Question 11 - Infrastructure Requirements at Blythe

No given the amount of housing proposed in the Blythe villages the infrastructure will collapse
The road network is at gridlock at peak times now with little scope given the surrounding tapography to improve
eg Haslucks Green Rd and Bills Lane
Both Shirley & Whitlock's end train station carparks are over subscribed now with commuters parking in side roads where we have seen refuge collection lorries unable to pass

I support all of the infrastructure requirements and feel that they must be implemented if even a small number of houses are built. Traffic in Dickens Heath and Shirley is already at an unacceptable level. The roads simply can't cope with any more traffic.

Some of the infrastructure needs are identified above in the statement. However, I cannot see the reasoning or sense in taking away playing fields and open spaces that exist with the wildlife in those areas that we see to then say in the statement that open spaces are required. This is a contradiction. Exisiting health provision is seriously stretched now and the Clinical Commisioning Group may not be up to date with what is happening now. It does not bode well for the future if Health Provision will be an after thought when the building happens.

Please find attached Tidbury Green Parish Council's response to the Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation, along with the appendices referred to within our response.

Public transport: The road system cannot cope with the volume of traffic at most times of the day. There is limited scope for improving the A34 arterial road system already the most congested roadie Britain outside of London.The A34 Stratford Road both Northbound and Southbound through Hall Green is the worst for congestion. Financial services comparison website GoCompare analysed data from a number of different sources and the A34 came out as the worst.cThe A34 Northbound between Robin Hood Lane and the A4540 is the worst for congestion with motorists experiencing delays of 44 hours per year. The A34 Southbound between the A4540 and Shaftmoor Lane has delays of 42 hours per year.cThe research also revealed Birmingham as the fourth worst city in the UK for congestion with drivers stuck in traffic for an estimated 34 hours per year. The date was collected from a variety of different sources, including INRIX & the Department of Transport. The 38% load in Shirley/Blythe/Dickens Heath will undoubtedly significantly contribute to this problem regardless of what improvements are made to public transport.
The rat-running through Tythe Barn Lane and part of DH village is mainly by people from the large and populous Wythall Parish (Drakes Cross, Hollywood, etc) who work in Solihull, Blythe Valley Business Park, etc. Extra people/traffic will exacerbate congestion through the Dickens Heath Village, on the A34 and surrounding roads especially at peak times. This is not being addressed by SMBC and the new Local Plan does not seem to realise the scale of this problem (or even that it exists).
Impact on the function of high performing Green Belt status of land will be lost which is contrary to Government Policy; there would be coalescence between Dickens Heath, Whitlock End, Majors Green and Bromsgrove District.
There would be added demands on already crowded local rail services and inadequate parking at the stations and Village centres.
Health - The GP practices which have combined and pooled resources are already now difficult to access, appointments on emergency basis only if that. There is a national shortage of GPs. Local Hospital resources have been diminished.

Blythe ward will lose significant amounts of open space, fauna and flora, rather than having it enhanced as per the above statement. Where will the green open spaces be for the local residents if the proposed developments go ahead?
SMBC state in the policy document '' The sites are located within a moderately performing parcel of Green Belt ...the sites are opportunely located in very close proximity to Whitlock's End Station, which has 3 train services per hour to the centre of Birmingham with a short journey time of 20 minute'
In addition, as already stating under question 2 the area is already grid-locked and by building additional house routes to Whitlock's End railway station will be impassable at peak times. However much the council wish to promote cycling and walking to the station, people will not, they will rely on cars to get them to and from the station. Few people will want to 'dodge' busy traffic, at peak times on a bicycle or walk in inclement weather. They will resort to cars and snarl up the roads further. the "Blythe Villages," have taken substantial development under past Plans, notably the Dickens Heath new village, constructed in the last 15 years and 1,000 dwellings at Blythe Valley. It is estimated that this area has taken a further 2,000 dwellings over the past 5 years but the roads, services and infrastructure have not been upgraded to accommodate this growth. Yes, we need more houses but they should be the right type and in the right place. With no new employment areas proposed in the Local Plan and little existing local employment, residents have to drive to their work, which is predominantly located to the east of the Borough, causing commuter chaos in this area along rural roads that were not designed for such volumes of traffic. This is an unsustainable situation now without the additional proposed developments exacerbating this situation. '

Impact on landscape character; within an area of high sensitivity. sites in question provide green 'breathing space' for wildlife, fauna and flora, locals and visitors to the area. As such, the draft concept masterplan proposes to retain historic landscape features, such as hedgerows and standard trees, and the meadows and woodland designated as Local Wildlife Sites' Where will there be left for wildlife to go if the proposed development goes ahead and the roads are full with traffic jams?. After the ring of oaks was cut down-much against public outrage-the council's assurances on maintain greenery and trees are a contradiction to this statement.
The local sports club recently wanted to improve amenities this was reused by SMBC on the grounds of the detrimental effect it would have on the local fauna, flora and wildlife. The council have now 'about-faced' totally ignoring this policy and want to build all over the area. This is gross hypocrisy as the proposed housing will cause far more environmental damage, add to the flooding problems and wildlife will be devastated.
Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green has already taken its 'fair share' of development during the last Local Plan allocations.
There is no case for any 'Sustainable Urban Extension' in the Dickens Heath Parish. Dickens Heath has reached the limits of expansion; any further growth would reduce gaps between the new village and other settlements and create urban sprawl, the prevention of which is one of the purposes of the Green Belt as stated in the NPPF
Impact of existing development
Dickens Heath now has some 1800 dwellings (and increasing) but the original design was for only 700 dwellings. The impact of this level of population on the local road system, which has had no road improvements to compensate for this additional growth, is significant. Outside the village built-up boundary, the roads are primarily narrow country lanes. Heavy traffic and increased local traffic have already churned up and ruined verges on There are junctions with low visibility which were not a problem before the recent housing growth, but are now potentially dangerous. The level of traffic creates noise, and deters walking and cycling on what were once quiet lanes.
The main public transport facility in the Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green areas is the frequent train service between Whitlocks End and Central Birmingham via Shirley. This has been provided since 2010 and has changed travel patterns; previously the hourly service did not attract heavy use. With the low frequency (hourly) and lack of car parking at Wythall, Whitlocks End is heavily used and its car park is overloaded now. The service and car parking at Whitlocks End was expanded primarily to serve Dickens Heath (1 km to the east) was developed but it is now also being used substantially by
commuters who do not live in the immediate vicinity and who travel from further afield. In its own way, it has become a "Park and Ride" destination.
The car park is now operating at full capacity and with no alternative parking is effectively locking out the local users it was originally intended to service. It is programmed for expansion by Centro to meet additional demand from both existing and new residential developments in Dickens Heath and the Blythe Villages area. The Shirley station is also at full capacity. Exiting from Bills Lane onto Haslucks Green Road is now most difficult and at times dangerous and will be exacerbated with Site 26 plan with undoubted consequential gridlocking.

Most serious omission is the lack of any proposals to control flooding from watercourses or run-off. This is a very serious existing problem for Cheswick Green, and also for Dickens Heath..
The need for a school to support development on other sites is not a sound reason to develop site 12.
Many of the infrastructure proposals are no doubt well meant, but are very vague and non-specific, making it impossible to understand what is envisaged..

Traffic and road improvements are mentioned. However I am led to believe that this was also identified when Dickens Heath was first built, and all of the promised road improvements were never completed.
I only see building of houses to the detriment to Sports, recreation and open space. It's easy to say they will be replaced with better facilities but I have seen no plans for this. Also the requirements will need to be substantially bigger than those at present to cater for the vast amount of more people using these facilities once the new houses are built.

My concerns are as follows:-
Currently 38% of the Solihull Borough housing proposal is in Blythe Valley which remains disproportionate and unacceptable given the size of the borough. .
2050 new houses will bring around 4,000 more cars or higher and therefore more congestion in Shirley and limited parking at public areas, shopping areas and our stations.
A stretch on places at schools and G.P. capacity.
It removes sports grounds for the young/youth of Blythe valley causing a major problem when people/kids should be encouraged to be more active. There is no proposal to replace like for like facilities.
Loss of access to Green Belt, again many people use this space to walk to be healthy or take the dog for a walk - me and my family are included in that.
It is not sustainable and will create more pollution due to vehicle emissions and house emissions - which are already higher from domestic proprieties than they should be according to a recent news article.
Also flooding - we saw some major flooding in this area last April - 2018 which with more properties would only add to this issue.

Items to be considered are as follows:-
Allocation 13 changed from public open space status to nature reserve.
Improvements to public transport.

38% of the housing for the WHOLE borough falls in the Blythe area and as such I would prefer to see a more balanced spread of building across more sites on a smaller scale. Shirley has seen a lot of development in recent years and is already squeezed. I am saddened that due to poor planning decisions in the past there is no mention of protecting this area from over development (as mentioned in areas like Hockley Heath and Hampton in Arden). The Blythe area has been a suitable dumping ground for all the unpalatable things like car showrooms and large superstores that would be used by people from the more "pretty areas" of the borough. Too much land has been given over to retail/service industries and not enough to housing. A lot of the Blythe development will rely on routes such as the B4102 which is not robust enough to take the extra load. This road has been subject to closure on a number of occasions due to the underlying land which is prone to being washed away. There have been traffic calming efforts put in place such as 7.5t restriction and speedhumps. But with no enforcement we have seen a gradual increase in heavy goods vehicles using this to deliver to the retail parks in the area. Worse still due to the ongoing development in the borough this route is regularly used by grab wagons, concrete lorries and delivery vehicles, sometimes large wagons with trailers, delivering for example to the new dementia centre. Why is this allowed to happen? With further development these sorts of roads with restrictions need to be protected from this intrusion. I know it is possible because elsewhere in the borough construction traffic is restricted through certain routes. The residents are suffering from vibration and noise pollution in their homes. Additionally I would like to see an improvement to the current traffic calming provision on the B4102 - currently not bus friendly and as such detrimental to the well being of the residents affected. I support improved public transport provision and welcome the new bus routes but sadly even the most conscientious of drivers still cause vibrations in nearby homes. Another issue with public transport provision is how to get the wider population to move away from individual car ownership as this is a cultural thing and seems at odds with a Council happy to allow ever more car sales showrooms in the area.Direct more traffic through Monkspath route into Solihull - this has been extensively planned and dwellings sit well back from the wide road and there is a buffer of greenery unlike Marshall Lake Road and Blackford Road. I am aware that across the Blythe area we have seen flooding and most recently in a newly developed site. With weather conditions due to become ever more erratic - I would like to see greater attention paid to flood risks in the area. Also air quality is a big issue with the Stratford Road recently being monitored and failing current standards

The inclusion of a primary school is welcomed, but there is no mention of the subsequent secondary school that the new primary school will feed into. This should be considered, in terms of school places.

I do not agree with the infrastructure requirements of the Blythe area because:

* The trainline from Whitlocks End is already over-capacity during 'rush-hour' times, has a limited schedule at certain times of the day (twice an hour after 6pm), and has an already stretched car park

* References additional off-street car parking in Dickens Heath, yet it ignores the current strain on roads around Dickens Heath as a result of on-street parking

* Current infrastructure around Blythe is currently not fit to take the strain of the additional proposed housing and the proposed changes do not fully address this

See letter

Proposals for residential sites (12,and 26) in Shirley are allocated within green belt land.
Draft plan proposals for 1940 additional homes (sites 11,12 and 26) increases the population (census 2011) by more than 38%.
State funding for a new primary school should be financed through government not section 106 agreements. There is no consideration of increased requirements for secondary school places or sixth form.
No consideration has been given to main services to proposed housing, including electricity, gas, water supply, mains drainage, telecommunications.
Some land areas may be located within a flood zone, and should not be built on.

The River Blythe is a key feature of this area as well as being a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The river is currently not in good condition and there is a requirement in this area for 'River Blythe Enhancements' which we recommend are added to this section.
The requirement should be to implement positive interventions to assist the natural recovery by changing management or by undertaking river restoration works to improve natural channel shape, river processes including overtopping onto floodplain, and ecological habitat.
Opportunities should be taken to create additional riparian areas where flooding is acceptable, in order to reconnect the river with its floodplain, and prevent undesirable flood events occurring elsewhere. Flooding has affected properties in Cheswick Green in recent years and particular action is needed to reduce this impact, through work on upstream reaches of river Blythe and tributaries.

I would like to register my concerns and objections to the current draft local plan.

What is quite frightening is that the HSR report into the historic past of Blyth Valley has not been acknowledged by Solihull Council, A report that was widely available and already printed. A Report that could have considerable bearing on future housing.Shirley and Blyth Valley has 38% of the proposed housing which is a higher percentage than any other area and would link surrounding areas together i.e. Cheswich Green, Dickens Heath, & Tidbury Green. This will turn into an urban mass with a lack of open space which is a requirement for health and well being.I believe the council has based it's calculation on the 2014 Office of National Statistics figures and there is a clear case that the 2016 figures could be used.There are no plans in the current draft for extra GPs and schools
There has been no consideration of increase of traffic on the current road system and public transport system, the Mott Macdonald plan was not obtained. The council state that public transport will be improved, however if there is no public transport now how can that be improved.There is already a lack of local GP's and pupils are already travelling far and wide due to lack of schools in the appropriate areas..Site 4 an extension of Dickens Heath, proposed as it is near a station. The council has asked for alternative sites, if being near a station is a requirement, have the fields to the east of Widney Manor Station been considered. Widney Manor Station is much better linked. Dickens Heath which won best village was based on all houses being within a 10 minute walk to shops, this is something that no longer can be claimed . Site 4 states that improvements will be made to the infrastructure however roads cannot be improved as there are ancient hedgerows, which again the council appear to have neglected.
Site 26 I have no objections providing that the level of housing is kept as per the plan however the increase in traffic on Bills Lanes would need the Mott Macdonald plan being obtained prior to any permissions being granted.
However with this development then site 13 is the mitigation against the loss of green belt and would be beneficial for the community if this was designated a Village Green/ Nature Reserve.

Q 11 - Infrastructure Requirements at Blythe

The parishes of Cheswick Green, Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green, the "Blythe Villages," have taken substantial development under past Plans, notably the Dickens Heath new village, constructed in the last 15 years and 1,000 dwellings at Blythe Valley. It is estimated that this area has taken a further 2,000 dwellings over the past 5 years but the roads, services and infrastructure have not been upgraded to accommodate this growth. We need more houses but they should be the right type and in the right place. With no new employment areas proposed in the Local Plan and little existing local employment, residents have to drive to their work, which is predominantly located to the east of the Borough, causing commuter chaos in this area along rural roads that were not designed for such volumes of traffic. This is an unsustainable situation now without the additional proposed developments exacerbating this situation.
The infrastructure required has not been adequately addressed in relation to the sites in Shirley South. The current infrastructure cannot support this amount of development. The road infrastructure is inadequate and there are no alternative routes that could be built to relieve the situation. Additional development roads would only funnel more traffic into an already overburdened system. The existing arterial roads of Haslucks Green Road, Tamworth Lane, Dog Kennel Lane and Stratford Road cannot be effectively improved.

The NHS is also under severe strain and there are limits to how much GPs can expand, especially in the area around Shirley. Also Solihull hospital has been downgraded over the years, no longer has a paediatric department, resulting in Shirley residents having to utilise Heartlands hospital. Travelling to Heartlands is already becoming untenable. The increase in residents to this degree in Shirley South will only exacerbate the problem.
Replacement of any lost recreation / sports provision as a result of development will be required to an equivalent or better standard, including access and use by the wider community where appropriate. Development of site 4 will result in the loss of in the region of 20 recreation areas and sports pitches. It is not clear where the playing fields are to go.

Sport England has a policy to protect playing fields and did oppose the Solihull Plan Site 4 proposals in 2017. Loss of sports grounds/recreation areas for 9 clubs is contrary to Government Policy.

It is of significance not only for the purposes of accuracy, but also to acknowledge that allocations on borders can have disproportionate effects beyond them, as opposed to within them. As the parishes are mentioned, they benefit from an opportunity to develop future Neighbourhood Plans and allocate resources through CIL. Many of the affected parts of Shirley will not have this benefit, though in the spirit of the law, they arguably should.
We have had good relations between the neighbouring settlements and hope this to continue. The Planning process plays a role in how it seeks to balance these potentially competing priorities. This is of most pressing concern in this region of the plan, due to the concentration of housing it is expected to take. In light of this we would hope that the Local Authority recognise this fact and see to reduce the proportion of development in this area.
There are significant peak loading issues on the road infrastructure.
The A34, Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Haslucks Green Road, Shakespeare Drive and Bills Lane are all experiencing peak demand issues. There are air quality issues that are borderline legal in the area. The fact that locations that are of greater concern to residents are near to schools and that potential developments would likely exacerbate vehicle movements and air pollution, means that there is considerable resistance to the scale of development in this area.

"New and existing communities will be integrated". This wording is problematic.
Whilst I recognise that the intention of stating "new and existing communities will be integrated" is to stress that new developments brought forward through the Local Plan process will be with a vision of integrating them into adjoining developments, there will be many who may not construe this as such. There is considerable concern that separate settlements, with distinctive identities may be merged. The fact that the plan acknowledges the different timelines of the many settlements exacerbates this potential confusion.
I am confident that this is not the intention of Planning officers at Solihull Council, as stated in later paragraphs, though would hope the wording can be revised in future versions so as to avoid any misunderstandings.

Solihull Council can offer reassurances to residents by expressing what "adequate separating function' means in practice.
The recent removal of Site 13, which has been warmly received in the community, is now replaced with a new site that presents as narrow a gap between Dickens Heath and Shirley as Site 13 would have.
Higher populations are necessary but not sufficient in delivering Public Transport improvements.
Improved Public Transport - A higher population gives greater potential for improved public transport services to be viable, e.g. better frequency of bus services
There are several factors that are needed to deliver Public Transport Improvements as development alone will not do so.
1. Developments have to accommodate access for buses where possible. Creating developments that have through connection, as was originally planned for Blythe Valley Business Park, prevent public transport access. This is not possible, nor appropriate at all sites, which I will make further reference to later. Similarly, the development of Dickens Heath has prevented the possibility of bus routes to the centre of the settlement. This is where the concentrations of people live, which are needed for viable services.
2. Developments have to provide concentrations of people with reasonable walking access to transport corridors. This means that densities of housing should be spatially arranged accordingly. There has been a failure of this with Site 11, which has already been given partial approval. The most viable locations for higher densities of housing will instead be occupied by car dealerships. This has been in the hands of the applicant in that specific instance, though developing masterplans accordingly can help to facilitate better plans in the future and hopefully prevent future missed opportunities. As the developments in the Blythe area are primarily lower density urban extensions they are unlikely to yield the concentrations for viable routes.
3. Public Transport improvements need to be coordinated at a regional level. Currently, the provision of services is wholly inadequate to deliver modal shift. Nowhere is this more evident than in the locale of 'Blythe' as this report defines the area and Shirley's environs. Urban extensions to an area with already worryingly poor bus services are unlikely to yield great improvements. Especially if the reasons why the services are poor is not addressed by the development.
4. All transport operates on nodes. Travel takes place between points. Journeys are between two or more nodes. Bus routes go between 2 nodes (1 with circular routes), with stops at others. If there is no route onwards from a location, then it is unlikely to benefit from good bus services. Those travelling from the urban extension around Shirley tend to want to go to either Solihull, Shirley or Birmingham. There is limited access to Whitlocks End and Widney Manor train stations, and Solihull Town Centre, but only subsidised bus routes operate within the majority of this area. The development is not on a corridor between two settlements that can carry enough demand to operate as a node. It will mean that public resources are deployed to address a problem built in from design.
5. Even if all the stars can be aligned, people do not switch to sustainable travel unless it outperforms private cars on either:
i. Price
ii. Convenience
iii. Reliability
iv. Safety
v. Cleanliness
These factors are, again, outside the remit of the Council's Local Plan. If setting out to achieve these objectives, thorough work needs to be conducted in conjunction with the Combined Authority to ensure successful delivery and uptake is achieved.
Whilst I want to see this improved, there is reluctance to shift for a number of reasons.
Pedestrian and Cycling Connectivity - Cycling and walking links to Whitlock's End station, village centres, local services and Shirley town centre will be improved to facilitate active travel and reduce car dependency, especially for short journeys
Firstly, the demographic composition of the area means that there is reluctance for some to cycle. It has to be understood that there will be many who will not, or cannot use active travel.
Those who are able to, but not there yet communicate significant barriers. The most notable is the safety of cyclists. Where possible bikes need to be separated from vehicles. This is most important on rural roads, where road verges may be in particularly poor condition, vehicle speeds high and visibility low.
The worst possible outcome is that white lines are painted on the edge of roads, as has happened previously in the borough. This in many instances worsens cyclist safety. It creates a defined area that many motorists will believe cyclists should not stray out of. Not only is to legal for cyclists to use the same extent of carriageway as motorists, there are times when surface conditions necessitate it.
Any work on cycling and walking infrastructure requires considered working out with residents beforehand. This should be with residents who do not yet use active transport to ensure any connectivity improvements actually yield modal shift.
There are limitations with what can be done as far as highways improvements go.
Highway improvements - It is likely that highway improvements will be required at various locations in the settlement, as well as capitalising on highway improvement initiatives along the Stratford Road. These could include speed reduction measures, access and junction improvements around development sites, highway capacity improvements or adjustments to traffic priority arrangements.
Whilst developments that result in increasing volumes of vehicles on roads requires attention, there are significant limitations. They include, but are not limited to:

1. Blackford Road will experience a significant amount of traffic from the planned developments as set out in the supplementary update. Blackford Road did have a weight limitation on it for many years, though it has gone unenforced, with neither police nor council having resources to adequately police it to change behaviour. Moreover, changes to bus routes mean that the weight restrictions will roundly be ignored. Those weight restrictions were put in place due to the structural damage that has been recurring both on the road surface and neighbouring properties. There have been numerous investigations between Solihull Council and utilities companies that have not yielded a comprehensive explanation, nor solution. Many plausible explanations have been made, from soil composition, subterranean water erosion, desiccation, and thermal expansion. Sadly, the only certainty is that increasing volumes and weight along this stretch of road will have detrimental impact on the damage to the road subsurface and the nearby properties.
2. Increasing volumes of traffic in the area adjoining the A34 and along it will have a detrimental impact on air quality. Whilst we are hoping that Electric Vehicles (EVs) will yield improvements in some of the airborne pollutants, evidence suggests that some of the most problematic particulate matter (PM 2.5) is distributed at increased rates. Not only are PM2.5 problematic in and of themselves, the kind produced by EVs are the most problematic. Magnetite can cross the blood brain barrier and cause dementia and are produced in the braking systems of EVs. Before we see significant numbers of EVs on our roads, concentrations of traffic on the choke points of the A34 we will have increased Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Ozone (O3) and PM2.5 from combustion engines. Moving vehicles through faster is not the solution.
A new school would be welcomed.
New Primary School - Pupils arising from Site 4 will be accommodated at the recently expanded Tidbury Green Primary school. A new two-form entry primary school, however, will be required to serve Sites 11, 12 and 25. The draft concept masterplans show the school situated on Site 12. Funding for the school will be expected via section 106 agreements associated with the development of the allocated sites.
However, the idea that a school can service Sites 11, 12 and 25 seems unrealistic. Walking from Site 25 to Friar's Gate (a closer but approximate point for the school, which the masterplan shows located at the back of the site) would take close to 1 hour 30 minutes. Whilst I am in favour of children getting familiar with active travel, 3 hours of walking around the school day is an impossibility and would create car dependence.
Working on the assumption that point 136 was intending to refer to Site 26, the new development off Bills Lane, instead is not significantly better. Whilst there is a walking route that could realistically be done in around 40-45 minutes, it is through fields, so again fails to appear realistic. Rather than walking, the more likely outcome would be to push cars down Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Hathaway/Stretton Road, Tanworth Lane, Dog Kennel Lane and onto Site 12. These are all roads that are experiencing significant congestion at school opening/closing times, so would be unrealistic.
What is of concern is that we are accounting for 2 new primary schools across the borough, but no secondary schools. The Department for Education has projected a 20% increase in secondary school places over the next decade, which our plans would be wholly unprepared to meet. Not only have schools been expected to fit more students into the same buildings, some have also addressed financial concerns by selling land, reducing their ability to expand further. There are concentrations of Secondary Schools around Tudor Grange, but only 1 in the area in question (Light Hall). Would it not be necessary to consider at least one new Secondary School within the Local Plan's period and wouldn't this area make for a viable location?
GP surgeries in the area are already stretched well beyond capacity.
Health provision - The Council will work with the Clinical Commissioning Group to establish the impact of new development on local GPs and other services, and how this can be addressed.
There is no surgery that I haven't either had direct experience of problems with or heard extremely concerning stories from patients trying to make appointments at, in the area. The fact that there is an intensity of extra care developments coming online within the area shouldn't go unnoticed. All residents deserve to be able to get an appointment with a GP in a timely manner. The increases in vulnerable residents with acute or complex needs will have bearing on services for all residents. To date, the measures to address this through the CIL and Section 106 payments have been wholly insufficient and should be factored into Planners' considerations.
Glad to see Sports fields given a greater degree of protection, considering the number that were to be lost under the last iteration of the Plan.
Sports and Recreation - Replacement of any lost recreation / sports provision as a result of development will be required to an equivalent or better standard, including access and use by the wider community where appropriate.
Play and Open Space - This is welcomed, but not to a reassuring extent. Provision of play and areas of open space within potential development sites will be required. There is also a need to ensure that best use is made of existing green and blue infrastructure assets within development sites, together with provision for linkages to the surrounding area
There are examples of plans with play and open space on early drafts, that get eroded over the application process. There should be measures in place to ensure delivery is achieved, as play and open space provisions that are never delivered offer only salt in the wounds for those close to new developments.
With reference to the earlier point.
It is important that Site 26, if developed, directs any CIL proportion to Shirley South, rather than Dickens Heath. This is not to suggest that the Parish Council would utilise the funds poorly, as I'm sure there are ample needs for it in Dickens Heath, but more that the adverse impacts of Site 26 would almost wholly be experienced by residents in the Bills Lane area.
Green Belt Enhancements are to be welcomed, particularly if Site 13 can be offered additional protection.

One factor in favour of Site 4 is sustainable transport provision.
As I stated in my response to the Draft Local Plan Consultation, that whilst I do not support Site 4, it does offer the possibility of connecting Dickens Heath up to Whitlocks End Station. At present there is no safe active transport link between the village centre and the station.
However, there are concerns over whether a viable means of delivering this are demonstrated in the masterplan. There appear to be issues over how the site is integrated into the settlement, without disrupting the ancient woodland at Tyburn Coppice.

There is not enough investment in sufficient infrastructure to cope with the increase in traffic in this area.

I don't believe that sufficient account has been taken of the effect on the road system around Shirley and Dickens Heath as a result of the addition of this high number of new dwellings.

Q 11 - Infrastructure Requirements at Blythe

The parishes of Cheswick Green, Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green, the "Blythe Villages," have taken substantial development under past Plans, notably the Dickens Heath new village, constructed in the last 15 years and 1,000 dwellings at Blythe Valley. It is estimated that this area has taken a further 2,000 dwellings over the past 5 years but the roads, services and infrastructure have not been upgraded to accommodate this growth. We need more houses but they should be the right type and in the right place. With no new employment areas proposed in the Local Plan and little existing local employment, residents have to drive to their work, which is predominantly located to the east of the Borough, causing commuter chaos in this area along rural roads that were not designed for such volumes of traffic. This is an unsustainable situation now without the additional proposed developments exacerbating this situation.
The infrastructure required has not been adequately addressed in relation to the sites in Shirley South. The current infrastructure cannot support this amount of development. The road infrastructure is inadequate and there are no alternative routes that could be built to relieve the situation. Additional development roads would only funnel more traffic into an already overburdened system. The existing arterial roads of Haslucks Green Road, Tamworth Lane, Dog Kennel Lane and Stratford Road cannot be effectively improved.

The NHS is also under severe strain and there are limits to how much GPs can expand, especially in the area around Shirley. Also Solihull hospital has been downgraded over the years, no longer has a paediatric department, resulting in Shirley residents having to utilise Heartlands hospital. Travelling to Heartlands is already becoming untenable. The increase in residents to this degree in Shirley South will only exacerbate the problem.
Replacement of any lost recreation / sports provision as a result of development will be required to an equivalent or better standard, including access and use by the wider community where appropriate. Development of site 4 will result in the loss of in the region of 20 recreation areas and sports pitches. It is not clear where the playing fields are to go.

Sport England has a policy to protect playing fields and did oppose the Solihull Plan Site 4 proposals in 2017. Loss of sports grounds/recreation areas for 9 clubs is contrary to Government Policy.

The proposals do not take account of already huge committed development in addition to those sites which are proposed here under Amber. eg Blythe Valley Park housing estate, the extensions to Cheswick Green, the Service Station at junction 4, plus the proposed Amber sites, means that Illshaw heath Road and Warings Green Road in the protected area need to be changed to dual carriageways to deal with all the increased amount of traffic travelling between these extended urban developments, the HS2 hub, the service stations. The plans make no provision for what the area "will be". Infrastructure needs are underestimated.

My concerns are as follows:-
Currently 38% of the Solihull Borough housing proposal is in Blythe Valley which remains disproportionate and unacceptable given the size of the borough. .
2050 new houses will bring around 4,000 more cars or higher and therefore more congestion in Shirley and limited parking at public areas, shopping areas and our stations.
A stretch on places at schools and G.P. capacity.
It removes sports grounds for the young/youth of Blythe valley causing a major problem when people/kids should be encouraged to be more active. There is no proposal to replace like for like facilities.
Loss of access to Green Belt, again many people use this space to walk to be healthy or take the dog for a walk - me and my family are included in that.
It is not sustainable and will create more pollution due to vehicle emissions and house emissions - which are already higher from domestic proprieties than they should be according to a recent news article.
Also flooding - we saw some major flooding in this area last April - 2018 which with more properties would only add to this issue.

Items to be considered are as follows:-
Allocation 13 changed from public open space status to nature reserve.
Improvements to public transport.

2050 new homes would mean 4000 more cars. The proposed road improvements are restricted by ancient hedgerows. Increased population would have a negative effect on schools, gp surgeries, parking at stations, pollution, car accidents and crime rates. There'd be a loss of access to green belt. Due to the increase in population we need off road cycle paths to protect cyclists. We need improved public transport to cope with the extra demand that will be placed on these services. We need a park and ride, and for allocation 13 to be changed from public open space status to nature reserve.

The Blythe area already has pressure on its infrastructure. The roads are heavily congested and these matters need addressing prior to adding a possible 4,000 extra vehicles as it is unable to cope with the existing traffic. There is a limit as to what can be done to improve the road in the area due to ancient hedgerows having preservation orders on them. The appropriate traffic surveys do not appear to have been undertaken. We are in great danger of having addition housing and the area and services breaking under the pressure

A key infrastructure requirement not included is additional train capacity (specifically increased number of seats at peak times). Current trains running on the Whitlocks End to Snowhill line are already overcrowded and do not have sufficient capacity, with standing room only as they near Birmingham. This has got worse the last three years, and hundreds more homes around Dickens Heath would cause significant issues without additional carriages to increase capacity.
Additional parking in Dickens Heath must be included, as it is already an issue let alone with further developments.

I agree that new infrastructure is needed, however paticularly in the case of road infrastructure I don't see how this is possible nor have any suggestions how the council will achieve this been put forward.
Also where are secondary age children going to be educated , currently all secondary schools in the immediate area are oversubscribed.

(1) I object to loosing 200 tress that provide wildlife habitats also water drainage for the site. (2) Loosing the wild life corridor running the length at the back of Blackford road. ( 3 ) I question the need to increase the number of homes from 400 to 572 adding to the already substantially increased volume of traffic along Blackford Road & Stratford Road. (4 ) Not all older residents want to live in McCarthy & Stone Retirement Flats there fore we need homes for older residents which will release larger family homes.

TOO MUCH FOCUS HAS BEEN PLACED ON AREAS SURROUNDING SHIRLEY, WHICH IS UNABLE TO WITHSTAND THE PROPOSED GROWTH. BROWNFIELD SITES SHOULD TAKE PREFEREMCE OVER BUILDING ON GREENBELT LAND AND SURROUNDING. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ENOUGH EXPLORATION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES AND GREENBELT LAND AND SURROUNDING IS AN EASY OPTION FOR DEVELOPERS.

See attached letter

Spatial planning Department, Solihull Council
I am extremely concerned about the inconceivable number of properties being built in the Blythe Ward/Shirley South Ward. This will result in huge traffic problems which in turn will increase air pollution. There is also no plan to my knowledge for infrastructure, such as schools, GP surgeries, public transport.
A large amount of the land being built on is in the Green Belt and I understand that 38% of the whole borough's housing allocation is in the Blythe/Shirley South Wards. Why has this been passed? Why have other areas in the borough not been put forward for housing development?
This is an untenable situation for the people living in these areas and will result in total gridlock. The roads around these areas are already very congested at peak times. Has a survey been carried out to assess the impact this building will have in these areas?
I welcome your response as soon as possible please