Issue and Options 2023

Nothing chosen

Who could possibly object to these. We question whether these are strategic objectives: they are aims and it is important to recognise that there are conflicts between them.

Many of the strategic objectives are expressed, rightly, in positive terms –“creating”, “improving”, “developing” - but the appraisal criteria are for the most part about measuring negative effects – loss of environment, increased flood risk etc. The Appraisal methodology should include the scope that a possible location for development offers for improving elements of the existing physical, social and economic environment such as access to services, enhancing the vibrancy of district centres, and so on. Where are the existing problems and can new development if planned properly mitigate or remedy those problems? So, for example will the possible development locations identified in the Consultation enable the provision of services currently absent rather than noting the existing absence of that service.

Q-I2: Why have a joint plan if there are to be different approaches simply because there are separate administrations. Moreover the timely delivery of infrastructure is critical and has not always been achieved so far. We would have welcomed more discussion about why infrastructure lags behind and what is needed to improve matters. Q-I3: Option a. Simpler Q-I4.1: Yes, but we don’t know why you ask.

selected

selected

Yes

No answer given

selected

selected

selected

selected

selected

selected

Nothing chosen

Q-S4.1: Two of these are Earlswood and Wood End. The most important factor here is the Green Belt which the Consultation Paper has deferred consideration of. Both settlements are in a critical part of the GB being so close to boundary of the Birmingham /Solihull conurbation – and Solihull is steadily eating into it! Q-S4.2: Both settlements are in Tanworth Parish which the Annual Monitoring Report lists as one of the most deprived areas in the District as regards services. Your appraisal does not comment on whether development of modest scale would make any difference to the level of service. It is much more likely to result in soulless estates with total reliance on the car. Leaving the GB issue on one side the Earlswood sustainability appraisal is inaccurate in a number of respects: • There is no regular bus service at all • Nearest station is over a mile away, there is no safe pedestrian route to it and no spare parking capacity (or the means for providing extra parking) at it • Mitigation by improved active and transport links is extremely remote and it is disingenuous to suggest that this is even possible • Risk of coalescence in the Green Belt is high. As regards Wood End: • There is no regular bus service at all • The primary school is on average a mile away and there is no safe pedestrian route to it In both cases you claim access to Green Spaces, but do not identify the Green Space. We question this is true.

Yes

No

Answering this question is difficult because the Consultation Paper does not explain the criteria used to select the seven locations identified. There are other locations. We would look to see where the advantages of a new settlement can best be realized. The appraisal of the 7 sites identified for new settlements is too focused on the negatives. The Wood End site, with which we are particularly concerned is the only one that is not an essentially green field site: it already has significant development – mainly large houses in large plots. This will constrain what can be achieved, quite apart from being in a particularly sensitive part of the Green Belt – having regard to the NPPF objectives for the Green Belt. The existing services are on the southern edge and so would not be at the heart of a new settlement.

Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy? Yes, a new settlement or two should in principle be acceptable because it is possible to ensure that the infrastructure is provided when it is needed and more generally it would be easier to provide new housing with good access to services and creating strong social communities. But this dependent on the Council having the institutional means of ensuring that, and no mention is made of this. Q-S5.3: In response to the climate change emergencies, we are looking at rail corridors as a preferred approach to identifying potential locations. Do you agree? No. Where is the evidence that this will make any material difference to climate change. The analysis of the 5 Strategic Growth options does not show the focus on railways as being better on emissions. Indeed we think that in the north of the South Warwickshire area much of the movement is east-west rather than northsouth. Q-S8.1: Yes but not applicable in the Breen Belt notwithstanding the review of the Green Belt