Question 14 - Site 12 - Land South of Dog Kennel Lane

This Area is called the Blythe Valley because it is a valley with streams and rivers, These fields act as flood plains, with Dickens Heath having already been flooded twice, building large amounts of houses will increase the risk of flooding to old and new homes.

see attached representation

There is enough use of sites in this immediate area for car showrooms etc, we do not need any more land being built on causing more congestion. Flood planes need to be thought about as excess building causes the water table to be interfered with as happened when Dickens Heath was built

Why has a traffic survey not been done. Dog Kennel Lane is already very heavily congested, mostly with Dickens Heath Traffic. Additional houses at dickens Heath and Dog kennel Lane will create Grid Lock. Flooding is also a major concern. Last year saw the worst flooding in Shirley since I moved here over 60 years ago. Not enough open space is being left ss flood plains.

The only housing which should be built on this site should be a single row along Dog Kennel Lane kerbside. What you are proposing will, with the exception of a pitifully small strip of land, allow Shirley to be joined to Cheswick Green in the fullness of time when it's infill is allowed. The traffic on this road already causes the Stratford Road to come to a standstill at its intersection due to the vast amount of traffic entering the traffic island as does the Cheswick Green vehicles a little further along the Stratford Road.

Your report states "Site 12 is within a parcel of moderately performing Green Belt, and given the existing field structure, does not have a clear contiguous defensible Green Belt boundary to the south. This will need to be provided by a strong edge to the proposed development e.g. a new road, which will demarcate the built-up area from the surrounding countryside and provide a meaningful gap with Cheswick Green" This is an inaccurate statement as the "site" currently has a very clear boundary (eg Dog Kennel Lane), developing on this site will clearly start to in fill between Shirley, Monkspath and Cheswick green directly conflicting with the declared intent to have a "meaningful gap with Cheswick Green"

Additionally, the existing road capacity in this area is already inadequate - I would be surprised if the council are not aware of the rush hour queues into, and out of, Dickens Heath, along Dog Kennel Lane and the Stratford Road towards the M42. With the additional developments around Dickens Heath, Cheswick Green, Tidbury Green and the proposed developments in The Green and land south of Dog Kennel Lane the whole area will become grid locked and access to proposed school will surely be difficult / dangerous at best.

Disproportionate amount of housing planned here. This site would merge Shirley into Dickens Heath. Traffic is already congested and polluting the atmosphere. Is it really the correct place for a School?

Cycle paths would be hazardous and lead to nowhere because of local congested roads.

Please see attached.

1. The Concept Master Plan refers to an Inspectors Report, due to have been released in late 2017. Is this Report available for comment?

2. The 'historic' setting of the Grade II listed Light Hall Farm is being degraded by a high conifer hedge when viewed from Dog Kennel Lane. Will this be reduced to a reasonable height? Otherwise the Developer may say that if you can't see it, we will remove it and build you a dozen starter homes.

3. The proposed road providing a defensible Green Belt boundary to the south of the site is an excellent idea. It will presumably connect with the A34 at the existing roundabout which serves Monkspath Hall Road. My plan for the road is attached and shows connectivity also with Dickens Heath, Site 26 and Whitlocks End Station.

4. The Developers' Proposal Plan is much larger than the SMBC Concept Plan and should be limited to the line of the proposed new road, shown broken line on the attached plan. The Council indicated a site capacity of 850 in their November 2016 DLP.

any 'green breathing space will be taken away from the area and the traffic will once again be considerably increased. This will result in more and more traffic being shunted on the A34 and surrounding roads by the possibility of some 4,000 extra cars (by some 2050 houses all to be in the Blythe ward). This will of course be exacerbated by traffic from a proposed school.
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.The 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 'meaningful gap' with Cheswick Green has already been reduced by the recent building of properties on Tanworth Lane; this will therefore decrease any 'gap' further.
There will be significant pressure on schools, congestion, pollution and flooding. Whilst flood zones are said to be avoided, the building of houses with concrete drives and small gardens will only exacerbate real flooding issues.

It would breach an effective green belt boundary between the conurbation and open farmland and be an incursion into the rural area, undermining the viability of remaining green belt.
The gap to Cheswick Green would be greatly reduced. It would destroy the rural character of Cheswick Green and promote conurbation expansion.
It's a serious flood risk to homes in Cheswick Green, which the proposals do not recognise.
Adjacent main roads, including M42,are very congested and have no spare capacity for this development.
It is an inappropriate location for sustainable travel, particularly to work.
Public transport accessibility is poor.

These fields are natural flood plains, as stated in published documents by Professor Kathryn Moore Birmingham City University.

I am pleased that this site has seen a change in it's boundaries so that it no longer encroaches on Shirley and Dickens Heath. This site should be promoted to use the Monkspath route into Solihull and infrastructure changes should be made to avoid traffic passing through Dickens Heath and the South Shirley area. I would like to see a strong edge provided between the development of this site and Lighthall House ( as well as that propsed) and a commitment to prevent future development closer to South Shirley (At Tanworth Lane/Baxter's Green area).

This area forms a natural break between Shirley and other villages and should be kept as such. A thousand homes is a huge number of properties. What consideration has been made for schools, doctors, etc, and for the hugely increased amount of traffic on and around the Stratford Road.

I have recently moved to the Checkwick Green from central Solihull. Over this time the development I moved to has almost been completed. At the same time further houses have been developed in Tidbury Green. Every morning, the local roads into Solihull, Shirley or the Motorway are gridlocked between 8.15am - 9.30am. The infrastructure is the area has not been adapted to cope with the current population in crease, let alone any future increase. No cycling routes have been included and no proper pedestrian path from Checkwick Place into Shirley. These are basic infrastructure developments that should have been considered. Furthermore, there is no train line or tram line that runs across from Redditch to Solihull to the Airport. All routes are centralised into Birmingham. The local infrastructure cannot cope with any further housing and has not been adequately developed to cope with the houses built 1-2 years ago and currently being built.

This area has seen significant development in recent years, if this site is lost there will be very little green space. Affecting air quality & wildlife,

The original number of houses for this site was 850 now increased to 1000 will even more be planned for this site?
Roads in this area are already congested in peak times this will make the problem considerably worse & cause yet more polution.

I strongly object to the inclusion of site 12 as an allocated site. This is for the reasons as follows:

* The overall scale of development for the Blythe area is completely inequitable versus other areas

* Whilst the extension of the site East is more reasonable, to prevent development around the listed building to the West (Light Hall Farm), I note that the proposed number of dwellings has increased by 150 from the original plan. I fail to see what could possibly be the rationale for this? Surely expansion of numbers at lower allocation areas should be explored

* The proposed development has severe implications for the demarcation of Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green, directly at odds with the objectives of the Local Plan. The proposed development removes any determinable barrier between both settlement and continues the urban sprawl from Shirley, subsuming these distinct village.

Having looked in detail at Taylor Wimpey's drawings, I must object to what is proposed. We are going to end up with many thousand "starter" homes, which might be suitable for young couples but not for families. It is now common knowledge that these large Builders are finding is exceedingly lucrative to cram in more and more of these tiny little boxes as they are benefitting from the Government's "Help to Buy" Scheme.

These large schemes should contain a mix of homes, suitable for all generations, and in particular thought should be given to those in the 60-85 generation, whose children have left but who by no means need the final step of McCarthy & Stone type accommodation.

There are so many of us, singles and couples, in large homes, with large gardens, which we would like to release for families. But there is very little suitable property available. We want to downsize - smaller gardens, just two or three bedrooms, but still with reasonable sized open plan living accommodation plus space for office/hobbies. Fit and healthy retired people, not short of funds, don't want to downsize to the thousands of tiny cramped starter homes now about to be built

But until good quality down-sizing homes are built, we will be blocking families from moving into our sizeable family homes.

Loss of greenbelt leading to urban sprawl. No defined boundary. SMBC has not done a site specific assessment of this site. Lack of infrastructure to support this development - roads already too busy with traffic jams at rush hours. Medical provision not adequate for current population never mend more. Flood risk in Mount Brook catchment will increase - the granting of permission for development on Site 11 will already add to the problem. Loss of habitats, ancient trees and hedgerows - area includes TPO trees. Not close to areas where new job opportunities likely ie near HS2 development.

Q 14 - Site 12 - Land South of Dog Kennel Lane
Light Hall Farm is a building of historic significance to the area and I'm pleased to see that it is now to be preserved in any development.

This is an extensive site and whilst not used to the same extent by the community it still plays an important function. My main concern is that the development area has been extended up to Creynolds Lane. Building houses up to Creynolds Lane is contrary to the objective of protecting key gaps between urban areas and settlements. Site 12 provides a valuable green, healthy area separating the areas of Shirley and Cheswick Green. To virtually adjoin these areas with more developments would turn a well balanced Mature Suburb into a vast urban sprawl and would destroy the semi rural feeling of the area and be detrimental to the identity and community of the areas.

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

As stated in the SMBC Emerging Concept Masterplan for site 11, 12 and 26 the proposed allocation of site could provide around 1900 homes which would require 11ha of public open space. Clarity is sought as to whether any playing pitches and ancillary provision will form part of the public open requirement to meet the demand generated from the new residents and to help address the shortfall in playing pitch provision as identified in the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy.

Q 14 - Site 12 - Land South of Dog Kennel Lane
Light Hall Farm is a building of historic significance to the area and I'm pleased to see that it is now to be preserved in any development.

This is an extensive site and whilst not used to the same extent by the community it still plays an important function. My main concern is that the development area has been extended up to Creynolds Lane. Building houses up to Creynolds Lane is contrary to the objective of protecting key gaps between urban areas and settlements. Site 12 provides a valuable green, healthy area separating the areas of Shirley and Cheswick Green. To virtually adjoin these areas with more developments would turn a well balanced Mature Suburb into a vast urban sprawl and would destroy the semi rural feeling of the area and be detrimental to the identity and community of the areas.

Not as demonstrated in the plan.
The extension of Site 12 is of concern.
Whilst the land in question does not necesarily perform as well as some others, and it is closer to sustainable transport, it still represents an increasing extension of the development of Shirley. Furthermore, it is also setting concerning precedents for what represents reasonable distance between distinct settlements. It would be inappropriate for Cheswick Green to be absorbed into either Shirley or Monkspath settlements. It would also endanger the other Blythe settlements if such a precedent were to be set.

Protecting Light Hall Farm is to be commended.
Efforts made to retain Public Open Space and protect the setting of Light Hall Farm are to be encouraged. Where there is concern is over the setting of the primary school. The school is in the most remote location of the development. If there are security or safeguarding grounds for this then they should be made clear. If however, it is merely by chance that this has come about then there should be better efforts made to promote active travel from the locations it will serve. It would be the least accessible location and would likely affect the whole development with parents who do not use active travel, also placing additional load on the A34 and Dog Kennel Lane at peak times.

Dog Kennel lane and surrounding roads simply will not cope with the extra traffic that this site will produce.

I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED SITE 11 BUT EXTENDING THIS AS FAR AS THE PROPOSED SITE 12 SOUTH OF DOG KENNEL LANE WILL FURTHER IMPACT ON THR RESIDENTS OF SHIRLEY. TRAFFIC IS ALREADY BACKED UP THROUGH SHIRLEY EVERY DAY AND THIS WILL ONLY SEEK TO ADD FURTHER PRESSURE. THE PROPOSAL OF A NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL IS NOT SUFFICIENT FURTHER HOUSING PROVISION IN SHIRLEY WILL ADD FURTHER PRESSURE ONTO SECONDARY SCHOOL PLACES WHICH ARE IN HIGH DEMAND AND THEREFORE NOT PROVIDING THE RESIDENTS WITH ADEQUATE SCHOOLING PROVISION

See Letter

See attached letter

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.

See Letter