Question 11 - Infrastructure Requirements at Blythe

Please see attached representation

see attached letter of response

See attached letter. The Open Spaces Society is Britain's oldest national conservation body, founded in
1865. The Society's aim is to protect, increase, enhance and champion open spaces,
common land, village greens and public paths.
Consequently, sections 96 to 98 of the NPPF headed Open space and recreation are
seen of particular importance.
The questions addressed by the Society are those headed Do you agree with the
infrastructure requirements? for each area. These are Questions 3, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 29, and 31.
No equivalent question was asked about the UK Central Hub, so a comment has been made in response to Question 44.

Ref. Solihull Draft Local Plan Review - Supplementary Consultation January 2019
The Dickens Heath Residents Association welcomes the reduction in planned housing numbers on site 4 and deletion of site 13 with its access onto the B3102 Tanworth Lane Traffic Islands.

However based on the feedback from residents and the lack of information on addressing the existing traffic and infrastructure issues plus very widespread strong objections by the village to the Masterplan proposals to site 4 West of Dickens Heath we are objecting to the inclusion of this site.

In terms of the questionnaire we would respond to the relevant Questions as follows.

Scope of the consultation and overall assessment - while this indicates the objectives of the review when viewed in context it does not address the concerns raised by residents over existing well known traffic congestion issues and an inadequate rural highway network.

Dickens Heath Residents Association therefor strongly object to the Masterplan proposals for site 4.

A petition is being submitted to Solihull Council by Councillor Hawkins indicating some 1150 residents have lodged objection to site 4 in addition to a significant number of Emailed objections submitted to the Parish Council. We have also attended recent meetings at which the proposals have been presented and discussed and noted the level of objection and lack of any public support for the proposal at site 4.

Q 4 Blythe Infrastructure - its indicated highway improvements are only likely to be needed and off-street parking improvements at Dickens Heath only may be needed which does nothing to reassure residents that if site 4 were to be approved and included the council would provide the necessary infrastructure.
On sports and recreation lost provision is indicated as would be replaced but there are no sites indicated in the site 4 Masterplan.
The residents association regard it as a key priority that any future redevelopment ensures the existing sports grounds are retained within site 4

Q12 Site 4 Land West of Dickens Heath - while noting the councils laudable intentions to protect landscape features residents cannot be expected to support the inclusion of site 4 by writing a blank cheque for the proposed housing numbers given the experience of the totally inadequate highway infrastructure provided for the original Dickens Heath village as against its concept plan.
While it is understood that issues of highways and parking will be brought forward it is not possible to envisage how any satisfactory highway scheme could be implemented that would address both the proposed housing and ameliorate the existing congestion issues.

In respect of relocating the long established sports grounds for Old Yardleians Rugby Club, Highgate United FC, and Leafield FC these clubs have significant local support and the Residents Association would require alternative provision to an adequate standard within site 4.
The Residents Association is strongly opposed to an alternative more remote location into green belt countryside elsewhere.

Q14 Site 12 Land South of Dog Kennel Lane - this is adjacent to our Parish and impacts onto the main Dickens Heath traffic access. This site if included would need significant traffic attenuation measures.

Q34 Washed over green belt settlements - the Residents Association support the policy proposals at Whitlock's End and Cheswick Green subject to careful assessment of flooding issues at Cheswick Green sites.

Q38 Amber Sites - the Residents Association support the review and inclusion of all the Amber Sites as proposed.

Q40, 41, 42 & 43 Affordable Housing Policy - the Residents Association supports the retention of the existing unit number policy for measuring affordable housing provision.

Worcestershire County Council (WCC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the above consultation, and provides the attached officer-only comments. We are currently seeking endorsement of these comments by WCC's Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economy and Infrastructure, and will provide confirmation of this endorsement as soon as possible.

We act for the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (CCWMP) and are instructed to make representations on local development documents in respect of securing policy reference in such documents
see details in attached letter

See Letter

see letter attached

We write on behalf of our client, IM Properties Limited (hereafter referred to as 'IM'), in response to the Solihull Local Plan Review (SLPR) Draft Local Plan (DLP) Supplementary Consultation, which was published for consultation in January 2019.
IM Properties own and are actively promoting several sites and assets within the Borough, including Mell Square, Blythe Valley Park and Fore Business Park.
IM Land, the strategic land division of IM, also has existing and emerging land interests within the Borough; separate representations have been submitted
in relation to IM Land's interests.
see attached letter

See Letter

See Letter

See Letter

There is not the infrastructure to support this, particularly the road system. Already small roads often with traffic control that are extremely busy. Getting on to the M42 at peak times already very, very slow.
"Highway improvements" are undefined and I feel only new highways will help. To suggest that bike lanes are going to solve any congestion is ridiculous given our climate. Dickens Heath has limited facilities so for supermarkets people will have to drive.

Please find attached the response from the Green Party team in Shirley West ward to the Draft Local Plan supplementary consultation.

For the avoidance of doubt, our specific concerns relate to the 3 Shirley wards, Blythe and the sites mentioned in the letter.

This is the response of Generator Group and Minton to the supplementary
consultation by Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The
purpose of the response is to comment on the draft Plan and promote the site on land adj Harpers Field, Kenilworth Road Balsall Common for inclusion as a housing
allocation within the Plan. The response is by question order. Whilst we have
responded to each question, the detailed points in relation to our site are set out under question 39 and your attention is specifically drawn to this part of the response. It should be noted the site is developer owned and delivery of the site can therefore come forward early in the plan period

This is the response of Rosconn Strategic Land to the supplementary consultation by
Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the
response is to comment the draft Plan and promote three sites for inclusion as
housing allocations within the plan. The response is by question order.
The 3 sites are:
Land at Three Maypoles Farm Shirley
Land at r/o 2214 Stratford Road Hockley Heath
Land adj 161 Lugtrout Lane Solihull

The responses on the three sites to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation
are attached and which highlight the reasons why the sites should be allocations
within the Local Plan.

This document should also be read in conjunction with the Ecology Report and
Heritage Assessment in relation to land adj to 161 Lugtrout Lane, Solihull.
Your attention is also drawn to the attached Masterplan for land r/o 2214 Stratford
Road Hockley Heath.

Not withstanding that this is an informal consultation we consider that the document
should be accompanied by an up to date SA.

This is the response of Stonewater to the supplementary consultation by Solihull
Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the response is
to comment the draft Plan and promote the site at the Firs Maxstoke Lane (west of
Meriden proposed allocation site 10) for inclusion as a housing allocation within the
Plan. The response is by question order.
The original response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation is also
attached which highlights the reasons why the site should be an allocation within the
Local Plan (Site Ref 137).

see detailed comment in attached letter

This is the response of Mr Taj Khan, Sid Kelly and John Green to the supplementary
consultation by Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The
purpose of the response is to comment on the draft Plan and promote the site at 15,
59, & 61 Jacobean Lane Knowle for inclusion as a housing allocation within the Plan
and land north of Jacobean Lane being removed from the Green Belt and to support
the removal of land from the Green Belt to rectify anomalies and for consistency.
See detail response in attached letter and appendices

This is the response of Minton to the supplementary consultation by Solihull Council
on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the response is to
comment the draft Plan and promote the site at Oak Farm Catherine de Barnes for
inclusion as a housing allocation within the Plan. The response is by question order.
The original response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation is also
attached which highlights the reasons why the full Oak Farm site should be an
allocation within the Local Plan. We have also carried out our own Green Belt
Assessment a copy of which is attached

I strongly oppose the proposed SITE 4 proposal.

Rationale;

Wildlife seen roaming freely in the fields opposite Norton Lane to include, badgers, hedgehog, deer and other smaller mammals, where will they go?
Irresponsible building seen on other local sites (Tidbury Heights) on a clay based soil can only lead to further flooding for Norton Lane
Failure by anyone to invest in anything but housing. Where are the additional roads, byways, hospitals, dentists, emergency services, etc. going to come from to deal with the increase in demand.
Perhaps the new breed of individual does not require this level of service & security and hospitals etc are a thing of the past?
How will the increase in noise and light pollution be managed to ensure no disruption to local wildlife and living?


In addition, i include the following already stated.

The only reason for the choice of this site for new housing is its location close to Whitlocks End railway station but detailed analysis shows that it is not sustainable and should be considered as a red not a green site in terms of sustainability analysis. The combined significant adverse effects given below from developing the land west of Dickens Heath makes the proposal wholly inappropriate in terms of sound planning practise, and both national and local planning policies.
On the negative side, Dickens Heath has increased from the original design of 850 dwellings to approximately 1,800 units today. However, the roads and infrastructure have not been improved to accommodate this increase plus the vast number of dwellings given planning permission in the general area in the last few years. The Site lies outside Dickens Heath village and has no direct physical connection to it. Given the parking problems in the centre, the rural narrow roads and historic hedgerows, it will be difficult to make sufficient road improvements to take much more traffic. In addition, Site 4 is a high performing Green Belt site; there are the most Local Wildlife Sites surrounding than any other of the proposed allocations being 4 in all with protected species inhabiting the Site; there are ancient hedgerow; the land is liable to flooding as the sub-soil is deep boulder clay that does not allow adequate percolation; the site is not within walking distance from the facilities in the Village Centre; there would be a loss of character and identity as Site 4 is outside the confined boundaries; the Site is in an area of landscape sensitive to development; there would be a loss playing fields with no alternative proposals submitted.

Tanworth Lane & Dog Kennel Lane already experience heavy congestion at peak periods. The rural roads are already clogging up and this will further deteriorate as the Blythe Valley development gathers impetus.

Minimal changes to the infrastructure and the Council's broken promises have seen a continuation in flooding and many road traffic accidents.

Frankly, the Council's obsession for further housing in Blythe is creating an environment that cannot be sustained.

These issues have been pointed out to the Council on many occasions, but it fails to listen - you are forcing residents to take legal action and question why previous applications have been nodded through.

We write on behalf of our client Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd (TW), with regards to the Supplementary Consultation document and Concept Masterplan for Site 12
.As you are aware, Taylor Wimpey own much of the land in the Proposed Housing Allocation 12 South of Dog Kennel Lane, Shirley. Taylor Wimpey therefore fully support the allocation of the site for residential development and can confirm that housing development at this site is deliverable. The site is well located to
shops, employment, public transport and schools and is therefore in a highly sustainable location.
To support the allocation and to demonstrate how this can deliver a new sustainable community, we include an updated Development Statement for Site 12 (Appendix 1) prepared on behalf of Taylor Wimpey. This clearly sets out how a masterplan for this site, prepared for Taylor Wimpey, has evolved to address all of the constraints and opportunities. In addition, the following technical reports have been provided in support of the allocation:
* Ecology Technical Note prepared by EDP (Appendix 2)
* Green Belt Position Note prepared by EDP (Appendix 3)
* Flood Risk Scoping Note prepared by BWB Consulting (Appendix 4)
* Transport Report prepared by Vectos (Appendix 5)
The Heritage Assessment will be finalised on receipt of the SMBC report currently being prepared.
Overall, we consider that a housing allocation at this site could deliver in the order of 1,200 new homes together with associated social and physical infrastructure and public open space within a well landscaped and high quality designed masterplan.

The access to the station from Rosebriars is one of the most dangerous roads in the area without any safe crossings or adequate footpaths. As a frequent user I have to use the car for a 300Mt journey.Walking or cycling is unsafe. The proposal to make Tythe Barn lane a safe route is no use to Majors green residents.

The railway bridge road is far too narrow for the traffic and pedestrians with many very near misses from bus & Lorry wing mirrors.

The whole area infrastructure requires an independent safety consultants review.

Resubmission of original objection from 2017. Nothing has changed from then to justify how you (council) plan to sort this


Schools already oversubscribed, how to accommodate 2500 new households?
Dog Kennel Lane is either a standstill or a race track, exceeding speed limit of 40mph. Particularly congested at rush hour including surrounding roads. Traffic makes crossing roads difficult for pedestrians, especially Tanworth Lane towards Cheswick Green. Traffic on Tanworth Lane already increased since Mount Dairy Farm development.
Previous correspondence with Council's Highways team about highway safety concerns.
Privacy will be adversely affected.

Road infrastructure is a complete nightmare currently and you want to add more house and therefore more cars into the network.
It can already take almost 45 mins to leave Dickens Heath to get to M42 via dog kennel lane and the Stratford road now.

And you want another 1000 houses added, it's obscene.

It will lead to people moving to other areas to escape what was once a lovely area within Solihull.

Housing is essential we know but the influx of more cars and with building, more lorries to our narrow country lanes, just adds to the congestion that is here already.
Whitlocks End station carpark is already full, and the narrow roads and very narrow footpaths, make it difficult to walk safely in the area. Surely before any more planning is given, infrastructure should be at the top of the agenda, or will it take more accidents before this is taken into consideration

As a resident on Haslucks Green Road in Majors Green, I have to object about the potential increase in traffic which will be forced to go through our village due to extra housing on Site 4. The already congested "Country Road" creates havoc getting off our driveway. Haslucks Green Road has become a "City Road", unsafe to walk through, noisy and polluted.
Infrastructure desperately needs looking at. Thank you.

I wish to object to the proposal to develop for housing, Site 4, west of Dickens Heath, I have attached my objections as they are over 100 words.

Experiencing other drivers anger and horn sounding when I slowdown to enter the drive to my home on Haslucks Green road. How will an increase of housing (plot 4) without any change to infrastructure,particularly road/public transport impact on the point made above?
with the increased volume of traffic on Haslucks Green road at Whitlocks End station;pedestrian access is now inadequate and dangerous - poor footpaths - very difficult to cross Haslucks Green road/Tilehouse Lane. More homes provided at plot 4 will impact the greenbelt buffer between SMBC and BDC not to mention school/GP's.

Current level of traffic is extremely heavy, we can't get off the drive and cannot cross the roads at busy times. Since the building of new estates in Tidbury Green and Solihull Lodge traffic numbers have increased and the air quality has greatly reduced. The planned building levels are going to further impact on the quality of life in Majors Green. The roads are narrow and are little more than country lanes and cannot cope with the amount of traffic that is currently using them, Also I have concerns that there is no capacity at local schools or GP surgeries.