Dear Sir/Madam

Please can you confirm receipt of this email, as significant research and analysis has been undertaken in writing this response and would be grateful to know that this has been taken into account. See response to consultation below.

Kind regards
Sarah Smith

Start of response

14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?
An extra 15,000 houses in an area that currently only has 86,000 houses seems an extraordinarily high number. The population of Solihull is around 207,000 people, compared to a national population of 64.1 million people. The Government's target is to build 1,000,000 new homes by 2020 (i.e. over its 5 year tenure). For the sake of argument, Solihull should be looking to build 0.32% of these houses based on its population, which is 3,229 houses over a 5 year period, which is only 9,687 over a 15 year period. Therefore, there is no justification to aim to build over 15,000 more houses at the expense of the quality of the surrounding area.

15. Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?
No. There are too many developments, too focussed on the area south of Shirley where roads are already too busy and there is no space to widen roads or provide new infrastructure. Traffic congestion on Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane and the surrounding area is already extremely bad at rush hours, and it is increasingly difficult to turn out of Tanworth Lane near the doctor's surgery due to the large volume of traffic coming from the new development in Dickens Heath. Proposed allocations 12 and 13 will exacerbate these problems significantly by putting an extra 1,450 houses on them - potentially an extra 2,900 cars, not to mention the extra 400 houses and 800 cars on the TRW site (plus any additional commuters if there is to be additional employment on that site). Even if new roads are built to access the Stratford Road, there are already traffic jams on the Stratford Road trying to get onto the M42, so putting extra traffic onto the Stratford Road is not going to resolve traffic problems, but will make them worse.
More of these sites should be focussed around the HS2 site if that is one of the main draws for new housing in Solihull. In particular, there are a number of sites marked as lower quality green belt land nearer the HS2 development that aren't being earmarked for development such as parcels of land RP18 and RP19 just north of Hampton in Arden on the Green Belt Assessment report 2016 (both plots of land only have a grading of 4, compared to RP69 and RP65 both graded as 6 but the latter have been earmarked for building allocations 12 and 13 even though they serve a better green belt purpose).
There are also a number of poorer quality greenbelt areas around Dorridge which would be more suitable for development. These areas would be closer to HS2, and are also closer to a better quality train-line than that in Shirley or Dickens Heath. Housing in Dorridge would provide commuters with access to around 72 trains per day to Birmingham (compared to only 45 on the Shirley line), and would also provide easy access to commute to London via either the existing Chiltern service, Birmingham International or the new HS2. In particular RP34 only has a grading of 3, and other sites are graded 4 or 5 (RP33, RP41, RP39, RP40, RP48, RP47, RP45). It would be preferable if you considered these sites to proposed allocations 12 or 13.
The added benefit of building around Dorridge is that Arden School is (I believe) being rebuilt on a new site, so this would be an ideal opportunity to rebuild a new, larger, fit for purpose school to cater for significantly higher numbers instead of trying to extend existing schools on their existing grounds.
There is a triangle of land near to proposed housing allocation 4, bounded by Houndsfield Lane, Tilehouse Lane and the railway line. This does not appear to have been included in plans, even though RP72 only has a green belt grading of 4 and there is already a proposed development near there, and it is significantly more convenient to access Whitlocks End railway station than proposed allocations 12 and 13. It may be that some housing could be put on here, or it may be that there's a plan to extend station car parking here.
There is also a number of green belt sites in the north of the borough within already built up areas around Kingshurst, Fordbridge etc. These are all poorly performing green belt areas, and the green belt strategic review has even highlighted some that do not perform their green belt functions at all. It would be preferable if these areas could be used. As they are amidst built up areas anyway, it would be possible to build at a higher density here, without the development being out of character for the area. (RPs 01, 02, 03, 79, 06, 08).
An area where a lot of space that has already been removed from the green belt which could be more efficiently used and should be considered before any new green belt building, is the huge car parking areas around the NEC, airport and station. Were some of these to be turned into multi-storey car parks, then a number could be released to build housing on, and these would provide significant brown-field sites and save removing further land from the green belt. These would also provide good access to the proposed new employment site north east of Land Rover.
In addition the density of housing being proposed seems to be very low. Both proposed allocations 12 and 13 seem to only be around 20 dwellings per hectare. To reduce the impact on the green belt, build higher density developments in fewer areas (particularly if one of the drivers for new housing is single person households). This was highlighted in the Government's Planning Policy Guidance note 3 suggesting a net density of 30-50 dwellings. If your intended figure of 36 dwellings per hectare is net (which I assume it must be), then it would be in keeping with the same to reduce the space used and build higher density developments, rather than only 20 dwellings per hectare. Look at alternatives for putting parking under houses to use less space. Consider terraces rather than semi-detached, or consider low rise flats. Higher density developments can be significantly more environmentally efficient than lower density developments, and can also allow residents of the new and existing developments to enjoy green belt countryside that hasn't been destroyed.
With regard specifically to proposed allocation 13 (south of Shirley), if this site were to be used (but I would prefer it if it wasn't), it would be preferable to build higher density further away from Stretton Road to provide a full field's gap (not just the narrow strip of bridleway and amenity land) between the estates to still allow for a significant band of open space. This land provides enormous intrinsic benefit to local residents and it would be a huge blow to the area for it to be built upon. It is possible to walk for over an hour on a circular route without having to go on more than a few metres of road. This provides good health and stress-relieving benefits for local people. This would be lost by developing this area. The fresh air would be replaced by polluted air from thousands of extra cars sitting in traffic jams, and would be detrimental to all impacted.
In addition, this area of grassland is important for drainage in the area. Building more tarmac and impermeable surfaces on this area is likely to have knock-on impacts for existing and future residents.
It is also an area that provides a large open space for wildlife and significant numbers of trees.

16. Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure35 required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are they?

Schools local to proposed allocations 11, 12 and 13 already have two or three form entries at primary school level where they used to be single form entry. It is difficult to envisage how much additional capacity these schools can really withstand before it has a detrimental impact on their ability to provide the outstanding education that they are renowned for.
This would exacerbate congestion of the significant numbers of cars dropping or collecting pupils from Lighthall School, and Woodlands School (and all of the other schools in the borough) and the knock on impact on local residents who live around these schools.
At school start and finish times there are already severe issues with driving round the estate surrounding Stretton Road, parking, school delivery lorries. I have personally nearly been killed on my bicycle trying to get to the station by parents turning their cars in our road without looking, and also run off the road by a school food delivery lorry on the roundabout on Shakespeare Drive.
Roads around proposed allocations 11, 12 and 13 are already overcrowded, and they are not convenient for train travel without using a car to get to the station, or an extended walk. Parking already became a problem at Shirley station with the growth of Dickens Heath. Several years ago it became impossible to find a parking space at Shirley station unless you arrived before 7.30am. This led to the expansion of Whitlocks End station parking and the extension of the line to Whitlocks End instead of Shirley, but with the scale of housing being proposed, again I can't see how the train infrastructure on this line could stand the scale of the proposed housing. Perhaps extra buses may be proposed but they won't be able to get through the gridlocked traffic, and it will then take up to an additional hour from Shirley to get into Birmingham by bus.
Tanworth Lane, Stretton Road, Stratford Road, Dog Kennel Lane are all already severely congested due to Dickens Heath traffic, leading to extra pollution in the area. To extend further would cause even more congestion and pollution. It is unfair to existing residents to prevent them from being able to get to places due to additional congestion. It is already the case that it can take longer to drive from Withybrook Road to the TRW site than it does to walk on the occasions my husband needs to take his car to work. It can take 20 minutes to drive that mile, purely due to the Dickens Heath traffic. By adding further housing developments in this area, this will become impossible. The residents of Shirley won't be able to get onto the M42 in the morning, or return home in the evening as the Stratford Road and adjoining roads will be gridlocked.
Regarding pollution, in the 25 years we've lived here and run a local Scout troop, we've seen the number of children with asthma increase dramatically, which appears to be due to pollution from the Stratford Road, and the Council should feel responsible for the impact of their decisions on local residents.
We have seen nothing in the plan about nursery provision. This needs to be addressed as it is difficult to find nursery places in the area. On a personal level, we have enrolled our daughter at Active Angels nursery for when I return to work, and a very significant factor in choosing this nursery was that it backed on to open fields, so she wouldn't be inhaling the fumes of the Stratford Road every day. However, if proposed allocation 13 is built, not only in due course will there be lots of houses and cars, but in the meantime, she'll be attending nursery on a building site with heavy lorries and heavy plant in operation rather than the fields and open spaces that was a major factor in choosing this site. We're now uncertain whether the nursery will even exist in the future. We've also missed our opportunity to book into our other nursery choices now, because it is necessary to obtain places so far in advance.
For the number of houses you're proposing, it will be required to have additional secondary schools. It is not feasible to extend existing ones as you will not be able to get any more cars there or back in the mornings and afternoons. The new schools will need space and access roads. Several primary schools as a minimum must be considered in these plans.
Good quality, well lit cycle paths separate from traffic (but not slower to use than the road) should be drawn into any of these planned developments and linking to major sites. With the increase in traffic on the roads, Solihull's roads will become even more dangerous for cyclists (and pedestrians). The poor design of Dickens Heath leading to significant levels of on-street parking has made it dangerous to cycle through here as drivers are impatient to wait to pass. Similar problems could easily happen with any of these new sites if not well designed.
I think it is likely that there is a significant flooding risk by building allocations 12 and 13. Certainly the fields around allocation 13 are always boggy and muddy in winter. The drains at the top of Hathaway Road at the junction with Shakespeare Drive overflow in any heavy rain. I would envisage this getting significantly worse if allocation 13 is built on, and this large area of grass/marshland is removed. The drainage system of the whole area would need to be significantly improved.
End of response