Alternative Site Suggested (New Site)

Objection to Allocation 13 Proposal

I would like to object to the proposed Allocation 13 development.

There are a number of critical reasons for this:

1) Road safety issues near schools in the area since the proposed development runs adjacent to a single carriageway.

2) Serious congestion concerns caused by increased usage of the surrounding roads and insufficient infrastructure to deal with the increased volume.

3) Reduction of amenity to existing residents for medical and educational services (doctors, schools etc)

4) The surrounding ancient woodland has many different species with great ecological value (e.g woodpeckers, toads, news). To destroy this would be a crushing blow to the biodiversity of the area.

Furthermore there is sufficient brownfield land nearer to the M42 where this could be built without impinging on the existing development in this area of Shirley and would like to understand if a lower impact alternative can be considered.

Objections and Comments on Shirley allocation plot 13

I too agree with the objections regarding shirley allocation plot 13. I do not want houses built there at all. Traffic is already ridiculous at rush hours !!!!!!


Dear Sirs,

I 100% agree with what Shirley Heath has put. We won the battle years ago when they wanted to build a football stadium and will most certainly try our best to win this battle too. If there wasn't many people coming into this small country we would not have this housing crisis. I mean how many people per square mile in this country compared to other much larger countries than ours.
We can't just keep taking away our green belts. What's going to happen once they are all gone????


I am writing to register my objection to the development of Shirley South. Particularly Allocation number 13 which is designated green belt land.

Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of the new housing in the borough. This is disproportionate and unfair. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements".
I believe that there are numerous options yet to be explored and have yet to see the exhausted list of alternatives that have been investigated.

The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In this case HS2, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to the proposed developments.
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 Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter is like a racetrack. As are some of the local rat runs such as Stretton Road which constranly has drivers coming along the road at ridiculous speeds, in an area with two schools and a large elderly community.
The addition of thousands on new homes will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.

I drove down Marshall Lake Road today into the centre of Solihull and it took 35 minutes to travel just over a mile, the new traffic lights have made the situation worst the routes into the town centre are already creaking.

In terms of other public transport, the local rail stations are not fit for purpose, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations.

In addition to the problem of infrastructure, the area is not set up to facilitate a large number of potential new families. It is already veirtually impossible to get your child into the secondary school of your choice. What will happen to the catchment area of schools in the borough. In my particular area, residents have been bounced back from Alderbrook and Tudor Grange over the years by the Monkspath and Hillfield developments and latterly Dickens Heath. If this development were to go ahead, there would need to be provision for either school extensions or new schools. This again would require more space to be taken up.

Solihull hospital has been downgraded over the years and no longer has a paediatric department, the closest hospital being Heartlands. The trip to Heartlands is an absolute nightmare in traffic and can take over an hour.

In terms of Allocation 13. This is an area that has over the years has become a is a very popular recreation and amenity area, popular with families, dog walkers, ramblers etc.

The area has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land and even evergreen forest. There is a network of drainage ditches and well-established farm ponds and also a sink area which is effectively bog land. The area is very wet and for the most part of the winter is very boggy and forms a flood plain due to the very high water table and the constituent soil composition.
This results in heavy flooding across most of this low lying area. Many of the houses that back onto the fields in Langcomb Road experience flooding in their back gardens on a regular basis. A phenomenon that has reduced to an extent following the intensive planting of Christmas trees in the field adjacent to the gardens.
The network of ditches and ponds provides a varied eco system and I have seen frogs, toads and newts, along with Muntjac Deer, Cuckoo, Woodpecker and birds of prey. In addition in the meadowland and the marshy areas there are numerous wild flowers, I am not qualified to identify them but I feel you should carry out an in-depth wildlife and ecosystem survey at the correct time of year before a decision is made

In addition part of the area was granted to the stewardship of the Laker Centre on the completion of the Woodlands Estate. I am led to believe that the Layca Committee purchased the fencing around this area and also contribute to its upkeep. I would argue that the whole of area 13, by custom and practice over the last 40 years is by default a very important amenity area. On only has to look at the well-worn footpaths. This is indeed the lung of Shirley, the place to which people from many surrounding areas come to breath. Also, I am led to believe that any developments that affect a local communities quality of life should be offset. I feel that Allocation 13 should become a recognised conservation and public amenity area serving Shirley South. Shirley Park is woefully small and dog owners now are restricted to a tiny fenced in dog area.

I am also concerned about the nature of housing in this area. It is a well-known fact that houses in the South of the Borough command extremely high prices. I do not believe that the houses build will be affordable by the young people. They will be 3, 4, 5 bed houses with a small contingent of affordable houses that will probably be bought up by wealth buy to let landlords and exacerbate the issues with high rents etc.

The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses.

Slightly further south of allocation 13 the loss of a number of sports fields will deprive the local community of the opportunity of recreational activities and again reduce open space, this gives further argument to Allocation 13 being designated a conservation and amenity area.
In addition, the government states that the housing contracts should go to smaller companies using innovative methods, and promote self build and housing associations. Is this in the plan.

Alternatives to developing green belt sites are numerous and I am not convinced that all possibilities have been exhausted, both in smarter use of land and also locations

Thinking outside the box, flat areas of car park such as NEC and airport could be converted to multistory and the land save could be developed right on the door step of HS2 and also to compliment the recent resort World Complex.

This would alleviate pressure on south to north traffic flow. In addition, this would be the use of brownfield sites.
In addition to this, the proposed JLR site on Damson Lane, is purely a financial gain for the company to reduce freight costs. Why not build houses in that area instead. That would mean that the houses were in the right area. That is north of the town centre on the main arterial route of the A45, which has been developed to handle a large amount of traffic. The cost of JLR distribution is not the taxpayers concern. Or alternatively, why not build on the Land Rover Sports field as a trade off with the company, very few employees actually use the sports field.

There is also the possibility of buying larger houses in Solihull which have huge gardens and developing small estates with mews or flats as opposed to the exclusive developments that are cropping up along Blossomfield Road

Along with these ideas I have come up with a number of alternative areas which are more suitably located and are smaller pocket developments as per the governments' requirements. They are for the most part also in more affordable areas of the borough, see below

Land Pockets between
A452 / A45 / M42
A452 / Coleshill Heath Road / M42
Bickenhill Lane / B4438 / Westerly direction
B4438 / M42 / A45
Hampton Lane / A41 / M42

Finally, I am led to believe that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses from the Birmingham Allocation. This is regardless of the fact that there are many brownfield sites and public open spaces that should be used before greenbelt as per the previously mentioned government document. I would urge you to push back to Birmingham City Council on this matter.

As an example I walked along Fazeley Street last week, I saw a number of brownfield sites being used as cheap car parking and also overgrown areas with rubble etc and a large grassy area devoid of natural life Public space). Can you please ensure that Birmingham City Council fully research and address all of their brownfield sites before Solihull rolls over and gives away our green belt.

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

Building on the green belt in Shirley

I object to the proposal by Solihull council to build on the green belt land at Shirley south referred to as allocation 13 for the construction of 600 houses.

I live in BInley close and along with many other Solihull residents use this area for walking and keeping healthy enjoy the tranquility and the wild life . It is unfair to propose building 41 per cent of the housing you need to complete in our neighbour hood. There are brown sites available in DORRIDGE which should be utilised primarily. The government have said that a white paper will be available and that green belt land should only be used as a last resort. So you should halt any decisions until this white paper is available. We have no access to large parks in Shirley and this decision will impact on schools doctors surgeries and traffic pollution. We demand you re think this unpopular war on our green belt

Objections and Comments on Allocation 13

I am writing to register my objection to the development of Shirley South. Particularly Allocation number 13 which is designated green belt land.

Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of the new housing in the borough. This is disproportionate and unfair. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements".
I believe that there are numerous options yet to be explored and have yet to see the exhausted list of alternatives that have been investigated.

The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In this case HS2, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to the proposed developments.
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 Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter is like a racetrack. As are some of the local rat runs such as Stretton Road which constranly has drivers coming along the road at ridiculous speeds, in an area with two schools and a large elderly community.
The addition of thousands on new homes will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.

I drove down Marshall Lake Road today into the centre of Solihull and it took 35 minutes to travel just over a mile, the new traffic lights have made the situation worst the routes into the town centre are already creaking.

In terms of other public transport, the local rail stations are not fit for purpose, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations.

In addition to the problem of infrastructure, the area is not set up to facilitate a large number of potential new families. It is already veirtually impossible to get your child into the secondary school of your choice. What will happen to the catchment area of schools in the borough. In my particular area, residents have been bounced back from Alderbrook and Tudor Grange over the years by the Monkspath and Hillfield developments and latterly Dickens Heath. If this development were to go ahead, there would need to be provision for either school extensions or new schools. This again would require more space to be taken up.

Solihull hospital has been downgraded over the years and no longer has a paediatric department, the closest hospital being Heartlands. The trip to Heartlands is an absolute nightmare in traffic and can take over an hour.

In terms of Allocation 13. This is an area that has over the years has become a is a very popular recreation and amenity area, popular with families, dog walkers, ramblers etc.

The area has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land and even evergreen forest. There is a network of drainage ditches and well-established farm ponds and also a sink area which is effectively bog land. The area is very wet and for the most part of the winter is very boggy and forms a flood plain due to the very high water table and the constituent soil composition.
This results in heavy flooding across most of this low lying area. Many of the houses that back onto the fields in Langcomb Road experience flooding in their back gardens on a regular basis. A phenomenon that has reduced to an extent following the intensive planting of Christmas trees in the field adjacent to the gardens.
The network of ditches and ponds provides a varied eco system and I have seen frogs, toads and newts, along with Muntjac Deer, Cuckoo, Woodpecker and birds of prey. In addition in the meadowland and the marshy areas there are numerous wild flowers, I am not qualified to identify them but I feel you should carry out an in-depth wildlife and ecosystem survey at the correct time of year before a decision is made

In addition part of the area was granted to the stewardship of the Laker Centre on the completion of the Woodlands Estate. I am led to believe that the Layca Committee purchased the fencing around this area and also contribute to its upkeep. I would argue that the whole of area 13, by custom and practice over the last 40 years is by default a very important amenity area. On only has to look at the well-worn footpaths. This is indeed the lung of Shirley, the place to which people from many surrounding areas come to breath. Also, I am led to believe that any developments that affect a local communities quality of life should be offset. I feel that Allocation 13 should become a recognised conservation and public amenity area serving Shirley South. Shirley Park is woefully small and dog owners now are restricted to a tiny fenced in dog area.

I am also concerned about the nature of housing in this area. It is a well-known fact that houses in the South of the Borough command extremely high prices. I do not believe that the houses build will be affordable by the young people. They will be 3, 4, 5 bed houses with a small contingent of affordable houses that will probably be bought up by wealth buy to let landlords and exacerbate the issues with high rents etc.

The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses.

Slightly further south of allocation 13 the loss of a number of sports fields will deprive the local community of the opportunity of recreational activities and again reduce open space, this gives further argument to Allocation 13 being designated a conservation and amenity area.
In addition, the government states that the housing contracts should go to smaller companies using innovative methods, and promote self build and housing associations. Is this in the plan.

Alternatives to developing green belt sites are numerous and I am not convinced that all possibilities have been exhausted, both in smarter use of land and also locations

Thinking outside the box, flat areas of car park such as NEC and airport could be converted to multistory and the land save could be developed right on the door step of HS2 and also to compliment the recent resort World Complex.

This would alleviate pressure on south to north traffic flow. In addition, this would be the use of brownfield sites.
In addition to this, the proposed JLR site on Damson Lane, is purely a financial gain for the company to reduce freight costs. Why not build houses in that area instead. That would mean that the houses were in the right area. That is north of the town centre on the main arterial route of the A45, which has been developed to handle a large amount of traffic. The cost of JLR distribution is not the taxpayers concern. Or alternatively, why not build on the Land Rover Sports field as a trade off with the company, very few employees actually use the sports field.

There is also the possibility of buying larger houses in Solihull which have huge gardens and developing small estates with mews or flats as opposed to the exclusive developments that are cropping up along Blossomfield Road

Along with these ideas I have come up with a number of alternative areas which are more suitably located and are smaller pocket developments as per the governments' requirements. They are for the most part also in more affordable areas of the borough, see below

Land Pockets between
A452 / A45 / M42
A452 / Coleshill Heath Road / M42
Bickenhill Lane / B4438 / Westerly direction
B4438 / M42 / A45
Hampton Lane / A41 / M42

Finally, I am led to believe that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses from the Birmingham Allocation. This is regardless of the fact that there are many brownfield sites and public open spaces that should be used before greenbelt as per the previously mentioned government document. I would urge you to push back to Birmingham City Council on this matter.

As an example I walked along Fazeley Street last week, I saw a number of brownfield sites being used as cheap car parking and also overgrown areas with rubble etc and a large grassy area devoid of natural life Public space). Can you please ensure that Birmingham City Council fully research and address all of their brownfield sites before Solihull rolls over and gives away our green belt.

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

Received 17th feb


With reference to email above in addendum to my previous communication, I have been in contact with many local residents in our group of 730 people, and many would be keen to see allocation 13 set aside as a country park with a green corridor linking dickens heath and majors green. This could be managed by the local community and could be of benefit to the local community.

I am a Balsall Common resident Kelsey Lane.

I believe the Residents of Balsall common have already been subjected to a significant loss of our Greenery from the slow and drip like infill of the recent years. We are experiencing a significant increase in traffic from the general developments of the area more recently the Kenilworth road. My road, Kelsey lane used to have a very gentle rural flow of traffic and is now regularly at a complete gridlock. Both myself and husband are doctors who are required on-call to get to our hospitals within 25minutes for trauma cases - within the last 6months the traffic has increased so that on occasion we have been unable to exit our own driveway. The traffic flow this end of town particularly at rush hour times is not coping with the current flow. To increase this volume would be madness.

Furthermore:

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

My wife and I strongly object to your proposals for housing development in Knowle and support the contents and sentiments of the attached document prepared by KDBH Neigbourhood Forum

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to make my opinion known it that I agree with the response of the Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Health Neighbourhood Forum.

see email and KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

email and copy of KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

Arden Academy Questionnaire

see attached documents

Letter of Objection to House building in Balsall Common

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:
"Do you believe we are planning to build 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?"
I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.
The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.
1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".
2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.
3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.
4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.
5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".
6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties
7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.
8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.
9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.
10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."
In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:
1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport
2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then a holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots
3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2
4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged
6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

On a personal note any development on the site adjacent to the "Doctors Surgery" located on Hall meadow Lane / Riddings Hill will result in a significant decrease to the already low levels of light available in my North Facing property and would therefore have a detrimental impact on my families right to light and general well-being.
I refer you again to the previously mentioned point 3 which states:
3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.
Yours sincerely,

see attached letter

I am writing to register my objection to the development of Shirley South. Particularly Allocation number 13 which is designated green belt land.
Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of the new housing in the borough. This is disproportionate and unfair. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements".
I believe that there are numerous options yet to be explored and have yet to see the exhausted list of alternatives that have been investigated.
The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In this case HS2, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to the proposed developments.
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 Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter is like a racetrack. As are some of the local rat runs such as Stretton Road which constranly has drivers coming along the road at ridiculous speeds, in an area with two schools and a large elderly community.
The addition of thousands on new homes will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.
In terms of other public transport, the local rail stations are not fit for purpose, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations.
In addition to the problem of infrastructure, the area is not set up to facilitate a large number of potential new families. It is already veirtually impossible to get your child into the secondary school of your choice. What will happen to the catchment area of schools in the borough. In my particular area, residents have been bounced back from Alderbrook and Tudor Grange over the years by the Monkspath and Hillfield developments and latterly Dickens Heath. If this development were to go ahead, there would need to be provision for either school extensions or new schools. This again would require more space to be taken up.
Solihull hospital has been downgraded over the years and no longer has a paediatric department, the closest hospital being Heartlands. The trip to Heartlands is an absolute nightmare in traffic and can take over an hour.
In terms of Allocation 13. This is an area that has over the years has become a is a very popular recreation and amenity area, popular with families, dog walkers, ramblers etc.
The area has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land and even evergreen forest. There is a network of drainage ditches and well-established farm ponds and also a sink area which is effectively bog land. The area is very wet and for the most part of the winter is very boggy and forms a flood plain due to the very high water table and the constituent soil composition.
This results in heavy flooding across most of this low lying area. Many of the houses that back onto the fields in Langcomb Road experience flooding in their back gardens on a regular basis. A phenomenon that has reduced to an extent following the intensive planting of Christmas trees in the field adjacent to the gardens.
The network of ditches and ponds provides a varied eco system and I have seen frogs, toads and newts, along with Muntjac Deer, Cuckoo, Woodpecker and birds of prey. In addition in the meadowland and the marshy areas there are numerous wild flowers, I am not qualified to identify them but I feel you should carry out an in-depth wildlife and ecosystem survey at the correct time of year before a decision is made
In addition part of the area was granted to the stewardship of the Laker Centre on the completion of the Woodlands Estate. I am led to believe that the Layca Committee purchased the fencing around this area and also contribute to its upkeep. I would argue that the whole of area 13, by custom and practice over the last 40 years is by default a very important amenity area. On only has to look at the well-worn footpaths. This is indeed the lung of Shirley, the place to which people from many surrounding areas come to breath. Also, I am led to believe that any developments that affect a local communities quality of life should be offset. I feel that Allocation 13 should become a recognised conservation and public amenity area serving Shirley South. Shirley Park is woefully small and dog owners now are restricted to a tiny fenced in dog area.
I am also concerned about the nature of housing in this area. It is a well-known fact that houses in the South of the Borough command extremely high prices. I do not believe that the houses build will be affordable by the young people. They will be 3, 4, 5 bed houses with a small contingent of affordable houses that will probably be bought up by wealth buy to let landlords and exacerbate the issues with high rents etc.
The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses.
Slightly further south of allocation 13 the loss of a number of sports fields will deprive the local community of the opportunity of recreational activities and again reduce open space, this gives further argument to Allocation 13 being designated a conservation and amenity area.
In addition, the government states that the housing contracts should go to smaller companies using innovative methods, and promote self build and housing associations. Is this in the plan.
Alternatives to developing green belt sites are numerous and I am not convinced that all possibilities have been exhausted, both in smarter use of land and also locations
Thinking outside the box, flat areas of car park such as NEC and airport could be converted to multistory and the land save could be developed right on the door step of HS2 and also to compliment the recent resort World Complex.
This would alleviate pressure on south to north traffic flow. In addition, this would be the use of brownfield sites.
In addition to this, the proposed JLR site on Damson Lane, is purely a financial gain for the company to reduce freight costs. Why not build houses in that area instead. That would mean that the houses were in the right area. That is north of the town centre on the main arterial route of the A45, which has been developed to handle a large amount of traffic. The cost of JLR distribution is not the taxpayers concern. Or alternatively, why not build on the Land Rover Sports field as a trade off with the company, very few employees actually use the sports field.
There is also the possibility of buying larger houses in Solihull which have huge gardens and developing small estates with mews or flats as opposed to the exclusive developments that are cropping up along Blossomfield Road
Along with these ideas I have come up with a number of alternative areas which are more suitably located and are smaller pocket developments as per the governments' requirements. They are for the most part also in more affordable areas of the borough, see below
Land Pockets between
A452 / A45 / M42
A452 / Coleshill Heath Road / M42
Bickenhill Lane / B4438 / Westerly direction
B4438 / M42 / A45
Hampton Lane / A41 / M42
Finally, I am led to believe that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses from the Birmingham Allocation. This is regardless of the fact that there are many brownfield sites and public open spaces that should be used before greenbelt as per the previously mentioned government document. I would urge you to push back to Birmingham City Council on this matter.
As an example I walked along Fazeley Street last week, I saw a number of brownfield sites being used as cheap car parking and also overgrown areas with rubble etc and a large grassy area devoid of natural life Public space). Can you please ensure that Birmingham City Council fully research and address all of their brownfield sites before Solihull rolls over and gives away our green belt.
Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

Site 3

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build 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?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGEaction group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the"very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

Site 3

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build 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?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGEaction group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.


1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the"very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.


8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.


9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport


2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development


5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

I am instructed by my client Gallagher Estates to submit representations to the Draft Local Plan Review consultation (December 2016).

The representations comprise of the following submissions:

* Representations to the Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan comprising of Pegasus Group Report with accompanying appendices:
o Site Location Plan (Appendix A); o Review of SHELAA (Appendix B); o Review of SMHA (Appendix C);
o Un-met Housing Need and the Duty to Cooperate (Appendix D)
o Chelmer Model Papers (Appendix E)

* Separate Background Documents relating to :
o Land at Damson Parkway , Solihull;
o Land at Four Ashes Road, Dorridge;
o Land off Bickenhill Road, Marston Green and;
o Land off Berkswell Road, Meriden

Dear Sir to whom it may concern.
I am emailing at my disappointment at seeing the proposal to build far too many houses at the back of where I live. I have lived on this estate since 1975. And rode my ponies many times at the bridle path just off Bills Lane. At back of my house.

I understand the need of extra housing but this is ridiculous as at the moment the traffic is horrendous in the morning and evening. We all use the fields and bridlepath to walk and to walk through to Dickens Heath in The summer months. I have chosen to stay this side of Stratford Road for this reason. We can't loose anymore of our greenery.

Not only that Bills Lane is too busy to take more traffic as Dickens Heath traffic is already causing traffic jams in morning all the way down Shakespeare drive and Tamworth Lane. It took me 20min the other day to get my car to crossroads garage.
If there is an emergency in Shirley already the fire engines and police and ambulance drivers can't get through. There is no way the cars can get out of way for them to pass.

They need to build houses where they can make roads wider which is not rocket science. It's not possible to accommodate all theses houses and people. Parts of Earlswood have more space. We have already got Dickens Heath to cope with traffic wise and we have lost all those fields. I think we have had our share. Build some in Knowledge or Dorridge they have bigger wider roads

I wish to formally register my objections to the latest draft version of the local plan.

Whilst recognising the urgent need for additional housing due to the failure of successive central governments to ensure sufficient housing was built to meet the needs of a growing population and the ever changing demographic make up of the population and the additional demands this places on the national housing stock, your latest draft plan appears to be ill thought through in respect of local infrastructure and the ability to develop roads, hospitals etc which would be required to support a greatly increased local population. The plan is also widely biased in respect of building on green belt land. This potential "over development" of the green belt also appears to be contrary to the latest indicators being given by central government.

The proposed support to Birmingham City Council does not to me appear to be justified based on the vast swathes of derelict and undeveloped land within the City of Birmingham which could be regenerated to provide a modern living environment within the inner city and other ex industrial areas.

The focus on building on the Solihull green belt appears to be the "soft option" for both planners and developers.

My key objections are as follows:

1. The plan appears to be disproportionate across the borough with approximately 41% of the proposed new builds being in the Shirley/Dickens Heath locality

2. The plan does not align itself to the latest guidance from Central Government as reported in the national press. Solihull has a lot of large properties occupied by older residents who could be encouraged to down size releasing large properties free to be converted to multiple dwellings. Solihull as a whole offers numerous opportunities for "infilling". Whilst each development is possibly considered small a challenging overall target could be adopted. My perception is as a council you have resisted such developments in the past. Such developments also offer a more balanced impact on the local infrastructure and facilities.

3. Whilst I acknowledge your detailed plan for infrastructure improvements are not yet developed it is obvious to the "layman" that the local roads and other facilities are already at peak capacity at certain times and the availability of parking at local railway stations is already insufficient before several thousand new houses are built.

4. Logically the 2000+ houses proposed for the Shirley/Dickens Heath area are likely to equate to at least 3000 additional cars using the local roads (I acknowledge the potentially improved roads) which will all result in a reduction of our air quality. Great emphasis is placed by the medical profession on the need for fresh unpolluted air, recreational space and the participation in sport and leisure activities. Your proposals will severely impact the lives of many local residents by reducing recreational and public amenity space, the destruction of many popular countryside walks, the loss of up to nine sports pitches used by all age groups and the destruction of the local Christmas tree farm which presently benefits the local area by naturally absorbing carbon dioxide and purifying the air we breathe.

5. All of the existing open green belt land also supports a variety of wildlife some of which I believe to be protected species (bats and voles to my knowledge). Your plan does not address this issue. Your plan also includes land where there are numerous well established oak trees, which also form part of the hedgerow, and offer homes to other wildlife species. I cannot find any detailed reference to this in your proposals and surely as planners you have duties in this respect.

6. Your plan, and observations from meetings I have attended, appears to make great play of HS2 and the benefits this will bring to both the region and the locality. It has been stated that we need to seize the opportunities and the additional housing forms part of this strategy. However, your plan does not reflect on the practicalities regarding the limitations of the existing local infrastructure and any potential improvements you can make. The journey to the HS2 terminal area is already a "nightmare" and can only get worse with further development. The M42 between junctions 4 and 6 is already at capacity for large parts of the day and I believe one of the busiest stretches of motorway on the national network which is unlikely to be further widened. Additional housing feeding this stretch of motorway can only result in further gridlock and will adversely impact on the image of Solihull as a place to come and do business.

To sum up my objections in a few words your proposals will have a significant adverse impact on the quality of my, my families and all other residents lives in terms of:

- our health and well being both physical and mental due to reduced air quality and increased noise pollution
- loss of amenity space
- extreme impact upon the local environment
-making Solihull, and in particular Shirley, a less attractive place to live, visit and promote due to the plan disproportionately focusing on Shirley/Dickens Heath

I would also like to make the following observations:

1. The land which it is proposed to build on in allocations 4, 11 and 13 is generally of poor "agricultural" quality. However, that in allocation 12 is of a better quality and is presently used to grow crops. How can this change of use be justified?

2. Most of the land in allocation 13 is presently used by the local Christmas tree farm. Whilst this is a relatively recent development as a resident of Langcomb Road, backing onto this site, the growth of the trees has significantly improved the historic flooding situation we used to have in our back gardens. The building of houses on this site will undoubtedly impact us and result in the flooding returning.

3. South Solihull is at the higher end of the housing costs range. Many local young adults wishing to get a place on the property ladder have to move away being unable to afford the local prices. I note that a number of other councils make provisions in their plans and planning approvals process that a significant proportion of new build houses must be both affordable and allocated to those presently on the councils electoral roll (at least one of the buyers). I can not see reference to this in your plan ( I believe it may bring you more support). Is this something you intend to address?

I strongly recommend your proposals are revisited focusing on:

-A more balanced allocation of development across all areas of Solihull
- Recognise that Birmingham Council has the ability, admittedly through hard work and the investment of more time, to address their own issues without Solihull being called upon to "bail them out".
- More focus on the impact the size of the proposed developments will have on existing inhabitants in particular their physical and mental health
- Recognising that some times the more difficult options (brownfield and infilling) should be tackled rather that the soft green belt
- Recognition of the recent well publisised guidance from key central government figures about building on green belt

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on your proposals.

Balsall Common - Frog Lane development proposal

Dear PSP and SMBC planning team,

I am writing to you to regarding the proposed development plans for Balsall Common and in particular the Frog Lane proposal.While I understand there is a need for additional housing in Solihull area, I strongly urge the SMBC to select a more suitable plot to Frog Lane and to consider the following issues;

* Frog Lane site is on green belt land and has been chosen in favour of brown field sites and extending existing developments. Green Belt should only be developed on in exceptional circumstances according to planning guidances
* The development proposals do not include the provision of infrastructure and would put increased pressure on school places, at both primary and secondary level;
o Balsall Common Primary has been pressurised to accommodate an additional 4th reception class for the last two years running and is already operating at full capacity
o As stated in the LA regulations introduced in 2015, Balsall Common Primary schools 'free space' is not sufficient to accommodate their current pupil numbers and will only be further impacted by these additional homes
* The Frog Lane and Windmill developments are on the wrong side of the village and too far away from the railway station and the village shops, increasing congestion around the primary and secondary school. There have been several incidences reported to the school in 2016/17 of children having near fatal accidents while walking to school. I strongly urge SMBC to visit these areas during peak times and to consider the safety/lives of children in their bid to fill their housing quota.
* The development proposals are on Green Field sites on the outskirts of the village so approving planning permission will set a precedent and promote additional erosion of the green belt.
* Frog lane is a small development - it will not solve the housing shortage problems in the village and only add to the infrastructure challenges we already face (congestion, oversubscribed schools, doctors)
* Frog lane proposes to include the development of the local recreational land owned by the council, and suggests this proposal has been put forward for commercial/ profiteering reasons over protection of green belt and local green spaces

Based on the comments above, I would urge SMBC to select a more suitable alternative plot to Frog Lane and Windmill Lane that will benefit both SMBC and the Balsall Common residents and to consider ;
* One large development with vital infrastructure needed to accommodate the expansion included (shops, gym, community centre etc) funded by the developers
* Develop a site that is near to the railway station and existing amenities so people can walk to the station and shops, reducing congestion in the village
* Consider alternative brownfield sites available/long term strategy planning. Development plans on greenbelt are negatively impacting the countryside long term and once gone the damage can not be reserved

The selection of a single large site based on the criteria above will keep SMBC and the Balsall Common residents happy and satisfy the need for additional housing whilst minimising the negative impact on the existing residents of the village.

I urge you to reconsider the Frog Lane and Windmill lane proposals on this basis.

Best regards

I wish to express my very strong objection to the proposed plans of 700 dwellings on a 41 hectare site to the West of Dickens Heath. Allocation 4.

The area concerned is green belt land which will be completely eroded to the Bromsgrove District border. This will result in there being no green belt buffer between the two council areas creating an urban sprawl. Building on the green belt should only be allowed 'in exceptional circumstances'. Under the government white paper it states " Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements" I do not believe the further expansion of Dickens Heath to be 'exceptional circumstances' as there are numerous options yet to be explored. I also understand that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses overspill from the Birmingham allocation. This seems unreasonable as there are numerous brownfield sites as well as public spaces and unused public buildings that should be considered first.

There will be a loss of ancient woodland, historic hedgerows, wildlife habitat and diverse ecosystems that can normally be found in such an area of green space. The loss of trees having a significant impact on air quality. Leisure facilities used by the community are also under threat.
The distance of the planned build from Dickens Heath village centre will encourage residents to use nearer facilities in neighbouring council areas and of course utilise their roads and infrastructure.

Majors Green has already taken a significant amount of additional traffic from the extension of Whitlocks End railway station car park. Those who cannot get in the car park are currently parking in our small roads and pavements in Majors Green. The planned further expansion of the car park is based on current useage, and this will encourage more cars to use the car park and subsequently more traffic through our 'village'.
We are currently struggling with the amount of traffic coming along Haslucks Green Road. The dangerous bend in Majors Green has seen over 30 accidents in 18 months. The recent addition of coloured tarmac is already buckling under the amount of cars using the road. Haslucks Green Road and surrounding roads are country lanes, they were not designed as a race through/cut through for fast cars from major urban developments. An additional 700 houses could mean an extra 1400 cars looking for a quick route out of Dickens Heath along roads across the boundary in Bromsgrove. There seems to be an encouragement by Solihull Council to direct traffic away from Dickens Heath village and on to surrounding country lanes, the majority of which travel down Tilehouse Lane and then Haslucks Green Road.
Surely encouragement should be given for people to walk to the station, provide proper wide footpaths and adequate safe street lighting instead of further polluting our countryside on a short journey to the station
Further building in Dickens Heath West will be detrimental to the area and put an intolerable strain on the already struggling doctors surgeries and schools.

Flooding will be an issue. Majors Green is regularly 'cut off' when we have heavy rain with flooding in Tilehouse Lane, Haslucks Green Road & Aqueduct Road. Further building will only exacerbate this situation

In summary, whilst we understand there is a need for more housing please give serious consideration to alternative sites such as those on the list of 'call for sites' submissions and Blythe Valley/M42 corridor. The plan appears disproportionate with 41% of the housing planned for 4 sites which neighbour our community. Having lived in Majors Green for 31 years we have seen and embraced many changes. We have invested in the local community and use the facilities that are currently under threat. Please do not take away the green space we enjoy regularly as walkers and for leisure. This will significantly impact on our quality of life. Please protect our green belt and the semi rural aspect of our area. To quote Bill Bryson , previous President of Campaign to Protect Rural England, "our countryside is the world's largest park .. all we have to do is look after it"...

Objections and Comments on Allocation 13 (without prejudice)

I write to register my objection to the development of Shirley South.
Allocation number 13.

The effect will completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.

Under the governments white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that " Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements".

There are numerous options still yet to be explored exhausted and investigated.

The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In this case HS2, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to the proposed developments.

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 Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane.

The addition of hundreds of new homes will compound congestion and traffic to a catastrophic level.

In terms of other public transport, the local rail stations are not fit for purpose, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations.

In addition to the problem of infrastructure, the area is not set up to facilitate a large number of potential new families. It is already virtually impossible to get children into the secondary schools of choice. What will happen to the catchment area of schools in the borough. In my particular area, residents have been bounced back from Alderbrook and Tudor Grange over the years by the Monkspath and Hillfield developments and latterly Dickens Heath. If this development were to go ahead, there would need to be provision for either school extensions or new schools. This again would require more space to be taken up.

The infrastructure won't allow for these additional families, lack of school places, unable even now to get a doctors appointment as it is. Solihull hospital has been downgraded over the years and no longer has a paediatric department, the closest hospital being Heartlands. The trip to Heartlands is an absolute nightmare in traffic and can take over an hour.

In terms of Allocation 13. This is an area that has over the years become a very popular recreation and amenity area, popular with families, dog walkers, ramblers etc.

The area has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land and even evergreen forest. There is a network of drainage ditches and well-established farm ponds and also a sink area which is effectively bog land. The area is very wet and for the most part of the winter is very boggy and forms a flood plain due to the very high water table and the constituent soil composition.
This results in heavy flooding across most of this low lying area. Many of the houses that back onto the fields in Langcomb Road experience flooding in their back gardens on a regular basis. A phenomenon that has reduced to an extent following the intensive planting of Christmas trees in the field adjacent to the gardens.

The network of ditches and ponds provides a varied eco system and I have seen frogs, toads and newts, along with Muntjac Deer, Cuckoo, Woodpecker and birds of prey. In addition in the meadowland and the marshy areas there are numerous wild flowers.

In addition part of the area was granted to the stewardship of the Laker Centre on the completion of the Woodlands Estate. I am led to believe that the Layca Committee purchased the fencing around this area and also contribute to its upkeep. I would argue that the whole of area 13, by custom and practice over the last 40 years is by default a very important amenity area. One only has to look at the well-worn footpaths. This is indeed the lung of Shirley, the place to which people from many surrounding areas come to breath. Also, I am led to believe that any developments that affect a local communities quality of life should be offset. I feel that Allocation 13 should become a recognised conservation and public amenity area serving Shirley South. Shirley Park is woefully small now part of it has been developed and dog owners now are restricted to a tiny fenced in dog area.

I am also concerned about the nature of housing in this area. It is a well-known fact that houses in the South of the Borough command extremely high prices. I do not believe that the houses built will be affordable by the young people. They will be 3, 4, 5 bed houses with a small contingent of affordable houses that will probably be bought up by wealth buy to let landlords and exacerbate the issues with high rents etc.

The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses.

Slightly further south of allocation 13 the loss of a number of sports fields will deprive the local community of the opportunity of recreational activities and again reduce open space, this gives further argument to Allocation 13 being designated a conservation and amenity area.

In addition, the government states that the housing contracts should go to smaller companies using innovative methods, and promote self build and housing associations. Is this in the plan?

Alternatives to developing green belt sites are numerous and I am not convinced that all possibilities have been exhausted.

Please bear these valid points points when making your final decision.

Objection to the development of allocation 13 ( Shirley South ) without Prejudice

I'm writing to you to with a formal objection to the Solihull draft plan

The facts are that Solihull is a reasonable large Borough but 41% of the total housing proposal is earmarked for Shirley this is out of proportion and the allocations should be more evenly spread across the borough to befit all and the inevitable strain on already overloaded infrastructure more evenly distributed.
The large allocation in Shirley South does not benefit HS2 either as it's all located the opposite side of Solihull meaning the A34, A41 or M42 must be used to access this high speed rail link station.
The Federation of master builders study finds that smaller developments of around 100 houses are ensure variety and diversity

I also see no robust investigation of brownfield sites, other counsels across the UK have made much better use of these and should be considered as best practice.

Green belt
The Loss of Green space and amenity areas which has a direct impact on the welfare of people

I quote "Celebrating what is special about Solihull "
(Solihull council Green belt Strategy review 2014)

The housing minister Gavin Barwell has also gone a record
" building on Green belt is not the way to solve the shortage of homes "
(Evening standard 5th Feb 2017)


Road access & Infrastructure

Bills lane is narrow and constrained by houses on both sides with traffic calming already in place
which means Solihull council already recognise the road has safety issues with a 7.5T weigh limit.
The traffic pinch point at Burman road / Shakespeare drive junctions with constant ques at peak times
Tamworth lane is also grid lock now from early morning again with not many options to widen or improve traffic flow as this also constrained on both sides by houses and also has traffic calming
The plan has no details of what Infrastructure improvements if any would be made to address this very real issue. The comment of "details will be given at the next stage" is unsatisfactory
If as private residents were seeking planning for an extension we would not be permitted to supply half the information and expect planning to be granted


Parking at Train stations
Shirley and Whitlocks End stations are already beyond current capacity
Parking restrictions have already being put in place by Solihull council on surrounding side roads at Shirley due parking issues.

Increased Flooding

Seven Trent installed a large new storm water pump station in Neville road a few years to mitigate flooding risk
This will have a standard 10% flex the development proposal will be way above this allowance
A Flood Risk Analysis study should be conducted and results should be published
SFRA December 2014 P16 Sec 2.3.2 - LPA to ensue new developments do not increase the flood risk elsewhere

I feel the plan needs to be completed re done to allocate small sites across the whole borough, studying the call for sites there are plenty of options that have been ignored this may no suit the developers who what to "stack em high and sell em cheap ( ish ) "

I don't believe anybody underestimates the problem of housing but the counsel have duty to ensure we don't look back in years to come and regret the decisions that were made ( 1960's high rise flats )

We have been asked to suggest possible alternatives but for me it's the counsels role to find a fair solution that takes in the view of the people who voted them into office and pay Counsel tax

On that note one suggestion which has been discussed locally is to relocate Lighthall School to Dog kennel lane and then develop the old school site for housing.
On the face of it this looks sensible as it would allow easier access for the school runs as it lins directly to the A34 and take the congestion away from Hathaway Rd / Shakespeare drive

Objection Allocation 13

I wish to register my objection to the proposed housing development on allocation 13 in South Shirley.

I feel strongly opposed to the building development as we have recently moved onto Shotteswell Road and our main reason for moving to the area was the close proximity of the green belt. We are dog owners and use the area on a daily basis to exercise our dog. It also provides much enjoyment for our young daughter. To think that this area could be taken up by housing is absolutely devastating and would drastically affect our lifestyle.

There is also the extra traffic that these developments will cause. It is already a nightmare to get down dog kennel lane & Tanworth lane during rush hour. The roads could not cope with more cars. Any through road down Shotteswell Road or Woodloes Road would cause major disruption to the residents.

Local services such as Schools and hospitals are already over stretched and building more houses in the area will only put further strain on this.

It seems pointless to have so many new homes this side of the borough when the HS2 development is the other side. Why not look at building near the NEC. I don't feel that other options have been considered. Why not build smaller developments in pockets of land or brownfield sites rather than green belt land.

I hope that the council reconsider the plans.

I have received a leaflet asking me to comment upon the proposed housing on 'green belt' land around Shirley/Whitlocks End.

I am aware that Solihull Council have targets set by central government which you have to meet but as realistic as I am I cannot help thinking that 41% of your target being proposed adjacent to existing conurbations is rather too many. You can have no understanding of the increased traffic we have experienced since the last tranche of houses were built in Dicken's Heath and where I live, on Haslucks Green Road (514) which seems to be the centre of road closures, we have experienced months of disruption at the Green Lane Junction. With the next total road closure to start Monday 20th February to 28th April we will experience the kind of horror that your proposal will virtually make a permanent feature. It would have been interesting had you had some alternatives or indeed considered spreading the load out across the borough. Brueton Park perhaps?

I am writing to place my objection to part of the Draft Local Plan proposed.

I fully accept the requirement for housing and the quicker an adopted plan can
be bought in the better for all concerned.

My 1st objection stems around the proposed numbers allocated in the draft
centering around the outskirts of Shirley (Areas 4, 11, 12, 13 - totalling 2550
in an area in very close proximity to each other), I have included Dickens Heath
in the figures above as the traffic flow and population currently has major
effects on the area and especially highway junctions around Tamworth Lane, Dog
Kennel Lane at peak times.

My particular concern is area 13 allocated for circa 600no. units to the South
of Shirley. This area of green belt is considerably well used and an asset to
the local area. At present from my property there is a limited amount of open
space accessible to the public within walking distance. We use this area
regularly and other government initiatives of new schemes centre around
accessibility to open space for all - I do not feel existing stock should suffer
when not necessary. If this was to remain in the plan and subsequently developed
where would the accessible open space be, sustainability of getting in car all
the time to travel for a walk is not in anyway in the good for anyone. Shirley
Park is too far for my children to walk to and from although a good facility it
is not within walking distance to many hundreds of properties around the Shirley
South area.

I would not object to the other sites identified in the Shirley area if area 13
was removed from the plan. I agree the TRW site, Blythe Valley and possibly the
Dog Kennel Lane site as these have more infrastructure in place already. Could
the new HS2 hub area be identified to take a little more.

To implement the Shirley schemes the highways infrastructure requirements would
need reviewing along with the current medical allocation, Doctors surgeries have
week waiting lists and Solihull hospital has had many cutbacks over the last few
years- would Solihull not warrant an A&E / Full maternity ward?

The 2nd objection follows on from and centres around the allocation around the
borough which seems slightly biased towards certain areas - in particular the
Shirley is of concern to myself which is where we currently live. Reviewing the
allocated numbers my understanding is Solihull is taking circa 900, Meriden 50
units and Dorridge is not mentioned (this may be because Knowle and Balsall
Common appear to be taking a generous amount) (but Shirley 2550).

Here is my response to the draft local plan. This focuses on the excessive amount of new housing development proposed for Knowle.

Total number of houses
The 1,050 houses proposed for Knowle is vastly excessive and totally out of scale with other locations. It is effectively a 20% increase in the size of the village (based on the existing number of households). I don't understand why there are no allocations proposed for Dorridge or Bentley Heath. Dorridge would be a much sensible solution for sustainable development with the rail connection.

The total number of houses is totally out of scale with the size of Knowle and will significantly exacerbate already very serious traffic congestion along the High Street and Station Road (not just new residents but deliveries, visitors etc). It will have a seriously detrimental impact on the village character turning it into a medium sized town.

The scale of housing development in Knowle is not justified by the evidence base, some of which is flawed in any case.

The Arden Triangle
I would like to strongly object to the number of houses proposed on the Arden Triangle. The scale of 750 houses is not justified by the Council's evidence base with the findings of the LCA that this area was only suitable for small scale developments. Such a large site will cause significant loss of some of the most attractive and valuable Arden landscape around Knowle and Dorridge. I don't think this area was appropriately assessed in the Green Belt Assessment. It is a very valuable and loved rural part of the village and provides a prominent and attractive landscape when approached from the south. Any development on this land near the Warwick Road would be highly visible and have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity when approaching Knowle. The area also includes important wildlife habitats.

Development on this site in any scale is not sustainable and would exacerbate already unacceptable congestion along the High Street and Station Road.

A dispersed pattern of development involving sites in Dorridge and Bentley Heath would be more appropriate for the area.

Whilst I accept there has to be a certain amount of development in the area a dispersed solution would be far more preferable and have less impact on the character of the area, less impact on road congestion and result in less impact on the Green Belt and Countryside.

Affordable housing
The 50% affordable housing is pointless as being within such an affluent area they will never actually be genuinely affordable. Furthermore by insisting on such a high percentage of affordable housing it makes achieving the community benefits much less likely as developers will have to factor this in their appraisals. It would be better to have much less affordable housing to make the benefits stack up. Furthermore developers will not be able to provide the required type of housing under the starter home scheme.


In summary the total number of houses proposed is far too many for the size of Knowle. Development should be dispersed to minimise impact on the community and congestion involving more sustainable development in Dorridge and Bentley Heath. The Arden Triangle proposal would have a seriously detrimental impact on very valuable green belt and the character of the village.

Regards

I strongly object to the extent of the proposals re the building of 2500 houses around the Shirley area. The scheme is untenable, unrealistic, disproportionate (considering many other areas in Solihull), and fraught with considerable problems, particularly traffic ones. Yes, Shirley must play its part in the provision of new housing, but not to the degree proposed. Most of the cars from these potential areas will use the A 34, to turn left or right along it or cross it on the way to Soliuhull. Are you aware of the problems we experience now? And the possible future. YUK.

What about the Green Belt?
Some of the proposed areas are less unacceptable in your suggestion,e.g.TWR site and the Blythe Valley. Others, particularly allocation 13,off Baxters Close and Woodloes Road, are definitely untouchable, considering the numbers who use it for leisure and recreational activities.

Now a practical proposal. Solihull is overprovided with golf courses, and using one of these would be more acceptable to the vast majority of Solihull residents. The merging of Robin Hood and Olton golf courses is one suggestion to providing building land, but my choice would be to develop Copt Heath golf club. Two reasons; it would involve the Knowle area in Solihull's scheme , but mainly because it is near the M42 and this would generate less traffic congestion. Either scheme would be politically challenging; has the council got the courage to attempt them?

While I sympathise with Solihull MBC at having to plan for 6500 new homes, I must express my fervent opposition to siting 1050 of them in Knowle. Apart from all other considerations, Knowle is full!

Parking in Knowle is extremely difficult at the best of times, without any additional houses. There simply is no room to accommodate more people using Knowle village centre. Even Waitrose gave up trying!

There are very few employment possibilities in Knowle, so any new residents would have to travel away from the village to work. The parking at Dorridge station is already full, which means that most journeys would have to be by car - this goes against the accepted wisdom of encouraging use of public transport.

Those living in houses on the Arden Triangle would mainly be travelling in the direction of the M42, Solihull and Birmingham. All these cars would need to drive along Knowle High Street which is already extremely congested at rush hours and very busy throughout the rest of the day. Add to this the cars coming from the proposed Hampton Lane development, and the Warwick Road towards the motorway would grind to a halt.

It would make so much more sense to build the houses where the jobs are going to be created - e.g. HS2, Birmingham Business Park, Jaguar Land Rover, Blythe Valley Business Park etc. These are going to be the booming areas of the borough and the people working there are going to need homes, so it would be logical to build them in those localities.

Urbs in Rure. The approach to Knowle from the Warwick direction is delightful - one goes from countryside, through a handful of houses and arrives in the village centre. Development of the Arden Triangle would be seen as soon as one approached the proposed traffic island at Rotten Row corner. An absolute blot on the landscape. Please leave the Green Belt alone - it is there for a reason.

As I understand It, the idea of developing of the Arden Triangle came about because of the wish of Arden Academy for new premises. The principal has given assurance that there will be sufficient places at the new school for all pupils of secondary age moving to these new houses in Knowle. But what about primary school places? I am led to believe that the new RC primary school proposed for the Arden campus will replace the existing St George & St Theresa's school, so there is no provision in the plan for extra primary school places. An impossible situation!

A small, but I believe relevant, point: Part of the proposed new site for the academy cannot be accessed without crossing land which is in private ownership. Without access to this area, the site would be unreasonably small for such a large school. Unless, or until, access to this area can be established, the whole plan is unfeasible.

Knowle is a village which has grown considerably since the war. Newcomers have been absorbed into the community as it has expanded. However, saturation point has been reached and I beseech the council to recognise that.

Please find below our thoughts on the draft housing plan.

We do not believe that 1350 more houses be built in Balsall Common. The area has already been subject to substantial development over recent years including developments, as we speak, on the Kenilworth Road. It cannot be said, therefore, that people in the area have not been accommodating to new development. However, we do object to the unnecessary destruction of unspoilt Greenbelt land in Balsall Common, in particular to any further development of the Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane "triangle".

Windmill Lane is on the outer reaches of Balsall Common - we cannot see how road traffic can be managed from this end of the village for people to access facilities - road traffic will increase as people use the facilities in the village/railway station/schools as realistically it's too far for people to walk - we commute into Birmingham every day from Windmill Lane and it's a 25 minute walk to the station at a quick pace (people are time short in the morning and with a heavy commute and walk the other end of their journey to places of work there is not time to do this walk; every second is precious on long commutes and working days) - so Councils need to be realistic in their thinking and not put the onus on people for being lazy when in fact the car is essential to busy lives. The increase in traffic, therefore, from the over-development of Balsall Common, in particular Windmill Lane, in our opinion, will not be able to be 'managed' and will cause traffic problems to an already congested area. Parking at the railway station will become even more of a problem - there is not enough space as it is and unless you are an early morning commuter you have no chance of parking later in the day on the car park - hence the long line of cars already being parked opposite the medical centre.

The centre of Balsall Common (which is in dire need of improvement) is already very congested with cars and the parking there is hazardous with drivers reversing in and out of spaces and often there are near misses with cars almost colliding with each other; the danger will further increase, if the proposed development on Windmill Lane were to go ahead, as again, for the reasons stated above, people will drive to the shops causing even further congestion.

We do not believe that 800 houses should be built on Barretts Farm - this amount of development will require major infrastructure changes to accommodate more families - for example, there is already a good medical centre in Balsall Common but it is a very busy centre. From newspaper articles to news bulletins we are constantly hearing of the crisis in the NHS and the shortages of General Practitioners (GPs). Will it be that simple to expand the medical centre and for them to recruit more GPs to accommodate the amount of people that will be living in the village in the coming years if the proposed developments take place? Already GPs are under a lot of pressure and these concerns do not appear to be at the top of any developers list. Pressure will also be put on schools to accommodate more pupils - the roads near to the schools are already heavily congested in the morning and afternoons and we are at a point now where driving is extremely difficult as parents parking their cars outside the schools effectively block off one side of the road with no gaps left for cars to even pull-into causing deadlock and very uncomfortable driving conditions.

If development has to take place, we believe that brownfield sites should be prioritised over greenfield. There are brownfield options, including on the north side of the village, in particular the site behind the George in the Tree is bigger than "the triangle", more accessible and enclosed by existing roads.

We hope you will take our objections into consideration.