Question 13 - Site 11 -The Green

I agree that this site could be used for houses as a lot of this land is already allocated and not part of the green belt. My only worry is the amount of traffic it will add to the already poor traffic in the area.

Although supporting the use of this site being used for residential housing especially since the recent gypsy landings, I do feel that the area should sympathetically developed putting the 'essential' affordable housing to the Stratford road side of the site and the more expensive family 4/5 bedroom properties along the more rural Dog kennel Lane side. This would be more in keeping with the existing properties along this road and the Grade 2 listed light Hall building. Again I hope the highway infrastructure will be carefully considered as this is already a busy through road from DH to Stratford road.

I am very grateful that Allocation 13 has been removed from The Plan but very disappointed that a new site (Site 26) has been introduced.


Iknow Allocation 13 had a number of issues that really meant it should not have been in the draft plan in the first place. But an equally important issue is the over development of Green Belt land in the Blythe Valley Villages Area wh ich is still far too high .

Site 26 needs to be removed or reduced considerably to avoid the flooding, infrastructure and lack of amenity issues. Similarly Sites 4 and 12 should be removed or considerably reduced to avoid the same issues.


With the large number of homes being built in the HS2 area and part of the Blythe Valley Business Park being used for housing, together with the 2,600 plus homes built on the A34 corridor over the past two years, there is no need for such large scale destruction of Green Belt land in the Blythe Valley Villages area of Shirley, Cheswick Green, Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green.


Using part of site 11 for Car Showrooms instead of housing is really very bad planning and I believe that if all of site 11 had been used for housing, then, coupled with the developments mentioned above there really would be no need whatsoever for sites 4,12 or 26 to go ahead.


I think any independent inspection of the Plan will conclude that the current proposals are not only unfair but also very unreasonable

Far too much development in area already. Roads will be gridlocked. Doctors and schools will not cope. Flooding and air quality concerns

1. I recognise the need for additional housing in the overall national interest to address the failures of successive national governments in addressing the issue
2. Having read the plan I find it very good in some aspects offering clear and concise reasons for the suggested developments and taking into account the wider issues new developments create. However, in some areas the plan appears weak, does not offer reasons for the chosen sites and skips over the infrastructure problems the developments will create. It is almost as if some sites have been thrown in to fill gaps in numbers
3. One issue which is puzzling me is the original plan placed great emphasis on HS2 and addressing the needs this will create in the borough. However, as I see it 40% plus of the proposed housing development is at the other extreme side of the borough (Shirley Blythe area) which already has congested roads. Ironically i could envisage it taking me 50 minutes to reach the HS2 station by road from my home in Shirley which is longer then the proposed train journey time to London on the new service.
4. Whilst you do explain the reasons for the inclusion of greenbelt land in the plan, and i do recognise the lack of brownfield sites in Solihull, the issue of ample brownfield sites in Birmingham is being swept under the carpet. I understand that Andy Street it taking steps to address this issue to some degree should not your plan support this issue and resources be directed to clean up and develop the large redundant land areas in Birmingham first. I understand developers like nice clean sites which are more profitable to them but as i mentioned in my first point this is a national issue and the best overall solution for all must surely be looked at
5. If you permit the Solihull greenbelt to be built upon you will stop the area being the "pleasant, green, healthy place" to live in and leave areas of Birmingham desolate redundant wildernesses
6. Personally and in respect of where my home is located i am pleased to see that allocation 13 has been removed from the plan but would welcome some reassurances that it will not be seen as a soft option to build on the in the future. Does its none inclusion mean the land is now actually safe from development until 2035?
7. Having attended a public meeting in my locality and taken the opportunity to visit one of your roadshows i am still not satisfied that the plan fully complies with all environmental regulations and guidelines. This could result in the number of homes you plan not being built and some quick fix further sites being identified and "pushed through" at the last minute
8. The loss of numerous sports facilities in the Shirley Blythe area appears to have been swept under the carpet in this version of your plan (having been addressed to a satisfactory degree in your last version). I do not believe I understand the reasons for your change of plan but do understand that rules from Sports England etc would not allow you to continue unless this issue is addressed
The specific Issues I identified in the pln are:
1. Balsall Common is getting a by pass in recognition of the proposed developments. Whilst nothing is proposed for the already busy A34 area
2. In point 126 you mention three train services an hour to Stratford upon Avon from Shirley. The actual case is three services to Birmingham not the other way to Stratford
3. As a regular visitor to Dickens Heath at various times of the day your plan does not recognise it is already a "rat run" for traffic cutting through from presumably outside the borough. The proposals now presented would actually make this worse with no vision of how to relieve existing traffic let alone cope with the extra volumes created
4. Allocation 26 seems to be very light on detail but the suggestion that traffic will feed into existing flows on Haslucks Green Lane and Bills Lanes suggests it has been thought up by someone who has never been in the area between 7.30 am and 9 am. It also does not recognise the narrow width of the road and the safety implications this creates by Bills Wood and the railway bridge on Bills Lane.
5. Finally if the need for news houses is so great why are two new car dealerships being permitted on the mixed use site in allocation 11? There are already seven dealerships in that vicinity and surely the new ones could go on Birmingham Brownfield sites?

From: Neill and Gill Jongman
45, Blackford Road,
Shirley,
Solihull
B90 4DA.

to: Planning Services
Solihull MBC,
Council House,
Manor Square,
Solihull,
B91 3QB

5 March 2019

Dear Sir/Madam

We wish to object to the plans for Housing Allocation 11 Former TRW Site Shirley on the basis that both the high intensity and the location of new housing at the rear of houses on Blackford Road will result in a loss of privacy and the potential for noise. 640 houses is far too many for the site.

Additionally, when the Village Hotel was built, the ridge of earth, known locally as 'the bund' was retained and landscaped to separate the new development from our home. It is now proposed by M7 that the 'bund' and a section of the car park are removed to make way for housing. It is difficult to see why this proposed housing development plans should not be required to retain the 'bund', as was the case for the Village Hotel development plans. The need for separation has not changed after all. The plans would also have an negative impact on the landscape and trees that are currently at the rear of houses on Blackford Road. These trees currently make a significant contribution to the air quality in the area.

We also wish to put on record our belief that despite what their glossy 27 page 'Statement of Community Involvement' says - M7's consultation with the local community has been poor. A single two hour meeting, sparsely advertised and with just five days to respond, is not meaningful consultation. There has been no other communications from M7 since.


Thanks you for your consideration of these issues.

Neill and Gill Jongman
neilljongman@hotmail.com

I am not happy with the decision taken at the Planning Meeting in February to give outline approval for 330 houses in part of Housing Allocation 11. You told us a couple of years ago that you thought the site should take 400 houses. You have now given approval for about 250 starter homes. I think therefore that the remainder of the site should only have approximately 150 houses. And I don't think these should be starter homes either. We need mixed housing, for all generations.

I am exceedingly unhappy at your plans to cut down so very many trees, just to put in lots of houses. This will presumably make lots of money for someone along the line. But in the process it will destroy the habitat of lots of wildlife. These are lovely trees, helping to filter out toxins and improving the air quality. Surely there are designers who could draw up more imaginative plans, positioning houses in such a way that far more trees can be retained.

The traffic in this part of Shirley has already reached full capacity - sometimes these days there are stationary lines of cars both up and down the full length of the road at peak times. If, as you are proposing, we have an additional 1000 houses in Allocation 12, plus nearly 600 houses in Site 11 (which together could be mean anything up to an extra 3000 cars) Blackford Road will not be able to cope. And did you know, possibly not, that Blackford Road has to be closed on occasions, sometimes for weeks on end, because of road collapse?

Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation January 2019

Proposed Housing Allocation 11Former TRW Site Shirley.

On February 13th 2019 Planning Approval was given for 242 housing units on this site. I believe the Council's original figure for this site was for 400 housing units which would mean an additional 158 units are expected rather than the 330 the developer is now proposing. Have the rules changed to allow a much greater density?

Also since the initial plan a retirement scheme, a nursing home and a number of car dealerships have been approved for the site thus further increasing the proposed housing density on the remainder of the site.

The developer also proposes cutting down 206 trees on the site, almost eliminating the wildlife corridor at the rear of the houses on Blackford Road and removing the screening that surrounds the Village Hotel and its car park, which was one of the requirements the Council requested when giving permission for the hotel and car park. The removal of such a large green area is almost certainly to have a detrimental effect on the air quality in the area, as it partly recognised in that houses facing the road are not to have opening windows onto the road. This seems to be a dreadful admission of the likely outcome of such a densely populated scheme.

The approved 272 starter homes seem to be of a very cramped design and the layout of the building in a courtyard fashion makes access difficult for both refuse and emergency vehicles, making it potentially dangerous for the residents. A lower number of additional houses would allow the possibility to build better types of housing which older residents and families could move into.

There also is no plan for any amenities on the site or for any green spaces. This would significantly increase traffic flow in the area as many people would be trying to access or leave the site, especially at rush hour times, when the traffic in the area is already heavily congested.

I appreciate that the Council needs to build more homes, but this proposal does not seem to be the basis of a safe and healthy environment for the future, in keeping with the Council's ideals.

I do not object in principle to the building of houses here, but of great concern is the proposal to INCREASE the number of houses. The effect is twofold. 1) There would be less green space and the increase in people would put even more pressure on local infrastructures, particularly roads.How are the council going to address the massive gridlocks that will result; we have heard nothing about this. 2) the effect on wildlife would be totally unacceptable, the air quality would deteriorate even further. Similarly the felling of so many trees is morally indiffencible

I live in Major's Green and the infrastructure around is at bursting point. We cannot take on extra vehicles without an obverse effect on the country roads. There needs to be an alternative road(s) put in place to take the traffic away, many use the roads at great speed as Rat Runs.

The extra housing will increase traffic and pollution. Bills Lane is narrow and too busy now.

You informed us in November 2016 that 400 houses in total were envisaged over the whole site, with maybe some retail space. Since then a McCarthy & Stone Retirement scheme and a nursing home have been approved. You have since approved three or four new car dealerships and 242 starter homes on part of the site. I think that giving approval to a further 330 houses in the land adjacent to Blackford Road, (thus handing a Builder benefitting from the Government's "Help to Buy Scheme" an enormous profit), would be wrong:-

a) We need housing for all generations, particularly for the 20 or so years, from say 60 to 80, to which people who no longer need family homes, but certainly don't need McCarthy & Stone type retirement flats, can downsize. This would release lots of much needed family homes. See Strutt and Parker - "The Platinum Generation":-
"research shows that there is a clear need for a new breed of retirement communities in the UK. The Baby Boomers have voiced objections to living in the same way as their parents in retirement. Often in good health, with decent pensions and active lifestyles, they want to live where they can continue to enjoy their established way of life, minus the day job. They want access to local culture and recreational facilities - such as theatres, farmers markets and swimming pools - but also accommodation that is flexible enough to meet their future care requirements. Through our research, we have identified a potential solution which we call Platinum Places. These are mixed-use and mixed-age, urban or edge-of-community developments in towns, cities or large amenity-rich villages."

b) To accommodate 330 homes would involve the total destruction of a wildlife environment which has been in existence for forty years or more. As well as the felling of a large quantity of trees, there is a mass of lower level screen planting around the hotel, all contributing to an undisturbed wildlife haven and air quality.

c) Again, in order to accommodate 330 homes, the bunds and screen planting, (a Planning Condition attached to the hotel at the time of its construction), would need to be removed. They were put there to help insulate us from the generated noise and nuisance - even more necessary now with the new Football Bar.

d) The proposed new housing would be immediately adjacent to the hotel with none of the protection from noise and nuisance which the residents of Blackford Road have enjoyed. Why should these prospective new residents be treated more harshly?

e) Maybe thought could also be given to providing a small general shop on the site as this would help avoid car journeys along Blackford Road or Stratford Road to existing shops.

f) The traffic in Blackford Road has already increased substantially in volume lately. And will increase even more so with the additional test driving associated with the car dealerships which you have now approved. What will it be like if an additional 572 housing units are built on The Green (Site 11) and 1000 homes on the opposite side of Dog Kennel Lane (Site 12). Did you know that Blackford Road is liable to collapse on occasion and needs to be closed for repair, sometimes for weeks at a time, because of ground conditions beneath the Road?

g) Most importantly far more trees could be retained if you insisted on a more sympathetic development for the remainder of the site, more in keeping with Solihull's standards.

I object to the proposed density of 46.5 houses per hectare as approved by the Council on 13th February 2019.

The Council approved 242 houses/flats on the first phase, even though the majority of the Councillors at the Planning Committee Meeting on 16th January 2019 complained that the density was too high. An enquiry as to how this scheme was approved on 13th February 2019 is being considered at the moment.

The Council allocated 400 houses on Site 11 in November 2016. Therefore, only a further 158 are needed on the Phase 2 site to meet the Council's requirement. This will allow for low density housing, which will be more in character with the existing housing in Blackford Road, which forms the western boundary of the site.

The car park behind the Village Hotel has a very attractive screen of shrubs and trees on its north boundary to the Blackford Road houses, complete with a raised bund and high level perimeter fence on the north-east boundary. All of this could be retained and new housing located a reasonable distance away in order that new resident families will not be adversely affected by noise and nuisance from the Hotel bar.

A low density scheme will also allow for the retention of all the trees along the boundary with Blackford Road and there would be more public open space available, particularly adjacent to the proposed car dealerships.

All the new housing should be set back from the road so as to provide additional parking/amenity space to supplement the basic requirement of 2 spaces per house.

I note that pedestrian/cycle access is proposed from the site through the private drive between the two Care Homes and leading to the A34 Stratford Road. A better route would be along the existing spine road (Lucas Way), leading to the pelican crossing on the A34.

The Council do not appear to have set any parameters for the Applicant, M7, to comply with such as a maximum density, provision for a community facility or a shop, etc. As it stands, this will be an isolated development completely car dependent - who is going to walk across this large site, across the busy A34 and then down Cranmore Boulevard to the nearest shops, nearly 1/2 a mile in total, on a wet winter's day.

The area is already well served with many car dealerships for a variety of levels and markets, with Nissan itself having three within reasonable driving and public transport distances.

The wider area is short on smaller, 1 to 2 bed properties such as flats, apartment or even bungalows for young professionals/adults and small families.

No where on the plans are any recreational lands, shops, leisure, medical or secondary school provisions, despite the area already being under-served.

Little has been mentioned regarding sustainability or environmental impact, and current plans indicate a large reduction in green space & biodiversity

The Solihull Ratepayers Members Forum and AGM on 8th March considered a presentation on the Solihull Local Plan Review Consultation and the presentations of our views are set out in the attached letter

Too many houses, traffic congestion is always a problem along dog Kennel Lane and Stratford round at peak time so development will only increase issue, pollution will also be an issue.

see attached representation

Proposed Housing Allocation 11 Former TRW Site Shirley
I write concerning the above matter and in response to Mr Palmers letter dated 29th January 2019.

I have grave concerns about the proposed development of the TRW site and feel the residents of Blackford Road are being ignored. I would like to make the following comments for your consideration.

Density

The density of the proposed development has increased significantly since the November 2016 consultation, when It was stated the some 400 homes were envisaged. However this has now increased to 572. The density was discussed by councillors at the planning meeting in January 2019, the majority of them raised concerns. Why has this been ignored and not taken into consideration?

It is my understanding the developer wants to increase the number of houses from 42.5 to 46 per hectare, which as you are no doubt aware is way above the national average. Notwithstanding the increase in the number of proposed new homes, there is the additional cramming in of a retirement complex, nursing home and car dealerships.

Design

The planning committee raised concerns about certain design design elements. Material colours, car ports etc. My concern with the design is that it's not in keeping with the local area and will have an adverse visual impact. Also that a big problem is being created for the future.

Flooding and surface water drainage

When it rains (anything more than a shower) our garden floods. It also becomes waterlogged. The whole of this area is hard clay and the water table is very high. Throughout the year the void under our house has sitting water, this is made worse during periods of heavy rain and during the winter months. In fact a number of properties in Blackford Road have wells in their gardens. I guess there is also a clue in the name of our road BlackFORD Road?

The proposed development at the 'bottom of our garden' would have a catastrophic impact on our property. The proposed removal of trees would undoubtedly have a huge impact water levels (the trees consume extremely large amounts of water, therefore helping to reduce flood water) both in our garden and under our house.

You may not be aware, but the Village Hotel car park already regularly floods despite having the benefit of being connected to drainage.

Adverse effect on our residential amenities.

If allowed to go ahead we would have a total loss of privacy because of the removal of a large number of mature trees, also the removal of the high bund/mound between our home and the Village hotel. The loss of our existing view would have an adverse effect on us. We would be totally overlooked and overshadowed by homes facing directly towards the rear of our home and garden. There would be a dramatic increase in noise and disturbance from the new homes. At present we hear little or no noise from the Village Hotel and its car park due to the large bund/mound, the landscaping and mature trees.



Environmental concerns

The land at 'the bottom of our garden' is home to many different species of wildlife. There are bats (which can be seen flying around our garden during the evening), Woodpecker, Cuckoo, Squirrels, Owls and Foxes. I have also seen Muntjac Deer. What will happen to this wildlife and of course all of the birds?

The loss of trees would have a huge environmental impact. It would undoubtedly increase the risk of flooding our home and garden and would certainly have an impact on the quality of the air we breath. The increased volume of traffic combined with virtually no trees would increase the already high levels of pollution in the area.

Trying to cram in homes at the 'bottom of our garden' makes no sense whatsoever. Also, with the proposed extension of 40+ bedrooms at the Village Hotel, combined with their many functions and events parking would become even more difficult, noise and light pollution would increase, this would have a direct impact on our home and add to our loss of privacy.

Road safety and traffic congestion

Stratford Road, Blackford Road and Dog Kennel Lane already have a significant and increasing problem with traffic congestion.

There are already long queues of traffic on Blackford Road and Dog Kennel Lane on a daily basis. Typically during morning and evening rush hour the traffic queues or crawls past our house in both directions. From the roundabout at Dog Kennel Lane (along Blackford Road) for 300-400 metres and more. The problem at the Stratford Road end of Blackford Road is worse, the queues are often 600-700 metres long. There is a steady and busy flow of vehicles outside of peak times. Building new homes would dramatically increase the already chronic traffic problems and make it even more difficult for residents to get on and off their drives safely (which is already an issue).

Blackford Road does not have the capacity to take anymore traffic. There is also an ongoing problem with subsidence, which would only be made worse by increased volumes of traffic.

Blackford Road is used many times every day by the emergency services. They already have to weave their way through queueing traffic, increased levels of traffic will compound the problem with potentially life changing consequences.

Many of the vehicles currently using the existing Dog Kennel Lane site arrive in the morning and leave at night, with very little traffic at the weekend. The proposal to build hundreds of new homes would generate far more traffic twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

Many homes now have at least two cars. The proposed development has insufficient parking, the problem would therefore in reality be much worse.

Other

If the trees were to be removed and our gardens and homes flooded, this would potentially blight our homes and make them both uninsurable and unsaleable. Who would we sue? The developer or Solihull Council?

The images below show our rear garden and the privacy we currently enjoy, I hope these are helpful.

The Green is an acceptable area of development with much infrastructure already in place on the albeit busy Stratford Road. Why on earth are you planning to build another two car showrooms. The area is already saturated with similar sites. You have an opportunity to build dozens more houses on this site and so relieve pressure on the other nearby areas

The area has a disproportionate amount of housing planned which would just extend the sprawl along the Stratford Road. This would increase the levels of pollution which are already high. There are far too many car showrooms already!

See Letters 1 and 2

For many years the hedge that fronted Lucas onto the Stratford Road was considered necessary by the council to enhance the frontage and for aesthetic appeal and was truly a 'green'. Now this area is already covered in car dealerships and soon '650 units'. This obviously no longer makes the site 'aesthetically appealing' but is blight on the landscape. The traffic entering and leaving the proposed development will be significantly increased and will only shunt the problem further up the Strafford Road towards Shirley and surrounding roads, like Blackford Road and Marshall Lake. The queues to enter the Monkspath roundabout in rush hour are already severe as are those to the M42.
In addition a proposed junior school will make matter worse for residents as the 'school run' will create more traffic and add to the chaos as is evident with Our Lady of the Wayside school Stratford Road.
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.

Whilst this is a preferable site to the GreenBelt land for housing, the impact of this site must have a bearing on and be taken into consideration when analysing other proposed sites

I am very concerned about the flooding problem with our gardens on Blackford road they flood easily and as far up to the patio on occasion.of which I have photographic evidence .The removal of 200 trees will massively impact on our properties adjacent. We also have the noise and extra traffic problem not to mention the vast wildlife we have over the back. The view of being backing onto a house and garden will massively affect the price of our property and yet no form of consideration of compensation has been. Given to the residents of Blackford road,"

Please see my comments in the attached letter.

Whilst I support this site's redevelopment I am very disappointed to see the potential loss of "tech" businesses with skilled workers. We will see only service industry jobs (in car showrooms) on this site. This is a waste of a valuable and rare brown field site. I am disappointed that the site is being pushed for ever increasing density with the loss of trees and habitat. Good design should enable both to be able to co-exist. Yet again Shirley is being sold short.

The Green will loose two hundred tress Currently providing
- habitats for many types of birds including owls and bats
- drainage for a site that persistently floods
- support for governmental clean air initiatives
The high density nature of this application (which was only passed due to a lack of due diligence of minuting at the original planning meeting) will result in a concrete jungle - residents/ children deserve greater consideration.
Increased levels of traffic on already busy roads through
1 new residents
2 deliveries
3 employees to the site
Causing increased pollution noise and respiratory conditions long term

In Nov 2016 developers proposed 400 houses & possibly some retail space. Since then plans have been passed for 242 homes & the developer wishes to build a further 330 homes which would mean felling 206 trees. I would question this when 158 would bring it to the Council.'s figure of 400. The loss of so many trees will greatly affect air quality & drainage. Plans include removing the bund & trees that protect nearby homes from noise & nuisance from The Village Hotel.These were created at the request of the Council as a condition before granting approval for the hotel.Permission has also been granted for a Residential home & McCarthy & Stone dwellings & 3 or 4 Car dealerships.
The traffic along Dog Kennel Rd & Blackford Rd has substantially increased recently what will it be like if 572 homes are built on site 11 & 1000 on site 12? More air pollution?

As noted in my response to questions 12 and 14 of this consultation, I do not believe that site 11 should be included if both sites 4 and 12 are also included, due to the inequitable scale of proposed development in the Blythe area versus those of other areas, which simply cannot be justified. However, of the 3 sites (4, 11 and 12) this site makes the most sense for development given that there is already existing development in place and therefore it does not have such a radical effect on Green Belt land

Site 11 - The Green

Of all the sites in and around Shirley this is the one that I consider to be a good location. Any development in this area will have a significant impact on infrastructure however it is an existing Brownfield site and has good transport connectivity. However I am disappointed that a significant opportunity has been missed. Rather than building even more car showrooms this land could have been better utilised by building houses. The mixed use area of this site should be for housing, reducing the need to develop inappropriately on Greenfield sites 26 and 4.

I am a resident of 10 Rosebriars. It's unacceptable to build so many homes on our door step. We are at an accident black spot corner where vehicles have gone into our fence and increasing our insurance cost. We live in fear already. Its Despicable that plans are to allow vehicles onto Haslucks Green Road. Its already overused and congested. There is lack of infrastructure to cope with the traffic and other community facilities
The whole village effect is going to be wiped out with so much of a concrete jungle, forget the CO2 inhalation to the residences health.