Securing Design Quality
The key objectives of contribute or create high quality places & spaces; regard local distinctiveness and achieve high quality, inclusive & sustainable design are appropriate. P15 also suggests that there should be engagement in pre planning decisions, there are concerns in relation to current levels of engagement with developers and SMBC in relation to recent planning decisions and consultation on local developments (i.e. BVP). The policy would need to outline in more detail the terms and levels of pre planning consultation.
P16/ Conservation of Heritage Assets & Local Distinctiveness
Yes, agree with the principles of P16. In a recent consultation with local residents key feedback was that residents felt it important to keep the "village feel" of HH and remain its rural character.
P17/ Countryside & Green Belt
Agree with policy that inappropriate development will not be permitted in the Solihull green belt. Concerns raised by HHPC/Residents Association and residents at local consultation that plan states that small settlements of ........, HH, which are inset in the green belt are not subject to green belt policy. Following recent planning decisions in and adjacent to HH there are concerns that SMBC will not take into account the importance of the rural setting and note any feedback or objections from HHPC and residents of HH. The importance of maintaining the distinctiveness of HH and its separation with Dorridge should be reinforced in the Local Plan.
Any further development in HH would put significant strain on the already inadequate infrastructure of the village. Poor quality roads, which are regularly affected by traffic congestion on local motorways (M42/M40) would be further affected with additional developments resulting in an increase in traffic.
Feedback from residents urge SMBC to consider brown field sites as a priority for re development before green belt areas.

P18/ Health & Wellbeing
Yes, agree with principles of P18.
However, concerns raised by residents at local consultation regarding provision of healthcare facilities locally and ability to access local services due to poor transport network.
HH currently has no GP surgery or pharmacy so residents have to travel to access these services. This can be particularly difficult for the local elderly population, particularly if they have to use public transport. Residents have expressed difficulties in accessing appointments at GP surgeries in adjacent communities, therefore SMBC needs to consider the location of any new Primary Care facilities to ensure that they are accessible to all.
Failure to provide adequate access to primary care health facilities will in turn put additional pressure on local secondary care.
Provision (i.e. Solihull Hospital/ Heartlands Hospital). Elderly residents may be at risk of unnecessary hospital admissions due to poor quality or lack of primary care intervention.
P19/ Range & Quality of Local Services
Yes, agree.
Local centres key to supporting residents in HH. Recent resident consultation supported need for local amenities such as local post office.
P20/ Provision for Open Space, Children's Play, Sport, Recreation and Leisure
Yes, agree
Residents would welcome input into enhancement of canal network to improve tow paths and surrounding areas and also provision of cycle ways to access local areas.