Shirley has taken the brunt of housing provision.
Whilst there has been little doubt over the need for housing, the fairness of its distribution has been brought into question. The Parkgate and Powergen developments preceded this version of the Local Plan, though they still have a significant impact on Shirley.
In light of this fact, the distribution of housing in the Shirley environs (named Blythe here) has been remarked upon. Over a third of the allocated site provision is in or around Shirley. This should be cause for alarm at the processes followed. It should draw into question the functioning of the methodology that is producing these results. Any successful methodology should not appear ambiguous or arbitrary, nor should it draw into question the intentions of Planners.
On these grounds we do not appear to be succeeding.

The Solihull Masterplan should have been included in the Supplementary Update.
The contribution that the redevelopment of Solihull Town Centre can make to housing provision, needs to be the context within which other sites are considered.
Not only does Solihull Town Centre offer possibilities for sustainable and active transport that other areas cannot, it is of key strategic importance for the successful deployment of UK Central. It also offers an opportunity for development of housing for young people and a revitalising of the High Street, at a time when there is considerable uncertainty around retail commerce.
I can appreciate that there is considerable work to be done in drawing up, what may prove to be, the most substantial masterplan. That said, an understanding of the contribution it can make to housing need is essential when reviewing other sites. To facilitate a departure from car dependency, partners like "Car Clubs" should be brought on through the design phase on this element. When plans are brought forward, hopefully some detail on deliverable schemes can be included.

Many residents are happy Solihull station will not be relocated.
The plans would have been both costly, potentially unnecessary, as well as shifting the centre of gravity of the town centre considerably.

It would have been beneficial to have some indication of the direction of travel as it pertains to Shirley.
Powergen and Parkgate are significant developments, that have not been without opposition. Whilst there are elements that residents are happy with, there were many contentious points.
There is trepidation that further major change would be directed at Shirley High Street without prior warning. This is important for business to direct the necessary investment and for residents to be brought on-board with any proposed changes.


How Cranmore is 'recycled' is of interest and concern to residents in that area.
There has been sometimes strained relations between the business park on neighbouring residents. Whilst the area provides valuable employment opportunities for people in the area, it has been developed in a somewhat haphazard manner.
Redevelopment of the site may be welcomed by many residents, as it could offer the opportunity to address many of the issues it has created. For this to happen, residents would again need to be brought on that journey from early stages. Presenting plans for acceptance is a manner of 'planning' that causes friction with residents. It also prevents opportunities being missed and unnecessary conflicts being created.

When Sports grounds are relocated, it impacts the community.
Many sports pitches operate as informal Public Open Space. They also are a community asset that link people to locales. Whilst relocation offers opportunities for facilities improvements, it also can move them outside the sustainable reach of residents, increasing car dependency.