Alternative Site Suggested (New Site)

see letter

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for land at and to the rear of 146- 152 Tilehouse Lane, Whitlock's End, B90 1PW.

The submission comprises the
* letter of representations (10463 HRW LPR APP);
* a site plan (ref.no. 10463-01A) with the site edged red;
* an Illustrative layout (10463(10)M-101 prepared by Tyler-Parkes Partnership
* a Transport Statement prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering Ltd
* An updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey prepared by Cotswold Wildlife Surveys
* Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy prepared by BWB

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

Arden Academy Questionnaire

See Attachment

Site 1 Objection

Site 1 Objection

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

Proposed housing in Shirley

The proposed plans for such a large amount of housing, adding to that already in Dickens Heath and the further traffic congestion this would bring to the area is, in my opinion, totally short sighted. My objections are:

* The congestion on the Stratford Road up to the motorway connection is already very bad and getting worse especially during commuting times.
* Dog Kennel Lane, by its very name is a lane and the amount of traffic from your proposed building would make it untenable for most journeys as it would be completely jammed.
* The exit from Tanworth Lane onto Blackford Road and Dog Kennel Lane is already a nightmare when people are trying to exit Tanworth Lane as the traffic from Dickens Heath is constant with little leeway to move out of Tanworth Lane. This is already an accident waiting to happen!
* We have had a large amount of retail expansion in this area over the past few years. The Sears Retail Park, plus the stores on the Stratford Road bordering the island at Stratford Road/Blackford Road and Marshall Lake Road, make it very difficult and we are virtual prisoners in our homes as the Stratford Road is grid locked as is Marshall Lake Road and Blossomfield Road, virtually all the way into Solihull.
* I firmly believe we have 'done our bit' for the area with all the above and would like my objections recognised.
* Surely it would be much safer and more manageable for the housing to be built at Catherine de Barnes where there is more room and less problems with the amount of traffic these builds would generate.
* I feel this proposal would have far reaching negative implications in that many people would not travel to this area as it would be a travel bottle neck and be avoided being detrimental to the NEC and surrounding businesses.

Objection: Sites 4 and 13 Dickens Heath of the Draught Local Plan

I write to register my objection to the proposed development of the green belt land around Dickens Heath.
National Planning Policy requires that very special circumstances must be demonstrated in order to allow for the development of green belt land. SMBC may be able to achieve this by drawing attention to the difficulties of identifying sufficient brown field sites in conjunction with a plan led approach towards addressing those difficulties in order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF and that the NPPF is unrealistic unless building on greenbelt is allowed when no other route available.

However I feel the spirit of these NPPF requirements and the very definite and absolute statements made by Central Government are attempted to be circumnavigated by SMBC. This by way of using the very special circumstance rule to not just build on green belt land but in the case of Dickens Heath to eradicate the last remaining slender green corridors between Dickens Heath, Tidbury Green, Majors Green and Shirley. This would undisputedly create major urban sprawl between individual communities and wider Solihull by way of eradicating those final remnants of green belt which presently separate these communities. This would impinge on, not just the one semi-rural community of Dickens Heath but also the surrounding communities and greater locale.

I strongly believe and agree with Central Government that the very special needs rule is not about permitting the destroying of community identities by allowing urban sprawl to eradicate the last yards of natural green separation; it is the complete opposite to this. It is really about allowing developments on green belt land in a controlled and responsible manner when absolutely no other option route is available. I do not believe SMBC have proved by sequential testing that there is absolutely no alternative green belt land available that would not eradicate divisions between communities and illiminate any possibility of wildlife commute and habitat.

As stated any necessary last option development of green belt should not destroy rural communities by way of allowing large scale urban sprawl and not eradicate green corridors completely which would serious impede free transit of species and varied cross pollination. I believe the responsibility of an authority, when forced to build on green belt should be to do so in a way which retains existing linked green areas around those communities by adopting a landscape scaled approach towards the reason for, purpose of, and essential preservation of green belt land around rural or semi rural communities. This being in line with Central Government's target to reverse decline of species by 2025 which is a necessity if the UK's commitment towards the World Target is to be at all achievable. We all have our part to play and Borough Councils, above all else, should shoulder their responsibilities as role models in a leading and positive manner.

In addition to the above it has been proven that contact with nature promotes health and well being in all of us. Committing to urban sprawl will increasingly deny not just one community of that contact but also the other communities the sprawl links to. I consider this a totally irresponsible and unacceptable way for a borough council to conduct its affairs.

Over recent years the Dickens Heath area has already absorbed a large bulks of development which seems unquestionably more than a fair share of the boroughs housing needs. This losing Dickens Heath substantial amounts of outer green belt as well as outstripping the originally planned infrastructure and concept by well over double the number of originally intended households. The redesign of Garden Squares having now also completely ruled out the possibility of additional commercial premises within Dickens Heath to at last achieve the originally planned footfall and extra public parking to, in turn, boost trade for it's presently struggling services infrastructure and shops. The woefully inadequate present village centre situation being literally locked in concrete by more flawed planning.

In addition to this indisputable present outstripping of infrastructure, the locations for these newly proposed sites would incur an increased reliance on the current services and commercial area of Dickens Heath; this would be totally impractical from an accessibility point of view. It would also not be in line with the 800yrd planning rules forcing travel by car to local services and village centre, where again, over development has already created major parking and road capacity issues. This with several hundred dwellings still under construction within the original concept area of Dickens Heath itself. No matter how these newly proposed extra developments of the DLP are viewed, they can not in any way be seen as betterment of Dickens Heath Village. In addition to this, there can be no doubt that new developments on such a large scale would without doubt seriously compound the current planning flaws already built into Dickens Heath which have themselves been brought about by ongoing disregard for infrastructure capacity and the original village concept. It can be expected that the result of continuing along this overbuild path will without question result in community dysfunction at a seriously high level.

Considering the above points, it is considered that SMBC have not demonstrated a fair approach towards distribution of housings needs around the borough. Nor have they demonstrated that all alternatives have been openly and fairly explored. Have not displayed transparency or provided evidence for rejecting the development of a completely new rural community with its own infrastructure and own green belt separation within the borough. Housing development at the scale outlined in the DLP can not reasonable be tagged onto existing communities and especially those with an an infrastructure that has already been outstripped with apparent disregarded for the very real community issues that have already been created with apparently no concept of how these might be addressed at present levels let alone almost doubling the present number of Dickens Heath households with these two proposed new sites.

Considering the previous points l feel that the design and development of a purpose built, self contained new rural community within the borough would be a far more responsible and productive way to reach SMBC's housing quota while allowing for a plan that could better harmonise with protecting the general biodiversity of that chosen new area while also preserving the slender but essential green belt come green corridor separation of these particular existing communities. The call for sites must have returned development opportunities that, with some additional compulsory purchase, the cost of which would be passed on to the developer, would provide a new community sized parcel of land.

It is felt that this would be a far more responsible approach than cherry picking the easy ones for tagging development onto an existing community with an already outstripped infrastructure. One combined new community would also help to keep house prices down, as lots of smaller developments forces separate installation of that many more main service to each site.

I would strongly urge Solihull Council to reconsider what seems to be a flawed approach to this problem and in particular the proposal for sites 4 and 13 around Dickens Heath

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the site at Tidbury Green Golf Club, Tidbury Green.

The submission comprises
* The letter of representations (10171 LPA3 LPR APP)
* An existing site plan (ref.no. 10509(EX)01) with the site edged red.
* Schedule of accommodation (10509(SC)01)
* Illustrative Site Layout (10509(MP)01)
* Ecological Appraisal prepared by Crossman Associates
* Environmental Noise Report prepared by Sharps Redmore
* Flood Risk Assessment prepared by THDA
* Tree Survey prepared by Abbey Forestry
* Transport Statement and Travel Plan prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering
* Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Landscape Matters
* Site Investigation Report prepared by Georisk UK

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review on behalf of the landowners at the sites at Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common.

The submission comprises
* the letter of representations (10607 LPA2 JD LPR APP);
* Site plan (10607(OS)01) with the site edged red;
* Illustrative layout (10607(MP)01);
* Transport Assessment prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering; and
* Landscape character assessment response prepared by Landscape Matters

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land south of Hampton Lane, and west of Ravenshaw Lane/ South of Hampton Lane, Solihull.

The submission comprises the letter of representations (9263 SHL LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 9263 Site Plan) with the site edged red.

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land at Barston Lane/ Oak Lane, Barston B92 0JR

The submission comprises the letter of representations (10445 LA3 GC LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 10445-01A) with the site edged red.

Sites 57, 6 and 11 in Balsall Common. You have planned to build 1150 houses, all on Green Belt land, ancient Forest of Arden and the Meriden Gap, all are protected and this is in breach of the governments white report, which specifies that building on greenbelt should be avoided when other sites are available. Balsall Common has 14 brownfield sites that were submitted and ignored by the council. Why? The above sites are farms containing footpaths, playing fields and sites of interest. Building is coinciding with HS2 and will turn the village into a building site for years.

I believe the fields around Barratt's farm justify a conservation order in the same manner as that accorded to the fields to the south of Berkswell. That said, I would favour acceptance of the application of Berkswell Estate for development on one of the Berkswell fields behind Village Farm. My reasons are: a) development will be tucked away behind a short frontage b) I believe the village would benefit from the injection of a few new residents c) it could be adopted as the better of the two developments proposed by Berkswell Estate for the centre of the village.

The selection of Greenfield sites while ignoring PDL sites and the opportunity for a new settlement north of Balsall Common are inexplicable.

Building in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap will increase the merging with Coventry

The increased development on greenfield land, where there are other brown field and old commercial sites to the north of Balsall Common that could have been considered, including a previous proposal to develop a new settlement on the land north of the village adjacent to the old quarry workings, would make more efficient and effective use of the space around the village rather than continue to erode the rural nature of Balsall Common itself.

Please find attached the Response of The Knowle Society to your Consultation of the draft Local Plan 2017 Review.

Herewith my thoughts concerning the local plan review, I send them by email because of the issues with the web portal.

1. The proposed developments on allocations 4, 11, 12, 13 are closely clustered. This will clearly impact road usage as well as require additional provision for schools, medical and other facilities. As a resident of Blackford road I am aware of the steady increase in traffic from the existing developments in and around Dickens Heath. It would appear that the highway usage and plan is a critical part of the proposal. Further, a lot of local traffic is caused by Dickens Heath pupils travelling by car to Alderbrook or other schools in Solihull. In summary, I can't see how the scheme is supposed to work sustainably without understanding the plan for additional services and roads.
2. The use of the 'TRW' site seems very logical. The land has limited recreational value and is clearly underutilised. Given the existing developments on the site it seems logical to extend the 3-4 storey buildings and provide housing local to the Shirley industrial area (including Cranmore) within walking distance.
3. Allocation 13 is the exact opposite and I oppose its use for housing. It is a valuable green space for recreation, nature and acting as a buffer between Dickens Heath and Shirley. Unless the previously planned 'Shirley Relief Road' is reinstated it is difficult to see it offering any improvement in the already busy traffic in the area. This allocation in particular would cause Shirley and Dickens Heath to merge into a mass of over-corded small local roads and housing.
4. A more general observation is that across Solihull there are a number of large ground level car parks. These don't strike me as a very efficient use of space, especially when they are near to shops/services or travel connections. Has adequate consideration been given to reviewing these for re-development and incorporation of housing?
5. Further to the point about local traffic above (1) I believe that additional provision will be required for car commuters to Solihull, the motorway network and to the rail network. The local railway station at Whitlocks End is already overloaded with cars. If more housing was within walking distance of this or other rail stations, it would relieve the pressure. The commute to the M42 in the morning is already difficult and I believe specific improvements are required to allow the traffic out of Shirley (to the motorway) to not be delayed by traffic coming in to the Cranmore businesses, as they currently do. Improvements to Dog Kennel Lane and the connecting roundabouts on the A34 and at Dickens Heath road could ease this. It would appear that this needs to be planned and enacted before the developments commence to minimise the impact and allow maximum flexibility in planning new roads/connections.

Letter responding to draft local plan review.

see letter
I would like to state for the record, my strong objection to the proposal for 700 new dwellings on Site Allocation 4 (west of Dickens Heath) in the Solihull Local Plan Review.