BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 106044

Derbyniwyd: 06/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Julie Waters

Development of the suggested scale would be totally out of character for Hockley Heath, described in the Solihull Local Plan Review as having the characteristics of a semi-rural village, with inter and post-war ribbon development along the Stratford Road and noting the Stratford-upon-Avon canal providing a linear heritage asset with a village wharf. There are currently around 1900 residents in Hockley Heath and around 500 households. The suggested proposals are to add 2,875 houses with 6 parcels across 133.51 hectares. This is more than five times the size of the existing village.
Development of the suggested scale is therefore not sustainable and would place a significant and unacceptable demand on local services. Your Sustainability Appraisal (para 5.6.1) acknowledges the potential impact to Grade II Listed Buildings. Parcel HOH1 is adjacent to properties 2301 and 2303 Stratford Road and parcels HOH3 and HOH4 are adjacent to St Thomas’s Church, Nuthurst Lane. The proposals are likely to cause significant harm to the setting of these designated heritage assets.
The Sustainability Appraisal also places Hockley Heath within the bottom five in terms of its negative scores for access to A&E services, GP surgeries and leisure facilities. It views the primary school being within 800m of the parcels as a positive impact but this school has 215 pupils on the school roll, with children from ages 2 to 11. It is a village school and is not going to be able to meet the needs of the additional residents. In terms of mitigation in respect of the health impacts, your appraisal notes that the new infrastructure would require a significant level of investment in health services and leisure facilities which (as noted in the appraisal) is likely to be difficult to achieve. These local services are already under considerable pressure and placing further demands on them would be totally unfair and unacceptable.
The parcels are all in the Green Belt and parcels 1 and 3 are identified as having a moderate contribution. However, it could be argued that some parcels have a strong contribution, notably HOH1 which would bring Hockley Heath significantly closer to Dorridge.
Whilst the suggested allocations are not consistent with the Green Belt review, having regard for the linear form of the village, limited development to parcel HOH6 could retain that form whilst providing a more modest contribution to housing.

Any new housing should be proportionate in scale to the existing settlements for the reasons set out above.
To reiterate
Development of the suggested scale would be totally out of character for a semi-rural village like Hockley Heath.
There are currently around 1900 residents in Hockley Heath and around 500 households. The suggested proposals are to add 2,875 houses with 6 parcels across 133.51 hectares. This is more than five times the size of the existing village which is entirely disproportionate.
Development of the suggested scale is therefore not sustainable and would place a significant and unacceptable demand on local services. Your Sustainability Appraisal (para 5.6.1) acknowledges the potential impact to Grade II Listed Buildings. Parcel HOH1 is adjacent to properties 2301 and 2303 Stratford Road and parcels HOH3 and HOH4 are adjacent to St Thomas’s Church, Nuthurst Lane. The proposals are likely to cause significant harm to the setting of these designated heritage assets.
The Sustainability Appraisal also places Hockley Heath within the bottom five in terms of its negative scores for access to A&E services, GP surgeries and leisure facilities. It views the primary school being within 800m of the parcels as a positive impact but this school has 215 pupils on the school roll, with children from ages 2 to 11. It is a village school and is not going to be able to meet the needs of the additional residents. In terms of mitigation in respect of the health impacts, your appraisal notes that the new infrastructure would require a significant level of investment in health services and leisure facilities which (as noted in the appraisal) is likely to be difficult to achieve. These local services are already under considerable pressure and placing further demands on them would be totally unfair and unacceptable.
The parcels are all in the Green Belt and parcels 1 and 3 are identified as having a moderate contribution. However, it could be argued that some parcels have a strong contribution, notably HOH1 which would bring Hockley Heath significantly closer to Dorridge.
Whilst the suggested allocations are not consistent with the Green Belt review, having regard for the linear form of the village, limited development to parcel HOH6 could retain that form whilst providing a more modest contribution to housing.

Your consultation states that, for the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA, there is evidence of a significant shortfall between housing requirements and land supply. However, the overall scale of the shortfall has not been collectively quantified beyond 2031 since the GBBCHMA Strategic Growth Study (2018). A study refresh is required to re-evaluate the housing shortfall considering more recent evidence and policy. Council officers meet regularly with counterparts from other Councils and with various stakeholders in both the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Black Country Housing Market Area to discuss cross boundary issues. Until there is greater certainty regarding the quantum of unmet needs from neighbouring housing market areas, it is premature to allocate reserve housing sites.
Your consultation is not clear on this position. Whilst you do not specifically say that site SG24 is identified to meet the needs of housing in Birmingham under the duty to cooperate, the URL on the interactive map takes the user directly to this section of the consultation which suggests this may be a consideration. Under the new NPPF, the housing figures for Birmingham have reduced from 7,174 to 4,448. Whilst Solihull was previously showing the provision of 2,000 houses to meet the needs of Birmingham under the duty to co-operate, there is no evidence to suggest that will now be the case, especially given the reduced number for Birmingham.
It is also clear from your consultation that the overall scale of any shortfall has not been collectively quantified beyond 2031 since the GBBCHMA Strategic Growth Study (2018). You also indicate that a study refresh is required to re-evaluate the housing shortfall considering more recent evidence and policy. Until there is a greater certainty regarding the quantum of unmet needs from neighbouring housing market areas it is premature to allocate reserve housing sites.