Alternative Site Suggested (New Site)

I am writing to register my objection to the loss of Allocation 13 to the proposed new build developments.

This piece of land represents the only piece of countryside which is accessible for thousands of residents within the B90 area.

The piece of land known as Allocation 13 enables the local community access to the natural environment and is very well used by families, walkers and dog owners alike. The land provides a valuable community amenity, which should be protected.

There have been a number of recent developments within the B90 postcode including Parkgate, which has resulted in the loss of parkland and green space for residents to enjoy and other large scale developments such as Dickens Heath taking acres of greenbelt land.

Residing on Neville Road, I feel that the roads and surrounding infrastructure would not be able to cope with the proposed 600 houses to Allocation 13. There is already insufficient parking at nearby Shirley and Whitlocks End train stations. Places at already oversubscribed schools will become even harder to obtain. Solihull Hospital has already been downgraded and does not meet the needs of residents of Solihull, who often have to travel to Heartlands and further afield when treatment is required. Doctors surgeries have closed patient lists and I cannot see how the area could cope with such large scale development.

Working within residential development and acting for social housing landlords and new build developers I am not opposed to development. However, given the large scale of the proposed development to Allocation 13 and other surrounding proposed sites (totalling 2550 new homes), the proposals are too vast and confined to one area. Surely there are other less populated areas within the Solihull Borough (such as Knowle, Dorridge, Hockley Heath, Hampton in Arden) which could be considered leaving residents of B90 with some accessible green space, having already lost most of it.

It should also be a priority for Solihull Council to ensure that Birmingham City Council have used all of the brownfield sites available to them before any overflow of allocation is passed to Solihull.

I wish to make the following comments on the current version of the Local Plan:

1. There is no mention anywhere in the draft, in any context, of dog-walking facilities. A very large proportion of Solihull households include at least one dog and in addition there are working dogs employed by the Police, Fire, security and airport services. There are currently relatively few places in the urban part of the Borough where dogs can be exercised properly off-lead away from traffic: these include Elmdon Park, the Conservation Fields off Brueton Park, Dorridge Park and Langley Hall Park. Smaller public spaces open to roads do not meet the needs of many dog walkers, mainly because of the danger of, and to, traffic. Many owners therefore make otherwise avoidable car journeys from their homes simply to take the dogs somewhere they can have a decent safe walk, at least once a day. They then require parking provision at or near the park. "Country" walks are available along rural footpaths but there is hardly ever any car parking available at the beginning or end of the walk. Dog-walking and cycling are not particularly compatible as each is a nuisance to the other. The provision of adequate land for exercising dogs is relevant to a number of the Policies, especially but not exclusively, provision of housing (need to ensure that there is significant acreage of off-road, enclosed, walkable land within walking distance of new housing and also that access to such amenity land from existing housing is not compromised by the interposing of a housing estate), health and wellbeing (a daily walk with a dog has multiple health and social benefits) and climate change (providing dog walking space within walking distance from home will reduce the number of polluting car journeys).

2. Your question 7 (agree with Policy P2?): I do not believe the case for relocating the railway station to Monkspath Hall has been made. It would be an enormously expensive venture for no benefit - for instance, there is no mention of a direct train connection to Birmingham International or HS2 - and it would, rightly in my view, be seen as a vanity project. Officers have suggested that the current station is too far from and too inaccessible to the town centre but the journey from a new station at Monkspath Hall would be uphill and therefore less accessible for anyone with fitness issues, buggies, luggage etc. It would also inevitably entail losing part of Tudor Grange Park and much of Monkspath Hall car park. (Despite the insistence of officers that there is oversupply of car parking in the town centre, the views expressed to me by the general public are very much to the contrary).

3. Your questions 15 and 16. I have already emailed my comments on your site ref. 16 "East of Solihull". In case these have been lost, I reiterate: this site is in Green Belt and:

The staggered junctions of Yew Tree Lane, Hampton Lane, Marsh Lane and the Solihull Bypass cause significant traffic congestion (with concomitant noise and air pollution and delays to journeys) particularly back along Hampton Lane towards Catherine de Barnes, and not only at peak times. Traffic congestion along Damson Parkway/Yew Tree Lane will probably be exacerbated by the opening of the JLR logistics operation and flow through Hampton Lane is likely to increase with the development of UK Central. A housing development opening out on to any of the adjoining roads could only make matters much worse. Some of the land earmarked is used for children's sports and the football pitches, the need for which would increase with the influx of new families, would be lost.

I suggest the alternative proposal of developing instead land to the south of Catherine de Barnes, along and between Henwood Lane, Berry Hall Lane and Ravenshaw Lane. Not much mention is made in the draft Local Plan of Catherine de Barnes. This settlement already has some community infrastructure in the shape of a village hall, pub, shop, restaurant and some small businesses. The village could be enlarged into a sustainable settlement with the addition of a school and health centre if there were sufficient new homes. Upgrading Ravenshaw Lane to provide direct access on to the A41 Solihull Bypass near Junction 5 of the M42 would actually alleviate some of the existing congestion along Hampton Lane. This proposal has the added advantage of preserving the green space between Damson Parkway, Lugtrout Lane, Field Lane and Hampton Lane as a buffer against urban spread.


4. Finally, re Policy P15: there is an increasing trend towards enclosing residential properties with high iron railings. Many of these, notably along St Bernard's Road and Dovehouse Lane have made the properties look unpleasantly like compounds: they have a forbidding look and are obviously designed to exclude. They all detract from the relaxed, traditional, friendly street scene that contributes to Solihull's attractiveness as a place to live and are absolutely out of character with the atmosphere of the Borough. It would assist planners in refusing planning applications for more of these if policies on design could include emphasis on retaining more traditional boundary treatments and specifically on discouraging the erection of railings where none previously existed.

I am writing to register my objection to the loss of Allocation 13 to the proposed new build developments.

This piece of land represents the only piece of countryside which is accessible for thousands of residents within the B90 area.

The piece of land known as Allocation 13 enables the local community access to the natural environment and is very well used by families, walkers and dog owners alike. The land provides a valuable community amenity, which should be protected.

There have been a number of recent developments within the B90 postcode including Parkgate, which has resulted in the loss of parkland and green space for residents to enjoy and other large scale developments such as Dickens Heath taking acres of greenbelt land.

Residing on Neville Road, I feel that the roads and surrounding infrastructure would not be able to cope with the proposed 600 houses to Allocation 13. There is already insufficient parking at nearby Shirley and Whitlocks End train stations. Places at already oversubscribed schools will become even harder to obtain. Solihull Hospital has already been downgraded and does not meet the needs of residents of Solihull, who often have to travel to Heartlands and further afield when treatment is required. Doctors surgeries have closed patient lists and I cannot see how the area could cope with such large scale development.

Given the large scale of the proposed development to Allocation 13 and other surrounding proposed sites (totalling 2550 new homes), the proposals are too vast and confined to one area. Surely there are other less populated areas within the Solihull Borough (such as Knowle, Dorridge, Hockley Heath, Hampton in Arden) which could be considered leaving residents of B90 with some accessible green space, having already lost most of it.

It should also be a priority for Solihull Council to ensure that Birmingham City Council have used all of the brownfield sites available to them before any overflow of allocation is passed to Solihull.

Solihull Local Plan review - particular interest in Shirley and Allocation 13
Please find my own thoughts on some of the proposals put forward for the new local plan. I am a resident of Shirley and live on Blackford Road (B4102) so these proposals do raise some concerns.

* I believe that the density of proposals affecting Shirley South is too high. Allocations 4, 11, 12, 13 will all have a very large impact on the area with respect to transport, schooling and healthcare facilities such as GPs in what is an already congested and high density of dwellings area.
* As a resident of Blackford Road my main concern is the huge increase in traffic that this will bring. Without clear proposals regarding road infrastructure and transport it is difficult to see the positives going forward of any development. Although I am not against the building of new homes completely.
* Blackford Road has a history of structural problems and has been repaired 4 times since I have lived here (2010), once closed for 6 weeks. I don't believe this route is viable if traffic is going to increase.
* If the road infrastructure was reviewed BEFORE building, more effort could be made to modify the roundabout system at the end of Dickens Heath Road to promote the use of Dog Kennel Lane which would then disperse traffic across a number of routes into Solihull and beyond. Any development could be built meaning new residents are not fronting straight onto the road and negative impact to them would be minimised too
* Allocation 13 reduces the buffer between Shirley and Dickens Heath too much. This is not seen elsewhere in the borough.
* Allocation 12 and 13 are not currently well served by public transport - in fact they are quite far away from the local train stations (Shirley and Whitlocks End), too far for most people to walk. Shirley and Whitlocks End both have carparks that cannot meet existing demand and it is currently not safe to cycle due to the poor road layout in the area (particularly leaving Dickens Heath towards Whitlocks End).
* All Shirley sites would not obviously benefit from HS2 - should there be a greater effort to place housing within reach of this valuable new route?
* I am very against Allocation 13 being adopted in this plan. It currently is accessible to all, offers a near "rural" experience within walking distance of most Shirley residents and is not currently served well by the existing road network. Too much habitat for wildlife will be lost and the infrastructure changes needed would be great and disruptive.
* Allocation 13 is a valuable habitat and maintains a healthy buffer and green corridor to de-lineate Shirley from Dickens Heath so the two areas can maintain their distinct community identity.
* Allocation 13 would remove accessible amenity land from some of the most affordable homes in the area and seems to work against the promotion of healthy lifestyles for all. Please look again at this as a proposal.
* I would like to see a reduction in the allocation burden on the Shirley area overall and particularly want Allocation 13 dropped.
* I would like to see a more even spread across the borough - perhaps in the form of smaller developments to include houses that are affordable in the more affluent/expensive areas.
* I would like a reassurance that the council will protect as many green spaces as possible including hedges and trees on existing roads to maintain the motto of Solihull Urbs in Rure. These enhance the experience of living in the borough and can aid the pollution problem caused by congested roads if maintained and planted well.



I thought I would try to put forward some positives.

* The council look like they are going to use the B4102 as a main route into Solihull. The road network using the Monkspath Hall route is already in a much better state to take additional traffic and delivers the road user to an area of parking with close links into the centre of town (and possibly to the new train station if it moves). The properties built in this area tend to have been built away from the main road and this could mean detrimental impact is minimised to residents (unlike around Blackford Road and Tanworth Lane which both have a range of aged properties that front directly onto the road with small front gardens.) The Monkspath Hall route support enhanced bus routes into Solihull. In fact if the station were there a new transport hub could be created and the land made available at the existing station given over to home building.
* Monkspath Hall Carparks take up a very large area of land - if the carpark was made multi- could land be released to build affordable flats? If affordable these homes could potentially serve the workers of the service industries in the town centre and might be an attractive proposition to the young of the borough. They would not need public transport or cars to access all that Solihull has to offer re. work and recreation but would have the benefit of great connectivity to Birmingham and London .
* Don't expand Touchwood for retail but put homes there instead. Touchwood is expensive for businesses to rent and increasing numbers of shops are leaving to set up elsewhere (for example Sports Direct which is moving to Shirley). If there are already empty retail units why make it bigger? Provide flats.
* Make any infrastructure changes before building commences. Don't leave it to the developers - they will do what is affordable to them not what is needed by the communities affected.
* The council needs to stop paying lip service to cycling and make it viable to those who are too fearful of the dangers. A dedicated cycle route into Solihull from the areas affected by the proposed sites e.g off the Stratford road, through Hillfield park. It is not enough to just paint some lines on an existing road.
* The council need to incentivise people to leave their cars at home/lift share.
* Parking permits should be introduced in the most congested areas eg Dickens Heath and the centre of Solihull - it might make people think twice about having a car and parking it on the roads if this were in place.
* Make Blythe Valley the new Dickens Heath by placing Allocation 13 houses there in addition to those already granted.
* Use the NEC carparks for housing and make multi storeys instead - this puts the new homes within reach of HS2.
* Enhance Shirley by placing more homes above the retail units on the Stratford Road for the benefit of the workers in the shops and businesses. This will enhance the feel of Shirley.
* Make protecting green spaces however small a priority. Even a hedge can enhance a road that might otherwise experience busy traffic.


I've tried not to make it too longwinded!

Solihull Local Plan review - particular interest in Shirley and Allocation 13
Please find my own thoughts on some of the proposals put forward for the new local plan. I am a resident of Shirley and live on Blackford Road (B4102) so these proposals do raise some concerns.

* I believe that the density of proposals affecting Shirley South is too high. Allocations 4, 11, 12, 13 will all have a very large impact on the area with respect to transport, schooling and healthcare facilities such as GPs in what is an already congested and high density of dwellings area.
* As a resident of Blackford Road my main concern is the huge increase in traffic that this will bring. Without clear proposals regarding road infrastructure and transport it is difficult to see the positives going forward of any development. Although I am not against the building of new homes completely.
* Blackford Road has a history of structural problems and has been repaired 4 times since I have lived here (2010), once closed for 6 weeks. I don't believe this route is viable if traffic is going to increase.
* If the road infrastructure was reviewed BEFORE building, more effort could be made to modify the roundabout system at the end of Dickens Heath Road to promote the use of Dog Kennel Lane which would then disperse traffic across a number of routes into Solihull and beyond. Any development could be built meaning new residents are not fronting straight onto the road and negative impact to them would be minimised too
* Allocation 13 reduces the buffer between Shirley and Dickens Heath too much. This is not seen elsewhere in the borough.
* Allocation 12 and 13 are not currently well served by public transport - in fact they are quite far away from the local train stations (Shirley and Whitlocks End), too far for most people to walk. Shirley and Whitlocks End both have carparks that cannot meet existing demand and it is currently not safe to cycle due to the poor road layout in the area (particularly leaving Dickens Heath towards Whitlocks End).
* All Shirley sites would not obviously benefit from HS2 - should there be a greater effort to place housing within reach of this valuable new route?
* I am very against Allocation 13 being adopted in this plan. It currently is accessible to all, offers a near "rural" experience within walking distance of most Shirley residents and is not currently served well by the existing road network. Too much habitat for wildlife will be lost and the infrastructure changes needed would be great and disruptive.
* Allocation 13 is a valuable habitat and maintains a healthy buffer and green corridor to de-lineate Shirley from Dickens Heath so the two areas can maintain their distinct community identity.
* Allocation 13 would remove accessible amenity land from some of the most affordable homes in the area and seems to work against the promotion of healthy lifestyles for all. Please look again at this as a proposal.
* I would like to see a reduction in the allocation burden on the Shirley area overall and particularly want Allocation 13 dropped.
* I would like to see a more even spread across the borough - perhaps in the form of smaller developments to include houses that are affordable in the more affluent/expensive areas.
* I would like a reassurance that the council will protect as many green spaces as possible including hedges and trees on existing roads to maintain the motto of Solihull Urbs in Rure. These enhance the experience of living in the borough and can aid the pollution problem caused by congested roads if maintained and planted well.



I thought I would try to put forward some positives.

* The council look like they are going to use the B4102 as a main route into Solihull. The road network using the Monkspath Hall route is already in a much better state to take additional traffic and delivers the road user to an area of parking with close links into the centre of town (and possibly to the new train station if it moves). The properties built in this area tend to have been built away from the main road and this could mean detrimental impact is minimised to residents (unlike around Blackford Road and Tanworth Lane which both have a range of aged properties that front directly onto the road with small front gardens.) The Monkspath Hall route support enhanced bus routes into Solihull. In fact if the station were there a new transport hub could be created and the land made available at the existing station given over to home building.
* Monkspath Hall Carparks take up a very large area of land - if the carpark was made multi- could land be released to build affordable flats? If affordable these homes could potentially serve the workers of the service industries in the town centre and might be an attractive proposition to the young of the borough. They would not need public transport or cars to access all that Solihull has to offer re. work and recreation but would have the benefit of great connectivity to Birmingham and London .
* Don't expand Touchwood for retail but put homes there instead. Touchwood is expensive for businesses to rent and increasing numbers of shops are leaving to set up elsewhere (for example Sports Direct which is moving to Shirley). If there are already empty retail units why make it bigger? Provide flats.
* Make any infrastructure changes before building commences. Don't leave it to the developers - they will do what is affordable to them not what is needed by the communities affected.
* The council needs to stop paying lip service to cycling and make it viable to those who are too fearful of the dangers. A dedicated cycle route into Solihull from the areas affected by the proposed sites e.g off the Stratford road, through Hillfield park. It is not enough to just paint some lines on an existing road.
* The council need to incentivise people to leave their cars at home/lift share.
* Parking permits should be introduced in the most congested areas eg Dickens Heath and the centre of Solihull - it might make people think twice about having a car and parking it on the roads if this were in place.
* Make Blythe Valley the new Dickens Heath by placing Allocation 13 houses there in addition to those already granted.
* Use the NEC carparks for housing and make multi storeys instead - this puts the new homes within reach of HS2.
* Enhance Shirley by placing more homes above the retail units on the Stratford Road for the benefit of the workers in the shops and businesses. This will enhance the feel of Shirley.
* Make protecting green spaces however small a priority. Even a hedge can enhance a road that might otherwise experience busy traffic.


I've tried not to make it too longwinded!

Solihull Local Plan review - particular interest in Shirley and Allocation 13
Please find my own thoughts on some of the proposals put forward for the new local plan. I am a resident of Shirley and live on Blackford Road (B4102) so these proposals do raise some concerns.

* I believe that the density of proposals affecting Shirley South is too high. Allocations 4, 11, 12, 13 will all have a very large impact on the area with respect to transport, schooling and healthcare facilities such as GPs in what is an already congested and high density of dwellings area.
* As a resident of Blackford Road my main concern is the huge increase in traffic that this will bring. Without clear proposals regarding road infrastructure and transport it is difficult to see the positives going forward of any development. Although I am not against the building of new homes completely.
* Blackford Road has a history of structural problems and has been repaired 4 times since I have lived here (2010), once closed for 6 weeks. I don't believe this route is viable if traffic is going to increase.
* If the road infrastructure was reviewed BEFORE building, more effort could be made to modify the roundabout system at the end of Dickens Heath Road to promote the use of Dog Kennel Lane which would then disperse traffic across a number of routes into Solihull and beyond. Any development could be built meaning new residents are not fronting straight onto the road and negative impact to them would be minimised too
* Allocation 13 reduces the buffer between Shirley and Dickens Heath too much. This is not seen elsewhere in the borough.
* Allocation 12 and 13 are not currently well served by public transport - in fact they are quite far away from the local train stations (Shirley and Whitlocks End), too far for most people to walk. Shirley and Whitlocks End both have carparks that cannot meet existing demand and it is currently not safe to cycle due to the poor road layout in the area (particularly leaving Dickens Heath towards Whitlocks End).
* All Shirley sites would not obviously benefit from HS2 - should there be a greater effort to place housing within reach of this valuable new route?
* I am very against Allocation 13 being adopted in this plan. It currently is accessible to all, offers a near "rural" experience within walking distance of most Shirley residents and is not currently served well by the existing road network. Too much habitat for wildlife will be lost and the infrastructure changes needed would be great and disruptive.
* Allocation 13 is a valuable habitat and maintains a healthy buffer and green corridor to de-lineate Shirley from Dickens Heath so the two areas can maintain their distinct community identity.
* Allocation 13 would remove accessible amenity land from some of the most affordable homes in the area and seems to work against the promotion of healthy lifestyles for all. Please look again at this as a proposal.
* I would like to see a reduction in the allocation burden on the Shirley area overall and particularly want Allocation 13 dropped.
* I would like to see a more even spread across the borough - perhaps in the form of smaller developments to include houses that are affordable in the more affluent/expensive areas.
* I would like a reassurance that the council will protect as many green spaces as possible including hedges and trees on existing roads to maintain the motto of Solihull Urbs in Rure. These enhance the experience of living in the borough and can aid the pollution problem caused by congested roads if maintained and planted well.



I thought I would try to put forward some positives.

* The council look like they are going to use the B4102 as a main route into Solihull. The road network using the Monkspath Hall route is already in a much better state to take additional traffic and delivers the road user to an area of parking with close links into the centre of town (and possibly to the new train station if it moves). The properties built in this area tend to have been built away from the main road and this could mean detrimental impact is minimised to residents (unlike around Blackford Road and Tanworth Lane which both have a range of aged properties that front directly onto the road with small front gardens.) The Monkspath Hall route support enhanced bus routes into Solihull. In fact if the station were there a new transport hub could be created and the land made available at the existing station given over to home building.
* Monkspath Hall Carparks take up a very large area of land - if the carpark was made multi- could land be released to build affordable flats? If affordable these homes could potentially serve the workers of the service industries in the town centre and might be an attractive proposition to the young of the borough. They would not need public transport or cars to access all that Solihull has to offer re. work and recreation but would have the benefit of great connectivity to Birmingham and London .
* Don't expand Touchwood for retail but put homes there instead. Touchwood is expensive for businesses to rent and increasing numbers of shops are leaving to set up elsewhere (for example Sports Direct which is moving to Shirley). If there are already empty retail units why make it bigger? Provide flats.
* Make any infrastructure changes before building commences. Don't leave it to the developers - they will do what is affordable to them not what is needed by the communities affected.
* The council needs to stop paying lip service to cycling and make it viable to those who are too fearful of the dangers. A dedicated cycle route into Solihull from the areas affected by the proposed sites e.g off the Stratford road, through Hillfield park. It is not enough to just paint some lines on an existing road.
* The council need to incentivise people to leave their cars at home/lift share.
* Parking permits should be introduced in the most congested areas eg Dickens Heath and the centre of Solihull - it might make people think twice about having a car and parking it on the roads if this were in place.
* Make Blythe Valley the new Dickens Heath by placing Allocation 13 houses there in addition to those already granted.
* Use the NEC carparks for housing and make multi storeys instead - this puts the new homes within reach of HS2.
* Enhance Shirley by placing more homes above the retail units on the Stratford Road for the benefit of the workers in the shops and businesses. This will enhance the feel of Shirley.
* Make protecting green spaces however small a priority. Even a hedge can enhance a road that might otherwise experience busy traffic.


I've tried not to make it too longwinded!

Solihull Local Plan review - particular interest in Shirley and Allocation 13
Please find my own thoughts on some of the proposals put forward for the new local plan. I am a resident of Shirley and live on Blackford Road (B4102) so these proposals do raise some concerns.

* I believe that the density of proposals affecting Shirley South is too high. Allocations 4, 11, 12, 13 will all have a very large impact on the area with respect to transport, schooling and healthcare facilities such as GPs in what is an already congested and high density of dwellings area.
* As a resident of Blackford Road my main concern is the huge increase in traffic that this will bring. Without clear proposals regarding road infrastructure and transport it is difficult to see the positives going forward of any development. Although I am not against the building of new homes completely.
* Blackford Road has a history of structural problems and has been repaired 4 times since I have lived here (2010), once closed for 6 weeks. I don't believe this route is viable if traffic is going to increase.
* If the road infrastructure was reviewed BEFORE building, more effort could be made to modify the roundabout system at the end of Dickens Heath Road to promote the use of Dog Kennel Lane which would then disperse traffic across a number of routes into Solihull and beyond. Any development could be built meaning new residents are not fronting straight onto the road and negative impact to them would be minimised too
* Allocation 13 reduces the buffer between Shirley and Dickens Heath too much. This is not seen elsewhere in the borough.
* Allocation 12 and 13 are not currently well served by public transport - in fact they are quite far away from the local train stations (Shirley and Whitlocks End), too far for most people to walk. Shirley and Whitlocks End both have carparks that cannot meet existing demand and it is currently not safe to cycle due to the poor road layout in the area (particularly leaving Dickens Heath towards Whitlocks End).
* All Shirley sites would not obviously benefit from HS2 - should there be a greater effort to place housing within reach of this valuable new route?
* I am very against Allocation 13 being adopted in this plan. It currently is accessible to all, offers a near "rural" experience within walking distance of most Shirley residents and is not currently served well by the existing road network. Too much habitat for wildlife will be lost and the infrastructure changes needed would be great and disruptive.
* Allocation 13 is a valuable habitat and maintains a healthy buffer and green corridor to de-lineate Shirley from Dickens Heath so the two areas can maintain their distinct community identity.
* Allocation 13 would remove accessible amenity land from some of the most affordable homes in the area and seems to work against the promotion of healthy lifestyles for all. Please look again at this as a proposal.
* I would like to see a reduction in the allocation burden on the Shirley area overall and particularly want Allocation 13 dropped.
* I would like to see a more even spread across the borough - perhaps in the form of smaller developments to include houses that are affordable in the more affluent/expensive areas.
* I would like a reassurance that the council will protect as many green spaces as possible including hedges and trees on existing roads to maintain the motto of Solihull Urbs in Rure. These enhance the experience of living in the borough and can aid the pollution problem caused by congested roads if maintained and planted well.



I thought I would try to put forward some positives.

* The council look like they are going to use the B4102 as a main route into Solihull. The road network using the Monkspath Hall route is already in a much better state to take additional traffic and delivers the road user to an area of parking with close links into the centre of town (and possibly to the new train station if it moves). The properties built in this area tend to have been built away from the main road and this could mean detrimental impact is minimised to residents (unlike around Blackford Road and Tanworth Lane which both have a range of aged properties that front directly onto the road with small front gardens.) The Monkspath Hall route support enhanced bus routes into Solihull. In fact if the station were there a new transport hub could be created and the land made available at the existing station given over to home building.
* Monkspath Hall Carparks take up a very large area of land - if the carpark was made multi- could land be released to build affordable flats? If affordable these homes could potentially serve the workers of the service industries in the town centre and might be an attractive proposition to the young of the borough. They would not need public transport or cars to access all that Solihull has to offer re. work and recreation but would have the benefit of great connectivity to Birmingham and London .
* Don't expand Touchwood for retail but put homes there instead. Touchwood is expensive for businesses to rent and increasing numbers of shops are leaving to set up elsewhere (for example Sports Direct which is moving to Shirley). If there are already empty retail units why make it bigger? Provide flats.
* Make any infrastructure changes before building commences. Don't leave it to the developers - they will do what is affordable to them not what is needed by the communities affected.
* The council needs to stop paying lip service to cycling and make it viable to those who are too fearful of the dangers. A dedicated cycle route into Solihull from the areas affected by the proposed sites e.g off the Stratford road, through Hillfield park. It is not enough to just paint some lines on an existing road.
* The council need to incentivise people to leave their cars at home/lift share.
* Parking permits should be introduced in the most congested areas eg Dickens Heath and the centre of Solihull - it might make people think twice about having a car and parking it on the roads if this were in place.
* Make Blythe Valley the new Dickens Heath by placing Allocation 13 houses there in addition to those already granted.
* Use the NEC carparks for housing and make multi storeys instead - this puts the new homes within reach of HS2.
* Enhance Shirley by placing more homes above the retail units on the Stratford Road for the benefit of the workers in the shops and businesses. This will enhance the feel of Shirley.
* Make protecting green spaces however small a priority. Even a hedge can enhance a road that might otherwise experience busy traffic.


I've tried not to make it too longwinded!

We object to
A) Proposed land development adjoining Langcomb road (Site 13)
B) Wider issues of concentration of Sites in South Shirley

Objections
1, 40 % of all housing allocation in Shirley

While we recognize that new housing needs to be provide. It cannot be right that 40% of all the new houses being proposed at this time should be located with the Shirley area on green belt land. Surely there should be a more even spread across the borough?
We object to the land having high density housing which will result in urban sprawl and effectively connecting Shirley to Dickens Heath.

2, Traffic Congestion

The local network infrastructure is already under significant pressure and arguably cannot take any more strain? The traffic flows in that area will be directed predominantly down Haslucks Green Road, Bills Lane, Tanworth Lane, Blackford Road and Dog Kennel Lane, also impacting the numerous roads that run between them, and would only further congest the A34. In terms of benefitting from HS2, I can understand the logic of building residential properties in the vicinity of UK Central, but for residents of the properties being built around Shirley, they would need to access both the A34 and the M42, worsening what are already congested roads.

2, Building on green Belt land

The green belt in this area has been long established and contains a large variety of wild life. The area concerned is wildlife rich. While no official study has been done at present; we regularly see and hear a variety of species. The evidence for this is supported by the large number of Owls and bats regularly heard and seen in the area. This supports the evidence that there is good food supply for them provide by a diverse range of insects and mammals.
including :-
Birds:- Cuckoo's, owls , Jays, woodpeckers.
Mamel's:- field mice, shrews, hedgehog's, foxes, Frogs, newts, squirrels.
Insects: - Dragonflies, bumble bees, honey bees, butterflies and Beetles,

3, Flooding

The gardens backing onto the fields behind Langcomb road regularly flood. We believe the fields and trees behind the house play an important part in mitigating the effects of the flooding. Should these trees be removed additional drainage will be required.
However there are times when a pool of water covers the ground across our properties. This usually stays for up to a week before dispersing. We believe the line of oak trees on the border play an import part in helping control any flooding.
The proposed development should take account of this:-
1) Flooding problems.
Review the proposed developments to ensure they are not going to create additional flooding problems.
2) Housing density.
Ensuring the lowest housing density while allowing retention of as much of the natural tree lines to help control flooding naturally.
3) Drainage Review
Review and providing extra drainage to protect our properties, including the maintaining protection and planting addition Oak trees in the existing tree line.
6, Prevention of neighbouring towns merging into one.

We object to the land having high density housing which will result in urban sprawl and effectively connecting Shirley to Dickens Heath.

7, Well-being and quality of life

We chose to live in the vicinity, due to its close proximity to open country side. We utilize and enjoy the local country paths and routs through the land adjacent to Langcomb road, providing connections to the local canal paths and other county bridal ways. This contributes to our well-being and general health.
This is documented in the "Solihull health and well-being strategy 2016 - 2019"
1) Evidence : Refer to page 26 of "what we need in Solihull"
Improved access to quantity and quality of open and green spaces, to improve both physical and mental health.

This could be reinforced by retaining and improving the existing local bridleways and footpaths, combining and incorporating the wildlife corridors in a dual purpose amenity for everyone.

2) Recreation and fitness
Currently the land is used by many people for recreation and fitness purposed . we wish to be considered in the layout of the proposed developments , so this can continue to be an important health benefit to all current and new residents in the community.

8,Proposed amendment to local plan

Alternate Shirley housing plan to reduce encroachment on green belt land while improving the local area and helping with traffic flow.
Following the announcement of the councils need to provide additional housing in the Shirley area, we believe an adjustment to the plan can achieve a more balanced approach providing many addition al benefits to the community as a whole.
E.g. to demolish and use the Light hall school land as development. Currently the school is very run down, with classed being attended in Porta cabins.
Proposed new School
A new school could be built opposite Miller and Carter. This new school could then have the capacity to accommodate pupils from both Shirley and the Dickens heath areas. Utilizing this location would also have many advantages.
Advantages
* The green belt land behind the new school could be saved and used by the school, while still being available for general community use. Protecting the Wildlife.
* The road system by the Miller and Carter is already substantial with good connections to the local estates (Shirley and Dickens Heath). This would help reduce congestion within the Light hall school area.

I am writing to object to the decision to build over 600 new homes to the south of Shirley Estates. Having lived in Shirley for over 39 years and living on said Woodlands estate as a boy and now as an adult. I feel I have some expert knowledge on the surrounding areas.

It was a great place to grow up and was also a great place for my children to grow up, which was was why I moved back onto estate. For a council estate it must rate as one of the best as proving as over 50% must now be privately owed. Over the last 10 years due to Dickens Heath growth the traffic has steadily got worse. I cant understand why with all the green areas i see on the other side of Dickens Heath and Earlswood you wish to build on the fields right next door to Woodlands and Badgers Estates.

Dog Kennel Lane has unused fields either side of it but even that would cause more horrendous traffic problems. We all see the headlines about Solihull being one of the best places to live but if all this planning goes ahead Im sure that would no longer be the case. Knowle and Dorridge have plenty of areas to build on to.

So I'm writing to object to planing of said houses and would like to know how else I can object

(Your website was very unclear on what I should do to object and how can I attend varies meetings of objections when like most people are at work when the are scheduled to happen)

Local development and housing plan

I write to express some of my concerns about this plan in relation to Balsall Common.

1. There is much encroachment onto the green belt, particularly at the Barratt's Farm site when brown belt land adjacent to Lavender Hall Lane and the railway just north of the village is untouched as are pockets of brown belt land close to the A452 north of the village.
2. The plan does not make adequate proposals for the centre of Balsall Common, bearing in mind that an extra 4,000 to 5,000 people will live in the village. There will need to be a better flow of traffic, improved parking, improved pedestrian area, retention of banks (two closed/closing in the last year), larger Post Office facility etc etc.
3. The plan should propose that a dual carriageway bypass is built as a continuation of Hallmeadow Road south to the junction of Meer End Road and the A452. This is particularly important if the Barratt's Farm development has to go ahead, as access roads from that development onto the new by-pass will be needed. Traffic access of that estate onto Meeting House Lane which is too narrow to have footpaths in part would not be safe.
4. I cannot see that adequate consideration has been given to providing accommodation for the elderly has been given. It is obvious that care homes are closing at the same time as the NHS is under pressure to provide 'care at home' in the years to come, and this must be planned for. It's no good developers building only 2,3,4+ bedroom homes for families; special facilities for the single elderly must be included too, and these must be close to regular bus service. Despite the difficulties that care homes are having at present, I would recommend that a major care home provider is approached to see if they would support such a provision in the enlarged village (care home, not nursing home).

Solihull Draft Local Plan

I wish to record my objections to the proposed sites for housing at Tythe Barn Lane and Shirley South identified as Site A and Site B.

Solihull's development at Dickens Heath has had a massive effect on the traffic using the narrow roads through Majors Green and any development on Site A will add to the traffic on these already overcrowded roads. Site A would mean that Solihull was developing right up the boundary with Worcestershire and the green belt. I would have thought a more logical difrection for development for Dickens Heath would be to take in the land on the other side of the Stratford on Avon Canal bound by Tanworth Lane, Braggs Farm Lane, Lady Lane and Dickens Heath Road, and then continue over the other side of Tanworth Lane to the land bound by Tanworth Lane, Blackford Road, Creynolds Lane and Stratford Road. This would make access to the considerable better roads and the motorway network much easier and would give a much better traffic flow.

As said my main concern is the effect the proposed development will have to the roads and infrastructure or Worcestershire and particularly Majors Green. Solihull seem to be proposing these developments for their own benefit and with a complete disregard for the effect on and cost to their neighbours.

Solihull's motto is said to be Town in the Country but this proposed development, right up to the Worcestershire boundary, is in complete contradiction to that.

Response to Solihull MBC 23 question extended consultation on the draft local plan
TO WHOM THIS MAY CONCERN
Responses to the questionnaire regarding extended consulatation on the draft local plan.
Question 1 are the right borough challenges identified
Will the impact of Brexit have a material effect on the total number of homes needed in the Borough?
Question 2 agreement with the Borough Vision
Only In a very small part yes, but it is clearly written from an urban Solihull-centric perspective, once more bringing into disrepute the belief that Solihull successfully combines a well-balanced combined Urban and Rural vision. Looked at from a holistic position, Solihull MBC in this draft proposal will not be satisfied with following their own policies until an urban jungle is built through the most vulnerable and narrow portion of the Green Belt between Balsall Common and Coventry City.
SMBC fought a huge battle at enormous cost to preserve this piece of land from a coal mine development; why is it now prepared to sacrifice this precious 'lung' between two major city conurbations?
Balsall Common is already a congested community with poor infrastructure and very poor public sector connectivity with the local economic centres which are primarily to the East and South ie NOT Solihull and this is the way traffic flows at peak times.
Further, no consideration has been given to considering sites to the South and West of the settlement toward the considerable economic development driven by JLR at their Fen End site, where they plan to site 2,000+ engineers. Many of these people will seek homes in Balsall Common and, therefore, to reduce cross-village traffic any major development should be on the West side of the village. Similarly, if a village bypass should ever be needed then consideration should be given to siting this on the West side.
Adding the proposed disproportionate housing and its resulting population to Balsall Common in sensitive and fragile Green Belt areas will simply make the problems worse and continue the belief that SMBC will ignore its own Policies when they do not suit political goals.
Question 3 agreement with Spatial Strategy?
The approach defined for sites being appropriate for development as written looks good with the right priorities, but unfortunately they have not been adhered to in this draft plan.
Barratt's Farm land is Greenfield land not Brownfield land and has significant drain off issues. Additionally, as stressed above, the village is virtually bereft of effective public transport.
The demolition of the Meriden Gap Green Belt and its impact on the local ecology of the green fields, ancient hedge rows and trees will directly affect the existing local residents and families who extensively use the area and its many crisscrossing footpaths for open air exercise and leisure activities. The additional traffic emanating from such a large increase in housing will add to the air pollution caused by poor control of the take-off and landing heights from Birmingham Airport, especially the northern turn over the settlement.
If this land is built on, then the drain off problem identified above will represent a risk to local adjoining properties to the north and south.
This area is already under severe threat of noise and Greenbelt erosion from HS2.
Piling in some 800 homes with shops, a school and other amenities with poor access to existing roads is a planning nightmare.
The site between Windmill Lane and the A452 Kenilworth Road to the South of the settlement is broadly a Brownfield site, BUT it is also proposed for a density of housing which is too high. This will generate traffic onto the narrow Windmill Lane that has poor visibility junctions at each end, or onto the A452 Trunk road with difficult North and South junctions.
Question 7 regarding sustainable Economic Development?
Good principles, but again not seriously considered in the draft plan with no consideration of the disproportionate building of houses on an already congested and ill planned village centre.
Question11 policy P2 providing homes for all
The total proposed housing numbers are grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing community and will have a very significant detrimental impact on the size, shape, character and environment of Balsall Common as a Rural Village. It is also noticed that while mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.
Question 15 appropriateness of draft proposed sites.
As mentioned throughout this response, Solihull MBC have failed to follow their own Policies in establishing the appropriateness of the chosen sites and yet proposals for a new village on a brown field site development to the north of the region have been ignored. This is also true of potential sites to the South/East of Solihull toward Hampton in Arden and Catherin de Barnes, these being closer to the proposed new High Speed HS2 interchange.
Question 16 completeness of required supporting infrastructure to complement the proposed draft development?
While Doctors and Schooling infrastructure is mentioned, no mention is made of shopping, banking etc and banks are currently withdrawing from Balsall Common. A lack of action on the site to the rear of the Co-op shop has caused it to be isolated from other retail outlets and has exacerbated the lack of any sense of a cohesive village centre. Car parking facilities in the Village are very limited and in some areas dangerous.
Question18 sustainable Travel
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport, apart from Birmingham focused rail, is very, very poor in the area.
Question 22 Delivery
CIL payments for local development should be focussed in the local area for locally requested and agreed infrastructure improvements.
Question 23 Any other comment
No explanation has been given to the fact that a grossly disproportionate number of houses are proposed to be built in Balsall Common in important and sensitive Green Belt land compared with elsewhere in Solihull Borough. Areas such as Dorridge, Knowle, Chadwick End and Fen End to the South are in less sensitive and less pressured areas of Green Belt land.
There is a very strong perception in the Balsall Common area that Solihull MBC have abandoned the Greenbelt and consciously discarded their own policies and values and have consequently lost what trust they had as a result.
It also appears from the draft local development plan consultation information booklet that land belonging to Lynda Beasley (Wyer) and Michael Cooper has been included in the proposed Barratt's Farm development. We assume this error will be rectified. In the event this development does proceed we would expect a barrier to be put in place to protect livestock on the above mentioned fields.

Response to Solihull MBC 23 question extended consultation on the draft local plan
TO WHOM THIS MAY CONCERN
Responses to the questionnaire regarding extended consulatation on the draft local plan.
Question 1 are the right borough challenges identified
Will the impact of Brexit have a material effect on the total number of homes needed in the Borough?
Question 2 agreement with the Borough Vision
Only In a very small part yes, but it is clearly written from an urban Solihull-centric perspective, once more bringing into disrepute the belief that Solihull successfully combines a well-balanced combined Urban and Rural vision. Looked at from a holistic position, Solihull MBC in this draft proposal will not be satisfied with following their own policies until an urban jungle is built through the most vulnerable and narrow portion of the Green Belt between Balsall Common and Coventry City.
SMBC fought a huge battle at enormous cost to preserve this piece of land from a coal mine development; why is it now prepared to sacrifice this precious 'lung' between two major city conurbations?
Balsall Common is already a congested community with poor infrastructure and very poor public sector connectivity with the local economic centres which are primarily to the East and South ie NOT Solihull and this is the way traffic flows at peak times.
Further, no consideration has been given to considering sites to the South and West of the settlement toward the considerable economic development driven by JLR at their Fen End site, where they plan to site 2,000+ engineers. Many of these people will seek homes in Balsall Common and, therefore, to reduce cross-village traffic any major development should be on the West side of the village. Similarly, if a village bypass should ever be needed then consideration should be given to siting this on the West side.
Adding the proposed disproportionate housing and its resulting population to Balsall Common in sensitive and fragile Green Belt areas will simply make the problems worse and continue the belief that SMBC will ignore its own Policies when they do not suit political goals.
Question 3 agreement with Spatial Strategy?
The approach defined for sites being appropriate for development as written looks good with the right priorities, but unfortunately they have not been adhered to in this draft plan.
Barratt's Farm land is Greenfield land not Brownfield land and has significant drain off issues. Additionally, as stressed above, the village is virtually bereft of effective public transport.
The demolition of the Meriden Gap Green Belt and its impact on the local ecology of the green fields, ancient hedge rows and trees will directly affect the existing local residents and families who extensively use the area and its many crisscrossing footpaths for open air exercise and leisure activities. The additional traffic emanating from such a large increase in housing will add to the air pollution caused by poor control of the take-off and landing heights from Birmingham Airport, especially the northern turn over the settlement.
If this land is built on, then the drain off problem identified above will represent a risk to local adjoining properties to the north and south.
This area is already under severe threat of noise and Greenbelt erosion from HS2.
Piling in some 800 homes with shops, a school and other amenities with poor access to existing roads is a planning nightmare.
The site between Windmill Lane and the A452 Kenilworth Road to the South of the settlement is broadly a Brownfield site, BUT it is also proposed for a density of housing which is too high. This will generate traffic onto the narrow Windmill Lane that has poor visibility junctions at each end, or onto the A452 Trunk road with difficult North and South junctions.
Question 7 regarding sustainable Economic Development?
Good principles, but again not seriously considered in the draft plan with no consideration of the disproportionate building of houses on an already congested and ill planned village centre.
Question11 policy P2 providing homes for all
The total proposed housing numbers are grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing community and will have a very significant detrimental impact on the size, shape, character and environment of Balsall Common as a Rural Village. It is also noticed that while mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.
Question 15 appropriateness of draft proposed sites.
As mentioned throughout this response, Solihull MBC have failed to follow their own Policies in establishing the appropriateness of the chosen sites and yet proposals for a new village on a brown field site development to the north of the region have been ignored. This is also true of potential sites to the South/East of Solihull toward Hampton in Arden and Catherin de Barnes, these being closer to the proposed new High Speed HS2 interchange.
Question 16 completeness of required supporting infrastructure to complement the proposed draft development?
While Doctors and Schooling infrastructure is mentioned, no mention is made of shopping, banking etc and banks are currently withdrawing from Balsall Common. A lack of action on the site to the rear of the Co-op shop has caused it to be isolated from other retail outlets and has exacerbated the lack of any sense of a cohesive village centre. Car parking facilities in the Village are very limited and in some areas dangerous.
Question18 sustainable Travel
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport, apart from Birmingham focused rail, is very, very poor in the area.
Question 22 Delivery
CIL payments for local development should be focussed in the local area for locally requested and agreed infrastructure improvements.
Question 23 Any other comment
No explanation has been given to the fact that a grossly disproportionate number of houses are proposed to be built in Balsall Common in important and sensitive Green Belt land compared with elsewhere in Solihull Borough. Areas such as Dorridge, Knowle, Chadwick End and Fen End to the South are in less sensitive and less pressured areas of Green Belt land.
There is a very strong perception in the Balsall Common area that Solihull MBC have abandoned the Greenbelt and consciously discarded their own policies and values and have consequently lost what trust they had as a result.
It also appears from the draft local development plan consultation information booklet that land belonging to Lynda Beasley (Wyer) and Michael Cooper has been included in the proposed Barratt's Farm development. We assume this error will be rectified. In the event this development does proceed we would expect a barrier to be put in place to protect livestock on the above mentioned fields.

Response to draft housing plan, with reference to the Barratts Farm site


1. I do not agree that approx. 1500 houses should be built in Balsall Common, with particular reference to the above site ( & also to the Windmill Lane site )

2. Whilst recognising that the borough needs to increase housing provision I believe that brownfield sites should be considered as a priority, rather than use green belt land contrary to HM. Govt. reccomendations.

3. The Barratts Farm proposal alone would generate a great deal of additional traffic in a busy area which already has inadequate car parking in the village centre with little or no opportunity to increase this provision.
Congestion could become a major issue at or near the station roundabout as many residents of such a site would inevitably travel to work, shops etc. by car. Traffic flow towards Coventry is already restricted by the light controlled low underpass.
Any additional traffic would also put further pressure on the already inadequate station car park, with many rail travellers cars already parked daily on Hallmeadow road, frequently stretching from the station roundabout to the Lavender Hall Lane roundabout, often creating difficulty for passing traffic.

4. There would be greatly increased pressure on local health provision, which is quite stretched at present., also on school provision.

5. The proximity of HS2's path could aso be a problem whilst rail construction work is in progress with the conflicting access needs of HS2 and house builders and may well have a detrimental effect on developers sales opportunities and marketability.( or is the housing proposal reliant on the possible dropping of HS2 plans? ) I cannot help but feel the two requirements are not compatible.

6. What possibility exists of redeveloping the HS2 construction sites for housing on it's completion?

7. I think that a new settlement or village to the north of Balsall Common should definitely be considered, with opportunity being taken to use the moving of existing roads
for HS2 purposes as a springboard for such development.

Response to draft housing plan, with reference to the Barratts Farm site


1. I do not agree that approx. 1500 houses should be built in Balsall Common, with particular reference to the above site ( & also to the Windmill Lane site )

2. Whilst recognising that the borough needs to increase housing provision I believe that brownfield sites should be considered as a priority, rather than use green belt land contrary to HM. Govt. reccomendations.

3. The Barratts Farm proposal alone would generate a great deal of additional traffic in a busy area which already has inadequate car parking in the village centre with little or no opportunity to increase this provision.
Congestion could become a major issue at or near the station roundabout as many residents of such a site would inevitably travel to work, shops etc. by car. Traffic flow towards Coventry is already restricted by the light controlled low underpass.
Any additional traffic would also put further pressure on the already inadequate station car park, with many rail travellers cars already parked daily on Hallmeadow road, frequently stretching from the station roundabout to the Lavender Hall Lane roundabout, often creating difficulty for passing traffic.

4. There would be greatly increased pressure on local health provision, which is quite stretched at present., also on school provision.

5. The proximity of HS2's path could aso be a problem whilst rail construction work is in progress with the conflicting access needs of HS2 and house builders and may well have a detrimental effect on developers sales opportunities and marketability.( or is the housing proposal reliant on the possible dropping of HS2 plans? ) I cannot help but feel the two requirements are not compatible.

6. What possibility exists of redeveloping the HS2 construction sites for housing on it's completion?

7. I think that a new settlement or village to the north of Balsall Common should definitely be considered, with opportunity being taken to use the moving of existing roads
for HS2 purposes as a springboard for such development.

Letter of opposition to proposed development of Barratts Farm in Balsall Common and construction of by-pass.

1. Pressure on the Village

a) With no clear access from the South neither Hallmeadow road nor Station Road could cope with the increased traffic this development will bring.

b) There is already a lack of car parking spaces in and around the village. Hallmeadow Road is consistently used for general parking for Berkswell Station and the medical centre. Parking for any of the shops, library and Jubilee centre are extremely hard to come by. In this area there is an average of 1.6 cars per household with 2.5% of households having 4 or more cars/vans. It is fair to assume that there will be upwards of an additional 1500 cars in the village and the pressure these additional 1500 cars would bring would be immense.

c) It is already difficult to obtain a doctor's appointment at the clinic. The feeling locally is that it is already at capacity in terms of providing an acceptable level of service. With an average of 2.4 people per household locally another 1900 patients will do nothing to ease this problem.

d) Building more houses in this location will create more unsustainable car traffic by encouraging more car commuters to live in Balsall Common. It is accepted that Balsall Common is an area where there is little in the way of job creation and many residents have to commute by car to work around the West Midlands. Only 6% of residents of this area travel to work using public transport (information from solihull.gov.uk) This is contrary to planning policy. Routes to exit the village to the east is very restricted under the low bridge at Station Road and the narrow bridge on Lavender Hall Lane with no room for expansion on these. To the west Balsall Street East is not a major thoroughfare and does not have the capacity to cope with a large increase in traffic, so virtually all traffic will be travelling north on the A452.

e) Brownfield sites to the north of the village would be far more suited to cope with the increase of traffic without adding strain to the village centre.

f) This land is greenbelt land. The NPPF identifies the 5 key Purposes of Green Belts as the following: 

i. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

ii. to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
iii. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
iv. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and,
v. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.


g) I understand that there are adequate brown field sites which could be used without using greenbelt land in order to fulfil the housing requirements. It is clear that the only reason the greenbelt site to the rear of my property has been highlighted is because it is the biggest site allowing for the maximum amount of housing possible including high density housing. With the above 5 points in mind it is clear that the availability of these brownfield sites would bring into question the adherence to the NPPF guidelines. The development would bring outlying areas of Solihull even closer to the outlying areas of Coventry.

h) The development of these houses in this site will do nothing to benefit the village, only to ruin the community feel of this village and put further strain on its capacity.

2. Consequence of the development to the immediate surrounding area

a) For the duration of the construction of the proposed development, estimated to take up to 4 years we will be subject to noise, HGV traffic, dust and general appearance of the area.

b) I live within the blighted area of the impending HS2 build. With the current housing and bypass development you are not taking into consideration any of the pressures HS2 will impose on surrounding property in this area and HS2 will not be taking into consideration any of the pressures you are looking to impose. We could possibly end up with the HS2, 900 new houses on the greenbelt land and a newly built bypass in close proximity to our homes.

c) Once the houses and bypass are built, there will then be the day to day noise, congestion and additional traffic that an additional 900 households will bring to our doorstep and with 73% of people travelling to work by car in this area that means in the region of 1100 cars will be commuting to work each day.

3. Personal quality of life

a) I am not against progress in general or for the good of the village and community, but this burden should be shared by all. This proposal on top of HS2 means that a small number of residents in this area are impacted twice as much as any other area and are therefore taking much more of the burden of 'progress'.

b) I appreciate that 'view' is not an acceptable reason for opposing a build of this nature but both 'view' and the 'right to light' law does absolutely play a part in me opposing this build. Should there be a large area of high density residential development or houses close to my property or any other that is adjacent to Barretts Farm then the uninterrupted views over green fields for, in my case, 400 years, and the amount of direct sunlight could be severely affected. Under this circumstance we would have a very strong case under the so-called 'right to light' law to impose an injunction on the commencement of building.

4. My objection and rejection of the proposed development of housing and the extension of the bypass.

I object in the strongest manner to the proposed building on land to the rear of my property on the Barratts Farm site and to the possibility of a 'bypass' across the same land.

Should the plan go ahead, I object strongly to Barretts Lane being used as a pathway to the houses especially as this will encroached on either side of my property. Barretts land is a narrow road which is already being blighted by fast through traffic on the Barretts Lane Farm site and is becoming dangerous for pedestrians.

Any 'high density' housing should to be moved directly to an area that is not blighting any existing housing bordering this greenbelt area.

Until further plans are seen, it does not appear that the bypass is not only a 'bypass' but an access road to serve the 900 proposed houses. This would not help in easing pressure on the village it would put much more strain on the village and Station Road due to the sheer amount of extra traffic therefore irrelevant where it is placed.

My letter concerns the Local plan for Berkswell and Balsall Common. I fail to see how the addition of more than 1300 homes in this area is viable due to the fact that the centre of Balsall Common is not a suitable "town centre". Improving the centre has to be a priority PRIOR to any plans to build further residences.
The vision fails to mention any improvements to facilities for the residents let alone the addition of maybe up to 5000+ more people in this area.

I firmly believe that Brownfield sites should be thoroughly investigated before looking at green belt land. The priority should be areas with good infrastructure and transport facilities. The road system near to the Barretts farm plan is hideously in sufficient. If one thinks that there will be at least 2000 more road vehicles in addition to the vehicles already in the area.
I object particularly to the Barretts farm plan as the transport routes are not adequate to support all of the extra traffic.There is land between The George in Tree and the garage along the Kenilworth Road that already has some previous development (Brownfield) which would has a good road system and access to the railway station. I believe that a plan was submitted to Solihull but turned down.
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". If you ever want to to validate this statement a visit to the Kenilworth Road in the rush hour will confirm the point.

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. .

I note that the plan does not mention the building of bungalows or indeed facilities for older residents.
I would recommend a re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common and Berkswell given its poor accessibility using public transport, its poor road system to the main site at Barretts Farm and as previously stated its limited employment possibilities.

Objection to site 3 in Balsall Common (Windmill Lane) on Solihull Council's draft Housing plan

As a resident of Balsall Common I would like to respond 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.
Having reviewed the draft plan, my objections are as follows:

a. 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. If Balsall Common must be subjected to yet more unwanted development, it seems ridiculous that greenbelt can be released when there are so many other brownfield sites available.

b. 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.

c. 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

d. 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.

e. Site 3 is constantly used by a range of birds of prey, owls, herons, deer, a family of foxes, rabbits and bats along with many others that we haven't been privileged enough to see (such as the Great Crested Newt). The abundant wildlife in site 3 will be damaged under this proposal.

f. The addition of new housing on the Kenilworth Road has resulted in traffic jams and extra pressure on an already burdened infrastructure. To add to this on this side of the village seems absurd. 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 main employment centres.

g. 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.

h. 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".

i. The local primary school has already had to expand to take in more students and is already oversubscribed and bursting at its seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing. Traffic around the school is a huge danger to the young children. Cars park all the way down Alder Lane towards the traffic lights, down Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Gypsy Lane and throughout all of the housing estate near the school, resulting in cars being damaged and grid locked roads. There is often no crossing patrol and to cross the Kenilworth Road and Holly Road as an adult, you take your life into your own hands!

j. 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. I live two fields away from the current development on the A452 and have been astounded by the constant noise from the construction. The vibrations from the pile drilling can be felt and heard in the house with the windows closed and I can only imagine what this noise would be like if it was right next door. The quality of life for my family through this proposed building period would be greatly damaged.

k. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched

l. 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 fully 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 fully expect that the above objections will be taken into consideration and due process will be followed. I would expect Solihull council to make a stand and choose to protect green belt site and not be bribed by developers. Developers want to develop green belt sites as these are cheaper for them to develop on than PDL, which in my opinion is unethical and not in the interest of future generations.

Objection to site 3 in Balsall Common (Windmill Lane) on Solihull Council's draft Housing plan

As a resident of Balsall Common I would like to respond 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.
Having reviewed the draft plan, my objections are as follows:

a. 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. If Balsall Common must be subjected to yet more unwanted development, it seems ridiculous that greenbelt can be released when there are so many other brownfield sites available.

b. 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.

c. 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

d. 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.

e. Site 3 is constantly used by a range of birds of prey, owls, herons, deer, a family of foxes, rabbits and bats along with many others that we haven't been privileged enough to see (such as the Great Crested Newt). The abundant wildlife in site 3 will be damaged under this proposal.

f. The addition of new housing on the Kenilworth Road has resulted in traffic jams and extra pressure on an already burdened infrastructure. To add to this on this side of the village seems absurd. 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 main employment centres.

g. 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.

h. 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".

i. The local primary school has already had to expand to take in more students and is already oversubscribed and bursting at its seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing. Traffic around the school is a huge danger to the young children. Cars park all the way down Alder Lane towards the traffic lights, down Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Gypsy Lane and throughout all of the housing estate near the school, resulting in cars being damaged and grid locked roads. There is often no crossing patrol and to cross the Kenilworth Road and Holly Road as an adult, you take your life into your own hands!

j. 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. I live two fields away from the current development on the A452 and have been astounded by the constant noise from the construction. The vibrations from the pile drilling can be felt and heard in the house with the windows closed and I can only imagine what this noise would be like if it was right next door. The quality of life for my family through this proposed building period would be greatly damaged.

k. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched

l. 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 fully 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 fully expect that the above objections will be taken into consideration and due process will be followed. I would expect Solihull council to make a stand and choose to protect green belt site and not be bribed by developers. Developers want to develop green belt sites as these are cheaper for them to develop on than PDL, which in my opinion is unethical and not in the interest of future generations.

see attached letter

OBJECTION to site 3, Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane, 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 strongly 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.


I hope and expect that the above objections and suggestions will be taken into consideration.

Allocation 13, Policy and Spatial Planning, Solihull MBC

All of the above members fully object to the proposed plan to build 600 houses on 'Allocation 13'. We object for the following reasons and request Solihull MBC Policy and Spatial Planning to cancel indefinitely all proposals for Allocation 13. The reasons for our objection are as follows:

1. There is already more than enough built up area with residential accommodation within the Baxters Green, Dickens Heath and Woodlands Estates and Shirley South areas. Those built up estates have only one relief road leading out of the estate. This in turn has caused already the enormous volume of traffic on roads such as Shakespeare Drive, Bills Lane, Burman Road, Haslucks Green Road and Stretton Road to be at unacceptable levels. We are unable to get out of our driveway in good enough time even during off-peak hours! All residents on Shakespeare Drive are unable to cross the road safely or the school children walking to school are not safe - all because of the unacceptable volume of traffic created by the above estates and the associated road structures not in place for the overflow of traffic.

Hence, if the Allocation 13 is given permission to build 600 houses, then this will only increase the volume of traffic on already congested roads as mentioned above and there will be fatalities with speeding motorists. All of this traffic is normally heading for the M42 motorway via Shakespeare Drive, Stretton Road, Stratford Road due to developing these estates in an enclosed manner with no relief roads out.

2. The proposed allocation of green space to remain ie. 'yellow highlighted area' if the development goes ahead is totally inadequate in proportion to the number of residents in the surrounding area wishing to access green space. Even Shirley Park has disintegrated due to the Asda development and will now impose further pressure with the residential development of the old Powergen site.

3. Rather than focussing on Shirley South for building of 600 houses, why are other areas such as Knowle, Dorridge, Catherine-de-Barnes, Hockley Heath and Earlswood not being allocated the building of houses and share the burden of urbanisation? Areas in Solihull near the Birmingham International Airport or either side of the motorway M42 must be DEVELOPED FIRST BEFORE proposing Shirley South, since there is good transport infrastructure and amenities and enough green space to the surrounding residents in these areas.

4. We are already suffering health problems such as asthma, arthritis and joint pain due to the petrol fumes from traffic from Dickens Heath, Baxters Green and Woodlands Estates racing through Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive and Burman Road. The levels of pollution has increased dramatically in the last ten years so that there are more incidents of respiratory problems on Shakespeare Drive with many of the residents being elderly and frail. By proposing to develop Allocation 13, the health problems of existing residents many of whom have lived here for more than 40 - 60 years will be exacerbated further!!

5. There is no proper thought being given to what will be the associated infrastructure or the problems it will create on an already existing dire situation we face daily right now!

For the above reasons we three members of 145 Shakespeare Drive TOTALLY OBJECT INDEFINITELY TO ANY PROPOSAL OF ANY KIND OF BUILDING ON ALLOCATION 13. INSTEAD PROPOSALS FOR OTHER AREAS LISTED IN POINT 3 ABOVE MUST BE PURSUED!

Allocation 13

I am writing to object to the proposed housing development sites in Shirley and in particular allocation 13 which is a beautiful part of Shirley, great for recreation and of course has plenty of wildlife living there. My main objection is that Shirley is already such a busy place, traffic is so built up particularly since ASDA has been built and I find Haslucks Green Road just too busy. I find it difficult to get doctors appointments, sometimes you have to wait 4 weeks to see a doctor. I cannot understand why Shirley is taking the brunt of the newbuilds in Solihull when it is recognised how busy the High St is for traffic. I also cannot understand why Shirley is being picked on when Solihull has many other areas and we must be the furthest away from the new HS2 development. It just doesn't make any sense to me that you are building such a large amount of housing in one area. We have already seen an increase in traffic etc with Parkgate, we will experience more with the new Powergen development yet you want to increase it again? Please reconsider the plans, save Allocation 13 look at brownfield sites around the borough and at least spread it more evenly across Solihull and not build such a high amount in one place, ie Shirley.

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

To whom it may concern.

Once again a sporting facility, green space is under threat of disappearing
so that many more houses can be crammed into an unsuitable area. Sharmans Cross
Road is extremely congested at both school start and finishing times. By
building this proposed housing estate development on the rugby field,
adding potentially, another 100+ cars into the mix, would compromise the
inevitable road safety issues for our children, as risk becomes even more
heightened. The carbon footprint would also increase and the prospect of
more housing within this area would have a direct knock on effect to school
placements, already under a great deal of pressure. It's a well known fact
that open spaces are a health benefit to everyone. Surely there are other
pieces of land ripe for re-development such as old office buildings no
longer being used, in prime locations with direct and easy access onto the
road infrastructure. Yet again we are faced with another example of
developers being given the opportunity to build what ever and where ever
they want, which is to generate themselves presumably a good profit.

Reasons not to build on allocation 13 Shirley South
There is less than one kilometre of open green fields between Shirley and Dickens Heath at this moment, building on this land will leave a very narrow corridor/AIRFIELD of green belt land, with no public footpaths.
There is a clear boundary on the northern edge, a very well used public footpath, resurfaced by Solihull council after a local petition, and public amenity land.
As the only green space with public access in the south of Shirley, This land is very widely used by the local residents and is extremely important for the health and welfare of the local residents of all ages. I walk over these fields every morning on well-worn footpaths, along with many other local residents making it a very enjoyable social activity.
Concentrating 41% of housing in one area will greatly affect the local infrastructure, already overcapacity since the building of Dickens Heath. I understand the need new housing but, the allocation of sites needs to be much more evenly spread and be built in small pockets throughout the borough so as to not adversely impact on any one community. Why do Solihull Council want to build such a large concentration of houses in such a small area? It in no way benefits the local residents. I can only think of one beneficiary THE BUILDERS, please let me know if I am wrong. I though the Council were elected by the local residents for the local residents.
I do question decisions made by the council, why an island was removed from Blossomfield Road and replaced traffic lights is beyond belief, it will have cost a fortune, created chaos while the work was done, with no benefit.
I fully back the plan for a new dementia home on Tanworth Lane, just surprised it is not included in the Draft Local Plan.
There so little information given about possible access points to "Allocation 13" for this almost land locked site, could the council please let me know? If the information was available, I would be able to comment.
Future flood risk is of great concern as some of these fields are very water logged including 2 pools and a stream that feeds into the river Blyth. How will this affect ground water levels to existing homes in the area, I live off Neville Road that in recent years, has had installed a massive pumping station for storm water.
The wildlife on this site is extensive and diverse, taking so much habitat away in one go will decimate the eco system. Just to name a few, Woodpeckers, Bats Newts, Owls, Kingfishers and soon the Cuckoo will return.
I would like the council to demonstrate they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements before releasing Green Belt land using the ambiguous "exceptional circumstances" How many brownfield sites does Solihull council own? Powergen in Shirley has been empty for over 20 years.
Why are we taking on some of Birmingham's housing allocation, when they have extensive brownfield sites, all over the city? I am assuming this comes back to THE BUILDERS preferring greenfield sites. Why are the Builders put before the residents.
Alternatives
Move Lighthall school on to allocation 12, giving much better access. Leaving a brownfield site perfect for building houses.
The Draft Plan mentions getting ready for HS2. From the land availably map plots 23,128 and 195 are a much more logical choice as they are on the right side of Solihull to benefit from HS2.
The NEC has miles of car parks, if they were made into multi-storey car parks, this would free large amounts of brownfield sites for redevelopment, close to where we believe HS2 will have a station.

Reasons not to build on allocation 13 Shirley South
There is less than one kilometre of open green fields between Shirley and Dickens Heath at this moment, building on this land will leave a very narrow corridor/AIRFIELD of green belt land, with no public footpaths.
There is a clear boundary on the northern edge, a very well used public footpath, resurfaced by Solihull council after a local petition, and public amenity land.
As the only green space with public access in the south of Shirley, This land is very widely used by the local residents and is extremely important for the health and welfare of the local residents of all ages. I walk over these fields every morning on well-worn footpaths, along with many other local residents making it a very enjoyable social activity.
Concentrating 41% of housing in one area will greatly affect the local infrastructure, already overcapacity since the building of Dickens Heath. I understand the need new housing but, the allocation of sites needs to be much more evenly spread and be built in small pockets throughout the borough so as to not adversely impact on any one community. Why do Solihull Council want to build such a large concentration of houses in such a small area? It in no way benefits the local residents. I can only think of one beneficiary THE BUILDERS, please let me know if I am wrong. I though the Council were elected by the local residents for the local residents.
I do question decisions made by the council, why an island was removed from Blossomfield Road and replaced traffic lights is beyond belief, it will have cost a fortune, created chaos while the work was done, with no benefit.
I fully back the plan for a new dementia home on Tanworth Lane, just surprised it is not included in the Draft Local Plan.
There so little information given about possible access points to "Allocation 13" for this almost land locked site, could the council please let me know? If the information was available, I would be able to comment.
Future flood risk is of great concern as some of these fields are very water logged including 2 pools and a stream that feeds into the river Blyth. How will this affect ground water levels to existing homes in the area, I live off Neville Road that in recent years, has had installed a massive pumping station for storm water.
The wildlife on this site is extensive and diverse, taking so much habitat away in one go will decimate the eco system. Just to name a few, Woodpeckers, Bats Newts, Owls, Kingfishers and soon the Cuckoo will return.
I would like the council to demonstrate they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements before releasing Green Belt land using the ambiguous "exceptional circumstances" How many brownfield sites does Solihull council own? Powergen in Shirley has been empty for over 20 years.
Why are we taking on some of Birmingham's housing allocation, when they have extensive brownfield sites, all over the city? I am assuming this comes back to THE BUILDERS preferring greenfield sites. Why are the Builders put before the residents.
Alternatives
Move Lighthall school on to allocation 12, giving much better access. Leaving a brownfield site perfect for building houses.
The Draft Plan mentions getting ready for HS2. From the land availably map plots 23,128 and 195 are a much more logical choice as they are on the right side of Solihull to benefit from HS2.
The NEC has miles of car parks, if they were made into multi-storey car parks, this would free large amounts of brownfield sites for redevelopment, close to where we believe HS2 will have a station.

Reasons not to build on allocation 13 Shirley South
There is less than one kilometre of open green fields between Shirley and Dickens Heath at this moment, building on this land will leave a very narrow corridor/AIRFIELD of green belt land, with no public footpaths.
There is a clear boundary on the northern edge, a very well used public footpath, resurfaced by Solihull council after a local petition, and public amenity land.
As the only green space with public access in the south of Shirley, This land is very widely used by the local residents and is extremely important for the health and welfare of the local residents of all ages. I walk over these fields every morning on well-worn footpaths, along with many other local residents making it a very enjoyable social activity.
Concentrating 41% of housing in one area will greatly affect the local infrastructure, already overcapacity since the building of Dickens Heath. I understand the need new housing but, the allocation of sites needs to be much more evenly spread and be built in small pockets throughout the borough so as to not adversely impact on any one community. Why do Solihull Council want to build such a large concentration of houses in such a small area? It in no way benefits the local residents. I can only think of one beneficiary THE BUILDERS, please let me know if I am wrong. I though the Council were elected by the local residents for the local residents.
I do question decisions made by the council, why an island was removed from Blossomfield Road and replaced traffic lights is beyond belief, it will have cost a fortune, created chaos while the work was done, with no benefit.
I fully back the plan for a new dementia home on Tanworth Lane, just surprised it is not included in the Draft Local Plan.
There so little information given about possible access points to "Allocation 13" for this almost land locked site, could the council please let me know? If the information was available, I would be able to comment.
Future flood risk is of great concern as some of these fields are very water logged including 2 pools and a stream that feeds into the river Blyth. How will this affect ground water levels to existing homes in the area, I live off Neville Road that in recent years, has had installed a massive pumping station for storm water.
The wildlife on this site is extensive and diverse, taking so much habitat away in one go will decimate the eco system. Just to name a few, Woodpeckers, Bats Newts, Owls, Kingfishers and soon the Cuckoo will return.
I would like the council to demonstrate they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements before releasing Green Belt land using the ambiguous "exceptional circumstances" How many brownfield sites does Solihull council own? Powergen in Shirley has been empty for over 20 years.
Why are we taking on some of Birmingham's housing allocation, when they have extensive brownfield sites, all over the city? I am assuming this comes back to THE BUILDERS preferring greenfield sites. Why are the Builders put before the residents.
Alternatives
Move Lighthall school on to allocation 12, giving much better access. Leaving a brownfield site perfect for building houses.
The Draft Plan mentions getting ready for HS2. From the land availably map plots 23,128 and 195 are a much more logical choice as they are on the right side of Solihull to benefit from HS2.
The NEC has miles of car parks, if they were made into multi-storey car parks, this would free large amounts of brownfield sites for redevelopment, close to where we believe HS2 will have a station.

I wish to register my objection to the proposed development at Allocation 13 in Shirley.

I strongly object to your plans on the grounds of loss of GREENBELT land, loss of amenity land for local people and loss of rich local wildlife.

I find it completely disproportionate that circa 41% of Solihull's additional housing needs should be concentrated in the Shirley South area. We know that more houses are needed but they need to be far more evenly allocated. I suggest that Solihull Council examines this aspect closely and re-visits the potential of other areas in the Borough that can absorb this volume of homes.

We have already been subjected to additional developments, including Cheswick Place off Tanworth Lane and further developments extending Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green, yet nothing has been done by the Council to improve local facilities and infrastructure to accommodate a vast increase of people moving into the area.

I commute via Dickens Heath to the M42 along Tanworth Lane and Dog Kennel Lane each morning and the traffic is already congested each morning without the addition of yet more new homes. These roads will need some serious improvements in order to cope with yet more traffic coming through the area, especially at rush hour. 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, Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter Restaurant is a constant queue of traffic each morning.

The impact of yet more homes in this area will have a huge detrimental effect on the road network, let alone local services such as schools and doctors' surgeries. The school's in this area are already at full capacity, so I would be interested to know your plans for relieving pressure on these schools. Will you be building new schools? Will you be extending the existing schools?

The local rail stations are also not fit for purpose for this amount of extra homes, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is already inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations.

Most importantly, this is also designated GREENBELT land. Greenbelt means an area of open land around a city, on which building is restricted yet you choose to ignore this!

The close proximity of this GREENBELT land to homes in the area, I know is a strong reason why homeowners chose to purchase their properties here - to enjoy the beautiful countryside on our doorstep. Why should you be allowed to take this away and concrete over beautiful rich, green land? I'm sure there are plenty of brownfield sites in the borough that are in desperate need of regeneration and could be redeveloped on instead to preserve this beautiful piece of GREENBELT land. Building on this GREENBELT land will mean it's beauty will be lost forever for the local community if your plans go ahead.

This GREENBELT land separates an already high density housing area. I, along with my friends and family, use this area extensively for much valued healthy walking exercise and enjoying the huge variety of wildlife, including owls, foxes, bats, birds of many species and more. The area is also used extensively by dog walkers and ramblers and I worry that you are not considering the impact the loss of this will have on the local community. Development of this GREENBELT land will ensure that all recreational land between Shirley and the M42 will be practically lost making the area a mass urban sprawl instead. Do you not value your local countryside?

Your plans also state that this new housing allocation should be developed to complement current and new infrastructure - in this case HS2. Well in fact HS2 will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to the proposed developments in Shirley. In fact we are surely positioned in one of the worst areas in the borough for actually getting to the new proposed station.

I strongly hope that you are taking the views of the local people into consideration before going ahead with this ill-advised plan for Allocation 13. One area of such a large borough should not be expected to absorb almost half of the housing needs for the borough, and especially not at the expense of GREENBELT land.

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

The reasons for my objection are below:

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. In light of the recent white paper on the future of house building across the country in which it is stated that Green Belt land should only be used in exceptional circumstances and when there is no alternative, surely the council must now look again at the 14 brownfield sites in and around Balsall Common that were submitted in the call for sites.

4) Solihull Councils latest transport strategy publication,Solihull Connected, acknowledges that the south of Balsall Common is the most congested part of the village. The development of site 2, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 and B4101 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres. Several of the 14 PDL sites available including site 240 (Wootton Green Lane/Kenilworth Road) are located in the less congested north of the village.

5) The development of site 2 (150 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units) and the proposed site 3 Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road (200 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452 particularly past Balsall Common Primary School on Balsall Street East. In this area at school drop off and pick up times the congestion is severe at present with traffic often in grid lock. Accidents have already occurred due to this situation and with the additional traffic caused by these sites in the south of Balsall Common the risk of accidents will only increase.

6) Site 2 being 1.5 miles from local amenities 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) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 2. Given that the area is larger than site 2, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 2.

8) 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 request

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 2 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.