BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 106362

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Richard Rendle

I am a Hockley Heath resident having lived in the village for over 24 years and in the Solihull area for over 40 years. I also have family members that live in the village. I currently live in Aylesbury Road. The proposal directly affects me and my family.

I am writing to formally oppose and object to the inclusion of SG24 within the SWLP on numerous grounds. I consider the proposal to be flawed on many levels.

Character of the village

Hockley Heath is a relatively small village of approximately 700 dwellings and whilst there are small areas which could be developed within the village and supported by the current infrastructure the scale and size of the SG24 proposal is completely inappropriate and would destroy the character of the village as it is wholly disproportionate to the available infrastructure and facilities.

Social infrastructure

Solihull hospital does not have an Accident & Emergency (“A&E”) department, the nearest A&E is Heartland Hospital which is struggling to deal with the current level of demand. The A&E department closed many years ago and after continued representations an Urgent Treatment Centre (“UTC”) was recently opened and is already struggling to meet demand. The demands placed on the local hospital are already at breaking point and any further development such as that proposed by SG24 would only worsen a deteriorating situation.

The proposed SG24 development is part of the purview of the Warwickshire Council however SG24 borders Hockley Heath village (Solihull Council area) and in reality, the SG24 proposal will be almost totally reliant upon the services provided by Hockley Heath village. This is wholly unacceptable, as the current infrastructure the village is barely adequate.

There is no GP Surgery in the village and the surgery in Dorridge is at capacity. It is already difficult to obtain appointments and the SG24 proposal would put further strain on a vital service.

There is a dental practice in the village but that is not accepting any new NHS patients until April 2025 at earliest. It is therefore at full capacity. The SG24 proposal would put further strain on an already over-capacity vital service.

The village is on the boundary of West Midlands and Warwickshire police forces. I have already experienced problems of reporting matters to the local police who themselves are unclear at times which force covers particular parts of the village and its environs. Part of the SG24 proposal would appear to overlap the boundary between the two police forces with all the attendant problems that this would cause.

As the village is on the borders of two police forces it suffers from lack of coverage. This lack of coverage will only be exacerbated by an increased requirement which will naturally occur with the proposed large increase in the number of residents as a result of SG24.

The village primary school is land locked and at capacity. In recent years graduates from the school have been unable to access places at the local schools in Solihull. The SG24 proposal and the significant number of new residences which it entails, particularly with the enhanced levels of social housing, will mean that the village school will be unable to cope with the influx of children.

The village Post Office closed in late 2020 and replaced by a visiting Post Office, one day per week. This would be totally inadequate for the scale of the proposed SG24 development.

Possibly, the only service that Warwickshire Council will actually provide to the proposed SG24 development will be refuge collection. Warwickshire Council will effectively be reliant upon the services provided to Hockley Heath proposal. This is unacceptable.

Physical infrastructure

The physical infrastructure for the village is currently at or about full capacity.

The water supply is unreliable, with the supply being interrupted or disrupted on the Aylesbury Road side of the Stratford Road on numerous occasions. Similarly, the water pressure on the Aylesbury Road side of the Stratford Road (apart from a small number of residences nearest the Stratford Road) is barely adequate and residents are regularly subject to reductions in water pressure due to equipment failures.

The Stratford Road is an apparent boundary between water supplies. The water on the south side of the Stratford Road is “soft” water whereas the water supplied to the north side of the Stratford Road is much “harder” has a different taste and leaves a lot of residues. Having lived on both sides of the Stratford Road in the village, water supply, pressure and quality is adequate on the south side of the road but marginal on the north side of the road which is predominantly affected by the SG24 proposal.

The village regularly suffers from flooding, some areas worst than others. The main road through the village, the A3400 is regularly flooded in heavy rain despite numerous attempts at repair by the local council. The council also attempts preventative maintenance by clearing the drains on the A3400 to little effect. There was a noticeable change in surface water run off with the development a few years ago on School Road. The proposed SG24 development will only exacerbate those issues.

During heavy rain we already suffer from sewage backing up in the drains creating obnoxious odours in our house.

The village already suffers from numerous electricity power cuts and outtages. The SG24 proposal will exponentially increase the demand on the network which is already under stress.

Transport

The transport network is already under strain, local services are stretched, and the environmental consequences are severe. The bus service to the village is at best rudimentary; it is a challenge to catch a bus into Stratford to arrive before 9 am in the morning. The car park at the train station in Dorridge is just about full on most weekdays and there is no alternative parking or land that could be made available to expand what is a necessary resource for people using the rail service.

Roads

The road network throughout the village is generally poor and there is little that could be done to alleviate the situation without the wholesale appropriation of land from numerous private residences which is both unrealistic and not viable. Many of the roads are single lane without adequate (or any) footpaths and the cost of upgrading the roads to cope with the enormous increase in traffic which SG24 would entail is not justified.

The village already suffers from traffic issues when there are problems on the M42 and the M40 from as far away as Warwick with the Warwick Road and Aylesbury Road regularly being used as “cut throughs”.

Any access on to the proposed SG24 development land from Aylesbury Road would be dangerous and would meet with insuperable problems in relation to the necessary permissions in relation to S278 of the Highways Act.

Environmental issues

The Blythe Valley development has already had a significant impact on the wildlife which surrounds the village. Attached are two photographs which demonstrate the displacement of wild animals. The hedges in the photographs were laurel hedges which the deer have denuded of all edible material within their reach. The photographs would be amusing if the situation was not so serious.

The proposal to build on yet more green belt land and the effect on the wildlife is simply unsustainable as many key habitats would be destroyed.

Need

Whilst I can understand that there is a need for new housing there seems to be little or no justification for the proposing such a vast development in such a rural setting. There is little or no employment opportunities in the area. New residents would need to travel significant distances to obtain employment and indeed basic social services since the provision in the village is already inadequate.

General Planning concerns

Solihull council has already consulted on developments in the village and after careful consideration turned down the majority of the developments suggested on various grounds. The proposed SG24 development is a re-hash of a previous proposal that was decided against by the local council (Solihull) which is in far closer proximity to the issues of the village than Warwickshire Council.

The proposed SG24 development is situated wholly on green belt land the destruction of which would be irreversible.

The green belt concept was developed to protect the countryside and prevent urban sprawl. The proposed SG24 development rides roughshod over that policy. Furthermore, the proposal represents a breach of the defensible boundary concept and if permitted to go ahead would inevitably mean the loss of further green belt land as there is no natural barrier to further development around SG24. I am not aware of any of the “exceptional circumstances” which would justify the release of green belt land under the National Planning Policy Framework. I do not believe that these exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated, and I do not believe that they exist in relation to the SG24 proposal.

Warwickshire Council has an obligation to comply with Sustainable Development Requirements and there is nothing with the SWLP in relation to SG24 which meets those obligations.

Cost justification

There is no justification for Warwickshire Council proposing to site a disproportionately large development such as SG24 next to Hockley Heath village in the knowledge that the majority of the costs of servicing that development will fall on another council, Solihull and the social, environmental and health issues on the residents of Hockley Heath village.

Summary

The SG24 proposal is an ill-conceived overdevelopment on green belt land to which there are many legal, environmental, infrastructure, sustainability and Health and safety issues which need to be fully considered, reviewed and dealt with before such a proposal can legitimately proceed.

There must be better, less costly proposals that could and should be considered in preference to SG24.