1. I recognise the need for additional housing in the overall national interest to address the failures of successive national governments in addressing the issue
2. Having read the plan I find it very good in some aspects offering clear and concise reasons for the suggested developments and taking into account the wider issues new developments create. However, in some areas the plan appears weak, does not offer reasons for the chosen sites and skips over the infrastructure problems the developments will create. It is almost as if some sites have been thrown in to fill gaps in numbers
3. One issue which is puzzling me is the original plan placed great emphasis on HS2 and addressing the needs this will create in the borough. However, as I see it 40% plus of the proposed housing development is at the other extreme side of the borough (Shirley Blythe area) which already has congested roads. Ironically i could envisage it taking me 50 minutes to reach the HS2 station by road from my home in Shirley which is longer then the proposed train journey time to London on the new service.
4. Whilst you do explain the reasons for the inclusion of greenbelt land in the plan, and i do recognise the lack of brownfield sites in Solihull, the issue of ample brownfield sites in Birmingham is being swept under the carpet. I understand that Andy Street it taking steps to address this issue to some degree should not your plan support this issue and resources be directed to clean up and develop the large redundant land areas in Birmingham first. I understand developers like nice clean sites which are more profitable to them but as i mentioned in my first point this is a national issue and the best overall solution for all must surely be looked at
5. If you permit the Solihull greenbelt to be built upon you will stop the area being the "pleasant, green, healthy place" to live in and leave areas of Birmingham desolate redundant wildernesses
6. Personally and in respect of where my home is located i am pleased to see that allocation 13 has been removed from the plan but would welcome some reassurances that it will not be seen as a soft option to build on the in the future. Does its none inclusion mean the land is now actually safe from development until 2035?
7. Having attended a public meeting in my locality and taken the opportunity to visit one of your roadshows i am still not satisfied that the plan fully complies with all environmental regulations and guidelines. This could result in the number of homes you plan not being built and some quick fix further sites being identified and "pushed through" at the last minute
8. The loss of numerous sports facilities in the Shirley Blythe area appears to have been swept under the carpet in this version of your plan (having been addressed to a satisfactory degree in your last version). I do not believe I understand the reasons for your change of plan but do understand that rules from Sports England etc would not allow you to continue unless this issue is addressed
The specific Issues I identified in the pln are:
1. Balsall Common is getting a by pass in recognition of the proposed developments. Whilst nothing is proposed for the already busy A34 area
2. In point 126 you mention three train services an hour to Stratford upon Avon from Shirley. The actual case is three services to Birmingham not the other way to Stratford
3. As a regular visitor to Dickens Heath at various times of the day your plan does not recognise it is already a "rat run" for traffic cutting through from presumably outside the borough. The proposals now presented would actually make this worse with no vision of how to relieve existing traffic let alone cope with the extra volumes created
4. Allocation 26 seems to be very light on detail but the suggestion that traffic will feed into existing flows on Haslucks Green Lane and Bills Lanes suggests it has been thought up by someone who has never been in the area between 7.30 am and 9 am. It also does not recognise the narrow width of the road and the safety implications this creates by Bills Wood and the railway bridge on Bills Lane.
5. Finally if the need for news houses is so great why are two new car dealerships being permitted on the mixed use site in allocation 11? There are already seven dealerships in that vicinity and surely the new ones could go on Birmingham Brownfield sites?