No

Representation ID: 99687

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Delve

The proposed sites SG18 north of A46, SG23 Henley Arden and SG24 Hockley Heath which all sit on the A3400 further compound this issue and it is simply unsustainable along with the BW site will lead to more accidents, fatalities, more traffic and more delays.

No

Representation ID: 99726

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Claire Harman

The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the village, causing an abundance of problems for the locals and council as it is an inappropriate scale of development,
SMBC’s local plan determined only small scale development is appropriate for Hockley Heath.
This plan will hugely impact on the local community and surrounding areas. There are a lack of sustainable employment opportunities within the area, which means a higher volume of traffic as people commute as there is poor public transport links. There are limited local amenities, schools are already full.
There is huge problems with flooding and surface water already.

No

Representation ID: 99768

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Claire Harman

The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the village, causing an abundance of problems for the locals and council as it is an inappropriate scale of development,
SMBC’s local plan determined only small scale development is appropriate for Hockley Heath.
This plan will hugely impact on the local community and surrounding areas. There are a lack of sustainable employment opportunities within the area, which means a higher volume of traffic as people commute as there is poor public transport links. There are limited local amenities, schools are already full.
There is huge problems with flooding and surface water already.

No

Representation ID: 99841

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Denslow

Objection based on no local infrastructure to support such large scale development in a small village. Lack of school, roads, drainage, public transport, shops, traffic, GP & community assets. Green belt land should not be sacrificed and irreversibly lost, damaging wellbeing of local residents and the animal eco system of birds, deer, fox’s etc. Great loss of large old trees which will damage air quality in the area. Loss of village identity and character of area.

No

Representation ID: 99886

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Simone Delve

I do not support any new development within Greenbelt the isn't on Brownfield land, this aligns with the National planning policy framework (NPPF) 2024 (see paragraph 144) states development on green belt is only permitted where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced are justified. this along with other sites on or near to the A3400 will lead to increased traffic on an already congested road, leading to more accidents and a reduction in Safety.

Yes

Representation ID: 100070

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

No

Representation ID: 100142

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr E Palgrave

Development will significantly impact the already congested A34.
The village has surface water drainage issues along the A34 and land earmarked. Further development will only worsen this.
All land is greenbelt, should only be built on in exceptional circumstances.
Development will alter the village character and rural identity.
The village has no resources/infrastructure to sustain additional population. School/healthcare.
The development falls within Warwickshire, Solihull would bear the burden of resources required for the new population (schooling, transport, health, refuse) and Solihull already have opposed this.
Loss of greenspace will harm wildlife and reduce the quality of life for existing residents.

No

Representation ID: 100170

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Wall

Fully opposed to any development on Green Belt Land.

No

Representation ID: 100333

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

Completely opposed to any development on Green Belt land.

No

Representation ID: 100388

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Moyens

The village does not have the infrastructure in terms of education, health and transport to sustain a development of this size,
Although the development falls within South Warwickshire, the burden of the new population in terms of schooling, transport, health, refuse collection would fall to Solihull, who have already opposed it, This is clearly unfair and would lead to ongoing disputes between the councils over funding in the future.

No

Representation ID: 100408

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Aimee Carter

There are far better alternatives than destroying this Green Belt land.

No

Representation ID: 100417

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Moyens

The village does not have the infrastructure in terms of education, health and transport to sustain a development of this size,
Although the development falls within South Warwickshire, the burden of the new population in terms of schooling, transport, health, refuse collection would fall to Solihull, who have already opposed it. This is clearly unfair and would lead to ongoing disputes between the councils over funding in the future.

No

Representation ID: 100629

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Pam Byrne

Limited public transport, those without cars can’t get to Dorridge train station, those with cars there isn’t enough parking available even with the overspill car park. Nowhere near enough buses, 1hr and 2hr between services and they don’t run after a certain time. There is no Gp or pharmacy in Hockley Heath. Secondary school provision will be unavailable seeing as though another almost 3000 houses proposed in Henley in Arden. It already floods in Hockley Heath and congestion is already a problem, even before these proposals.Concern for wildlife and conservation with land being built on.

No

Representation ID: 100647

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Lucy Bowers

I feel that the area isn’t set up for additional houses there is no infrastructure to support the additional housing. Schools doctors shops etc. there isn’t a local secondary school.
We currently have drainage issues.
The reason that most people are situated here is for the green belt.
The congestion. Especially when the motorway is suffering.
Road surfaces are harmful to cars as it is.
I strongly disagree!

No

Representation ID: 100665

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Rawlings

This is Green Belt land and should not be built on.

No

Representation ID: 100679

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Cole

SG24 proposals should be considered with proposals emerging from SBMC to allow the full impacts to be considered in a reasonable and informed way.

Yes

Representation ID: 100727

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

No

Representation ID: 100931

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Aldridge

Why destroy precious countryside when there are many city / brown sites available. This will destroy Hockley Heath - the already strained infrastructure just will not cope - the stratford road is already a dangerous prospect for the many young children and there simply are not the facilities there to support this growth. There are multiple access constraints and the landscape would be destroyed forever. There are multiple badger sets and bat settlements across SG24.

No

Representation ID: 101074

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Zoe Leventhal

No very special circumstances exist here to justify removal of land from GB, when other brownfield and non GB sites available.

Other

Representation ID: 101151

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Harding

SG24 fails to meet the Sustainable Development Requirements outlined by South Warwickshire. The scale of the proposed allocation is excessive and disproportionate, completely out of step with the current community.
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.
SG24 requires inappropriate development on green belt land. This proposal fails to demonstrate the 'exceptional circumstances' required for Green Belt release under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The unsustainable over development proposed would irreparably damage Hockley Heath’s character, environment, infrastructure, and quality of life.

No

Representation ID: 101502

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Joanne Wilson

I wish to register my strong objections to the proposed developments in the surrounding area. My concerns include that the land is in the green belt, which should remain undeveloped, and that the projects threaten wildlife and biodiversity. Additionally, they would exacerbate water drainage issues, worsen traffic on the A34, and negatively affect residents' well-being due to the loss of green space. The local infrastructure cannot support such developments, and it contradicts Solihull's local plan. These changes would also erode Hockley Heath's character and rural identity, which influenced my decision to move here.

No

Representation ID: 102046

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Jennie Lunt

SG24 is an unjustifiable overdevelopment that contradicts the NPPF and SMBC’s Local Plan, threatening Hockley Heath’s semi-rural character. It would double the population, overwhelm local infrastructure, and irreversibly destroy Green Belt. SG24 fails to address biodiversity, environmental impact, or infrastructure capacity, particularly in education, healthcare and transport. There has been no coordination with SMBC and SG24 should not be permitted to proceed without reviewing alternative sites and taking a more comprehensive review of the plan to release green belt. Site 278, in particular, presents significant issues as it is not wholly owned by the proposer, raising issues about its viability.

No

Representation ID: 102047

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Edward Lunt

SG24 is an unjustifiable overdevelopment that contradicts the NPPF and SMBC’s Local Plan, threatening Hockley Heath’s semi-rural character. It would double the population, overwhelm local infrastructure, and irreversibly destroy Green Belt. SG24 fails to address biodiversity, environmental impact, or infrastructure capacity, particularly in education, healthcare and transport. There has been no coordination with SMBC and SG24 should not be permitted to proceed without reviewing alternative sites and taking a more comprehensive review of the plan to release green belt. Site 278, in particular, presents significant issues as it is not wholly owned by the proposer, raising issues about its viability.

No

Representation ID: 102499

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Bragg

Lapworth does not have the infrastructure to support the proposed volume of new builds, including lack of bus services, Doctors Surgery, Primary School numbers, water supply, sewerage facility, volume of traffic due to narrow roads. No gas, frequent power cuts, lack of capacity at station and train services.

Improved infrastructure must be in place before any construction can take place. I do not believe Lapworth to be a viable proposition for any of these proposals, either now or in the future. A particular limitation being the numerous canal bridges in and around the village.

No

Representation ID: 102645

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Sandep Virk

My mother lives here and her garden backs into this land for the proposed plan. We are very worried about access from hundreds of residents to her property from the rear, the noise of building work and the huge impact it would have on her health due to local health and council services being affected with the huge increase of housing.

No

Representation ID: 102680

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Rashpal Uppal

Do not agree as the pollution and housing development will cause my lung condition to worsen. I have recently moved here for health reasons and to be close to family. My rear garden backs onto the land regarding the proposed plans therefore this will cause major disruption on the local community as well as affecting local services. Traffic will be much worse so the pollution caused and major housing redevelopments will have a detrimental affect causing noise, anti social behaviour, lack of privacy, an increase of crime at the rear of my property, overdevelopment of the area and breaching guidelines.

Yes

Representation ID: 102819

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Male

Protest against SG24 proposal in Hockey heath

Other

Representation ID: 102947

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

This development will likely require treatment at Norton Green (STW) Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment Works has low capacity constraints and high environmental constraints. Due to the size of the development, it is recommended that network upgrades will be required, alongside hydraulic modelling and engagement with STW. Overall this development site is considered a medium risk location, as there is capacity however infrastructure upgrades may be required.

Yes

Representation ID: 103170

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Whilst the aim is for people to live close to where they work and for Active Travel to be a priority, it must be acknowledged that people often choose to reside and work in different places. Commuting is the norm and the SWLP must accommodate this. Settlement expansion and locations of new settlements must be supported by transport infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 103420

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Keith Allan

* Green belt land should NOT be allocated for housing when more suitable non-Green Belt land is available.