BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 106544

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dee Greaves

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally oppose the inclusion of SG24 within the SWLP. I am a local resident, having moved here 24 years ago to the Dorridge - Hockley Heath border. Plus I have friends living in Hockley Heath and the surrounding areas.

I am worried at the reckless scale of development, and flawed justification for SG24 as a strategic growth location.The proposal directly impacts me, my family, the local character and not only the poor Hockley Heath residents, but us in Dorridge, Knowle, Bentley Heath & the surrounding areas, who will have to cope with this massive influx of housing and people.

My main concern is in particular is the #178 and #596 site, which is land shared by both Hockley Heath and Dorridge residents. It is beautiful, and necessary green belt land which cannot, and should not be destroyed by these plans. #178 is 96% green belt land, yet you propose destroying the countryside by building 646 dwellings. This directly impacts the surrounding villages, and will merge Dorridge, Hockley Heath, Bentley Heath and Knowle into a town. This is not right and not fair to us who moved to this area due to the green belt area.

Having reviewed the various consultation documents and technical details, it is clear that there are other sites and settlements that perform considerably more attractive, than those selected at SG24. As such they have not been reviewed in the correct manner nor in fullness. Some of my concerns are listed below (not exhaustive);

1. Unjustifiable overdevelopment
The scale of the proposed allocation is excessive and disproportionate, completely out of step with the current community. It would erode our village identity, undermine local cohesion, and destroy the very attributes that make Hockley Heath a desirable place to live.

2. Irreversible destruction of green belt and limited review of sustainable alternatives
Each individual site that makes up SG24 requires inappropriate development on green belt land, designed to prevent urban sprawl and preserve open countryside. This proposal fails to demonstrate the 'exceptional circumstances' required for Green Belt release under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), with a number of the tests being applied in a flawed manner. The claim that the canal can substitute as a defensible boundary, instead of the Green Belt is demonstrably flawed; several proposed sites are located beyond the canal, rendering this justification invalid.
The lack of a proper sustainability appraisal for alternative brownfield options demonstrates a missed opportunity and failure in due process. The SWLP has ignored viable alternatives, including the redevelopment of underutilized commercial spaces into residential in locations that already have a good level of infrastructure readily available.
SG24 within the SWLP should not be permitted to proceed without reviewing alternative sites / options in deeper detail, and taking a more comprehensive review of the plan to release green belt and its wide ranging impact linked to character, environment and biodiversity.

3. Detrimental Environmental and Biodiversity impact
SG24 would inflict harm on local biodiversity, directly contravening national sustainability policies. The targeted sites are rich in ecological diversity, supporting an array of wildlife and plant life, particularly along the canal’s vital green corridors. The SWLP fails to meet the legal obligation in the NPPF requiring ‘conservation and enhancement of the natural… environment’ and para 175 requiring councils to take ‘a strategic approach… plan for the enhancement of natural capital’
Key failures include; the destruction of key habitats with no credible mitigation plan, failure to use up to date environmental assessments (the 2013 Green Infrastructure is out of date and not fit for purpose), significant increases in air and noise pollution from additional traffic, which will harm local air quality and quality of life.

4. Absence of detailed Infrastructure capacity planning and funding
SG24 is being proposed with no credible infrastructure provision to support it. Hockley Heath is already stretched in terms of roads, schools, and healthcare facilities. The SWLP fails to provide any realistic solutions to mitigate the additional strain SG24 would impose.
Roads & Transport: Many affected roads, especially to the west of SG24, are single-lane with no pedestrian walking access. They rely on single lane canal bridges that are entirely unsuitable for increased traffic. Widening roads would require the expropriation of small pieces of land from a large number of private properties, which is unrealistic.
Education: Hockley Heath has a single, landlocked primary school already struggling with capacity and traffic congestion. The plan does not explain how school provision will be improved and there is no mention of how school catchment areas will work.
Healthcare: The increase in demand for doctors, dentists, hospitals could not be covered by Hockley Heath in its current form. The area is already beyond national guidance for travel times to hospitals and A&E services. Increased demand will further exacerbate waiting times and degrade local healthcare services.
Infrastructure Costs: The funding for essential infrastructure expansion is lacking detail, meaning these burdens will fall entirely on Solihull Council, which has already stated that Hockley Heath can only accommodate small-scale development.

5. Significant flooding and drainage risks ignored
Hockley Heath already experiences severe surface water flooding, even at times without heavy rainfall and particularly along the artery routes which will be required to serve SG24; School Road, Spring Lane, Cut Throat Lane and A3400 Stratford Road. The existing drainage infrastructure is insufficient to support additional development.
The SWLP has not updated flood risk assessments to reflect the current challenges, has not provided a clear drainage mitigation strategy (particularly for the SG24 developments, some of which are on waterlogged land), and has not considered the cumulative impact of adding impermeable surfaces to already high-risk flood zones.

6. Breach of sustainability principles
SG24 fails to meet the Sustainable Development Requirements outlined by South Warwickshire. The transport network is already under strain, local services are stretched, and the environmental consequences are severe. Proceeding with this allocation would be in direct opposition of the fundamental principles of sustainable development, making the entire plan legally and ethically indefensible.
Conclusion: SG24 can not proceed as a strategic growth location in its current format
SG24 inclusion as a strategic growth centre can NOT proceed in its current format within the South Warwickshire Local Plan. We recognise that Hockley Heath has some facilities and can take on a small level of growth, however many of the plans, policies, frameworks have not been reviewed in enough detail or applied correctly. The unsustainable overdevelopment proposed under SG24 would irreparably damage Hockley Heath’s character, environment, infrastructure, and quality of life. It fails to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release, ignores significant viable alternatives and lacks the essential infrastructure planning required for sustainable development.
There are many other issues that arise due to the inappropriate selection of the sites. They represent further significant legal, environmental, sustainability and H&S issues which must be reviewed prior to agreeing the SWLP. SWLP have an obligation to deliver housing and release sites in the most sustainable way, which cannot be achieved via the current SWLP as there are clearly much better performing settlements.