I OBJECT to this proposed residential development for the reasons I will refer to below with particular reference to site BL3/ area 26 (which is referred to as both in plans. Is this to intentionally confuse the public?)
*Shirley South is still carrying the largest percentage(39%) of the proposed residential development throughout Solihull. This has only dropped by 2% from the previous draft plans. The plans are not taking into account the housing numbers created by current developments in Shirley and any plans for the previous Morrison’s site in Shirley either.

*Shirley and Blythe Valley has already seen extensive redevelopment over the past 5 to 10 years. Solihull Council have made minor changes to the road infrastructure which has not really addressed the increased levels of traffic.

*With the proposed developments there is little scope to extend the immediate road infrastructure. There are protected ancient hedgerows along Tilehouse lane which cannot be removed. Bill’s lane already carries heavy traffic at peak times, therefore the addition of 300 houses on site BL3 / allocation 26 ( have the council purposely referred to it as both to confuse the public? ) will add to this significantly, resulting in chaos at peak times with no scope to widen or add to the existing roads.

*increased traffic will exponentially increase the risk of road traffic collisions and pedestrian injury. Also sir pollution will be increased.

* sustainability has not been given consideration within this proposal, the plans will result in destruction of the local habitat and ecological balance of the area. We all have a duty to give consideration to the environment.

*It appears from the proposal that Solihulll are still planning to take a huge percentage of housing requirements on behalf of Birmingham. Why are the additional housing not being absorbed within Birmingham's initiative, utilising the Brown Field First site strategy: promoted by Andy Street. Why is Solihull Council intent on destruction of large areas of ecological sensitive Green Belt? This is Hypocrisy on a high level as our motto is “Urbs in Rure”

*The site in question is adjacent to four local wildlife sites. In addition, being only one kilometre from a further 6 significant ecological natural sites. This development is too close to these sensitive sites and will have a catastrophic effect on the area, flora, fauna and wildlife, not to mention the quality of life for human inhabitants. These ecologically sensitive greenbelt sites perpetually flood and are natural soak aways that reduce local flood risk. Thoughtless development as proposed creates flooding issues and removes the flood protection from the surrounding area it currently protects.
*The Shirley area is an ancient rural district, with lanes, bridle paths and narrow roads without pavement in places. It has poor public transport links thereby making it a pedestrian and car dependant area. By increasing residential development this will exponentially increase car usage for each new household; the increase will be a 200% in car usage with a further potential increase of 200% because of natural family development.
*the utility infrastructure such as gas, water, electricity and sewage is near to breaking point. This is due to the constant addition or piggy backing on of new developments to existing services, which is, essentially on to the original and existing rural system. This appears to be short sighted which will lead to an eventual collapse as there has been inadequate planning.

*This is highlights the council’s agenda to purely expand the council tax revenue base, this is without any consideration of the utility infrastructure or the current residents.
*The wider consequence of this development is the disproportionate effect that it will have on doctors and the wider health care provision. The existing system is stretched to breaking point with COVID as well as more residential developments already under construction. This will exponentially increase demand due to pressure of later life care, which is more complex and demanding. The health provision is exacerbated by the down grading of Solihull hospital surely this significant health resource should be upgraded rather than downgraded now, to secure the existing population.
*The Shirley South community is united in its OBJECTION and will not allow this Borough council to destroy the ecological balance, quality of life of existing residents any further with the short-term revenue generation schemes.
The community of Solihull, South Shirley and the Blythe want to see good sustainable development in appropriate areas not those with disastrous environmental consequences.