BASE HEADER
Preferred Options 2025
Chwilio sylwadau
Canlyniadau chwilio Earlswood & Forshaw Heath Residents’ Association
Chwilio o’r newyddYes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you broadly support the proposals in the Introduction? If you have any additional points to raise with regards to this chapter please include them here.
ID sylw: 107957
Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025
Ymatebydd: Earlswood & Forshaw Heath Residents’ Association
Do you agree that we should prepare a Local Plan for South Warwickshire?
Yes, we agree.
However, you do not appear to have addressed the issue of how much of this plan remains in the finalised document if/when SDC becomes part of a unitary authority. The initial question then is – How long will this be in force and is it a waste of money if it is to be scrapped when we become a part of a new Unitary Authority?
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 1 - Meeting South Warwickshire's Sustainable Development Requirements?
ID sylw: 107960
Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025
Ymatebydd: Earlswood & Forshaw Heath Residents’ Association
The first question that we would then be asking is – “Do we actually need 35k new houses during the period of this plan?”. It’s not obvious that the answer to this question is “yes”, based on previous reviews, including that for the current SDC Core Strategy Plan, which indicate that the answer is probably “no”. Previous evidence indicates that housing is preferred to be built in the major cities and conurbations, rather than the countryside.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 7- Green Belt?
ID sylw: 107961
Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025
Ymatebydd: Earlswood & Forshaw Heath Residents’ Association
The current Core Strategy has done nothing to protect the limited Green Belt that we have left and which is currently under such pressure to be developed. If you only have one objective, it should be to protect the last remaining areas of Green Belt in the District.
In the Ove Arup Ove Arup Green Belt Review, its second conclusion is that:
Regarding TiA Parish…
“The GB has only weak contribution towards preventing neighbouring settlements from merging.”
The logic behind this is that the parcels of land from a less essential gap between neighbouring towns, which is of sufficient scale that development is possible without any risk of merging. This isn’t evidence, this is purely opinion. Where’s the evidence?
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 9 - Using Brownfield Land for Development?
ID sylw: 107962
Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025
Ymatebydd: Earlswood & Forshaw Heath Residents’ Association
Your consultation questionnaire makes no mention of brown field sites. Whilst accepting that it will cost more in a substantial number of cases to refresh these sites, it’s also absolutely clear that once permission to develop agricultural land has been given, it will never be returned to that purpose. We may need more housing but we also need agricultural land to afford us food security. Your suggested proposals in the Land Availability Assessment at sites A1, A2 and C1 are such locations. Repurpose brown field sites for this purpose. CPRE’s research indicates that there is enough brown field land for 1m homes in this Country.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 4- Accommodating Growth Needs Arising from Outside South Warwickshire?
ID sylw: 107963
Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025
Ymatebydd: Earlswood & Forshaw Heath Residents’ Association
During the period of the last (current) Local Plan, we wrote to you pointing out that Solihull MBC has been required to take a substantial number of houses that Birmingham could not accommodate from its LP. In excess of 12,000 have been built and most have been on the west side of Solihull as that is/was the only Green Belt space left to develop.
Solihull has, as you’re well aware, built right up to the District boundary and we are now the centre of shortcuts and rat-runs to avoid the congestion in central Solihull. You may have consulted with SMBC on this issue, in which case, you will be acutely aware of the developments but you have done nothing to alleviate our consequential issues such as the volumes of traffic using our lanes and the resultant traffic jams and deterioration of the road surfaces in general and very deep grooves created at the sides of the narrow lanes. The cross-boundary consultations with Solihull MBC, in particular, should have prepared SDC for this and a plan put in place to cover the period of the current Core Strategy.
The same issues apply to the developments in Bromsgrove and Redditch Districts as we’re being enclosed from the north and west too, although the traffic volumes are less.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 5- Infrastructure Requirements and Delivery?
ID sylw: 107964
Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025
Ymatebydd: Earlswood & Forshaw Heath Residents’ Association
The majority of the residents in Earlswood Ward of Tanworth-in-Arden Parish require east-west communications to be improved i.e. Solihull / Redditch / Solihull, rather than north-south communications as at the moment. You did not absorb this comment during the previous Core Strategy Review and we point it out again in order to remind you. Having said that, with the increased traffic flow from Solihull, the A435 running north as a dual carriageway is fine until it becomes a single carriageway road at The Maypole, at which point it bottlenecks, even during off-peak times. This poses the question of infrastructure improvements again. There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of their consideration in the first draft. Our view is that you need to set out plans to upgrade the infrastructure first before anything else is considered.
