I object to development on sites 12 / 13 / 4 for the following reasons...
I am against green belt land being taken for developmental use in this instance as not only will it ruin the character of Dickens Heath 'village' and Shirley, it will be a disaster for the local wildlife which reside there. Green belt was called as such for a reason, to distinguish between settlements and create a pleasurable environment for residents. The green belt in these areas provide a home for many wild animals, a escape for dog walkers and cross country runners, a football pitch for those wanting to be fit and more importantly an area that produces clean air for locals and plants and trees that soak up excess water. I fear without these areas if they are ALL to be built on as the council are proposing it will cause a serious flood risk.
My personal main concern is for the development which is proposed to be opposite my home - site 12 Dog Kennel Lane. This area specifically Tanworth Lane end is a farmed area which surrounds a LISTED Light Hall Georgian home. To build in this area would in my opinion spoil the characteristic rural feel of the area which separates Shirley from Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green. Not only would the view of the Hall be blighted ( I assume developers plan to keep it as it is a listed building?) But the farmland would be lost as well. With Britains recent exit of Europe I would have thought local farming were of even more importance now than before?!
The traffic into these new developments are also a concern. Currently there is heavy traffic daily along Tythe barn lane/Dickens Heath road and Tanworth Lane resulting in THREE accidents in the two weeks before Christmas to my knowledge! The traffic volume outside my house has already increased with the expansion of Cheswick Green and the tarmac roads are getting more and more damaged not to mention the noise level! I can no longer have a conversation on my drive without shouting! With no additional proposed access roads to these new expansions I only see this gridlock worsening. The bottle neck that is Tythe Barn lane actually at a number of points becomes a SINGLE lane, is this really sufficient for a development of 700 homes most of which will probably have two cars? Developers design the estates to cram in as many houses as possible (Dickens Heath Village included) without thought it seems to where people will park their vehicles, thus causing residents to park on the road side blocking the already narrow roads. With the development proposed along Dog Kennel lane (site 12) for a further 850 houses, the gap between Shirley/Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green will have diminished, loosing farmland/jobs/woodland/recreational sites & character of the area in its wake.
Tythe barn lane houses not one, not two, but THREE football teams ground where children and adults go to play and keep fit. The government are encouraging (children especially) to exercise, how can they be expected to do this if areas such as this are being built on and taken from them? The proposal I know states 'potential for provision of sporting facilities' but I fail to see how sufficient space to house the THREE sets of teams from site area 4 and another from site 13 can be made to fit, thus creating a shortfall of pitches within the area.

The proposed sites map fails to show the development of the Tidbury Green area which would also narrow the green land between settlements, could these new housing numbers not be added to the required build total set by the Government to reduced further plots having to be found?
There also is the question of schools. At present schools in Shirley and Dickens Heath are at capacity, with no room for expansion, so where do all these new additional children go to school? There are no plans to build a new one so will children have to travel to out of area schools thus making a mockery of the education policy that children need to be within a certain radius, allowing children to WALK to school! The same question applies to Doctors, I have not seen/heard any plans to build additional practices in the area so does this mean residents have to wait even longer to get appointments to meet additional demand?
My other worry is that of flooding, by removing this much farmland/green belt (a third of the councils allocated number in ONE area) and building on it, there will be less earth/trees to soak up the excess water which will inevitably cause flood damage along the way. I don't see why these new homes cannot be built creating a completely new settlement on a sustainable site nearer to where the creation of jobs is going to be nearer the airport/HS2 line. This way workers will be closer to the proposed new jobs and won't have to travel so far causing gridlock along the way. Areas near the airport I understand have to be left free from development to allow for 'accidents' but what of the residents of Marston Green who are already directly under the flight path, do they not count???
I would have thought it more sensible to put affordable housing nearer these areas as house prices are significantly lower in these areas anyway. Potential workers for the new jobs the HS2 will provide will then have lower travel costs also.
I understand we need to build more homes to house our growing numbers especially affordable ones, and I have no objection to the TRW site (site 11), what I don't agree with is the expansion concentrated in what to me it seems is nearly a third of the Governments allocation in one area (Shirley/Dickens Heath). It seems a very unfair distribution. I have lived on the edge of the Dickens Heath boundary for over five years now and have enjoyed the wonderful view of the LISTED Light Hall home of our neighbours. My only hope is that developers consider the CURRENT residents views/outlook and quality of life and attempt to screen off these new properties around boundaries before imposing them on our doorstep and devaluing what we have worked hard to achieve.