Q 15 - Site 26 - Whitlocks End Farm

I am very pleased to see that site 13 has now been removed from the plan. This area should now be made into a formal public open space.
However, the revised Local Plan doubles the density at Site 11. Site 12 has been expanded all the way to Creynolds Lane, and a new Site 26 has been introduced on Bills Lane. The location of site 26 being the worst of the three. In combination, these sites put immense pressure on infrastructure and will make our air pollution problem even worse.
The new site 26 introduced on Bills Lane is unsustainable and will make our air pollution problem even worse. The presence of the large numbers of Christmas trees, other mature deciduous trees and mature hedgerows within site 26 enhances the air quality, absorbing greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane. Losing this would significantly increase pollution, increase the Carbon footprint and have a considerably detrimental impact on air quality affecting the health of people living by this site.
The impact on the function of high performing Green Belt status of land will be lost which is contrary to Government Policy.

If the proposed development of Site 26 was to go ahead then there would be significant effects on the water table in the area, both in terms of run-off and drainage. The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy from April 2015 doesn't factor in surface water, meaning that the flood risk at site 26 is significantly underestimated. The long term predictions are for wetter weather throughout parts of the year. I am concerned that the constraints map used to detail the flood risk across the borough doesn't fully capture all the areas of concern, including Site 26.

Building houses on site 26 is contrary to the objective of protecting key gaps between urban areas and settlements. Site 26 provides a valuable green, healthy area separating the areas of Shirley and the ever expanding Dickens Heath Village. To virtually adjoin these areas with more developments would turn a well balanced Mature Suburb into a vast urban sprawl and would destroy the semi rural feeling of the area and be detrimental to the identity and community of the areas. If this site were to be developed then the greenbelt between the two would be little more than a belt.

The infrastructure required has not been adequately addressed in relation to the sites in Shirley South. The current infrastructure cannot support this amount of development. The traffic situation is really bad. Site 26 would add to this. The new Local Plan does not seem to realise the scale of this problem or even that it exists. The road infrastructure is inadequate and there are no alternative routes that could be built to relieve the situation. Additional development roads would only funnel more traffic into an already overburdened system. The existing arterial roads of Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane cannot be effectively improved. This is not being addressed by SMBC.

The access to this site would be off Bills Lane. This part of Bills Lane is already subject to heavy traffic and there are visibility problems accessing Bills Lane on this part of the road which would become even more potentially dangerous.

I accept that there are no easy solutions to addressing the housing crisis, but protection of the greenbelt and reducing pressures on infrastructure need to be at the forefront.

The current plan proposes a totally iniquitous and disproportionate 38% of Solihull's additional housing needs concentrated in the Shirley South area. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Developing residential buildings in the town centre makes good sense especially in terms of offering good transport connections and supporting the local economy in the town centre. However, the concentration of settlements to the south of Shirley does not make any sense. The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive and Haslucks Green Road. The addition of new homes on this site will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.

I can understand the logic of building residential properties in the vicinity of UK Central, but not around Shirley. Residents would need to utilise both the A34 and the M42 to access employment areas, worsening what are already congested roads.

The Blythe Valley Business Park development should be supported by well planned residential development that will create an overall sense of place and a more sustainable location. There should be an integration of residential and business developments at the Blythe Valley Business Park and not building homes away from job growth areas on the greenbelt land of Site 26.

Also there are other smaller sites throughout the Borough that are more sustainable to locate this development which are designated as amber category in the Local Plan to replace the Site 26 proposal.