Question 15 - Site 26 - Whitlocks End Farm

Q 15 - Site 26 - Whitlocks End Farm

I am very pleased to see that site 13 has now been removed from the plan. This area should now be made into a formal public open space.
However, the revised Local Plan doubles the density at Site 11. Site 12 has been expanded all the way to Creynolds Lane, and a new Site 26 has been introduced on Bills Lane. The location of site 26 being the worst of the three. In combination, these sites put immense pressure on infrastructure and will make our air pollution problem even worse.
The new site 26 introduced on Bills Lane is unsustainable and will make our air pollution problem even worse. The presence of the large numbers of Christmas trees, other mature deciduous trees and mature hedgerows within site 26 enhances the air quality, absorbing greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane. Losing this would significantly increase pollution, increase the Carbon footprint and have a considerably detrimental impact on air quality affecting the health of people living by this site.
The impact on the function of high performing Green Belt status of land will be lost which is contrary to Government Policy.

If the proposed development of Site 26 was to go ahead then there would be significant effects on the water table in the area, both in terms of run-off and drainage. The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy from April 2015 doesn't factor in surface water, meaning that the flood risk at site 26 is significantly underestimated. The long term predictions are for wetter weather throughout parts of the year. I am concerned that the constraints map used to detail the flood risk across the borough doesn't fully capture all the areas of concern, including Site 26.

Building houses on site 26 is contrary to the objective of protecting key gaps between urban areas and settlements. Site 26 provides a valuable green, healthy area separating the areas of Shirley and the ever expanding Dickens Heath Village. 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. If this site were to be developed then the greenbelt between the two would be little more than a belt.

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 traffic situation is really bad. Site 26 would add to this. The new Local Plan does not seem to realise the scale of this problem or even that it exists. 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 and Bills Lane cannot be effectively improved. This is not being addressed by SMBC.

The access to this site would be off Bills Lane. This part of Bills Lane is already subject to heavy traffic and there are visibility problems accessing Bills Lane on this part of the road which would become even more potentially dangerous.

I accept that there are no easy solutions to addressing the housing crisis, but protection of the greenbelt and reducing pressures on infrastructure need to be at the forefront.

The current plan proposes a totally iniquitous and disproportionate 38% of Solihull's additional housing needs concentrated in the Shirley South area. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Developing residential buildings in the town centre makes good sense especially in terms of offering good transport connections and supporting the local economy in the town centre. However, the concentration of settlements to the south of Shirley does not make any sense. The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive and Haslucks Green Road. The addition of new homes on this site will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.

I can understand the logic of building residential properties in the vicinity of UK Central, but not around Shirley. Residents would need to utilise both the A34 and the M42 to access employment areas, worsening what are already congested roads.

The Blythe Valley Business Park development should be supported by well planned residential development that will create an overall sense of place and a more sustainable location. There should be an integration of residential and business developments at the Blythe Valley Business Park and not building homes away from job growth areas on the greenbelt land of Site 26.

Also there are other smaller sites throughout the Borough that are more sustainable to locate this development which are designated as amber category in the Local Plan to replace the Site 26 proposal.

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

Its unacceptable to have so many houses built around this area. There is no infrastructure to support it. There is lack of public transport and community facilities. Roads are already overused and congested. Heavy goods vehicles use roads which are so narrow, not allowing passage of two cars.
Building a concrete jungle will create a lot of CO2 foot print and taking away the village identity.
As residents of the area we strongly object to the enormity of so many houses being built and showing no consideration to the residents in the 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.

The SLP Review Draft Proposal for Site 26 states that this site potentially accommodates 1000 dwellings. In effect, Site 26 butts up to the proposed Site 4, forming a single development segmented by the canal. The total size of this combined development would be 1700 dwellings, and remove the green belt region between Shirley and Dickens Heath, and creating virtually a single urban area of these two. The green belt between Shirley and Dickens Heath is there to separate these two communities and ensure green spaces for urban living.

Q 15 - Site 26 - Whitlocks End Farm

I am very pleased to see that site 13 has now been removed from the plan. This area should now be made into a formal public open space.
However, the revised Local Plan doubles the density at Site 11. Site 12 has been expanded all the way to Creynolds Lane, and a new Site 26 has been introduced on Bills Lane. The location of site 26 being the worst of the three. In combination, these sites put immense pressure on infrastructure and will make our air pollution problem even worse.
The new site 26 introduced on Bills Lane is unsustainable and will make our air pollution problem even worse. The presence of the large numbers of Christmas trees, other mature deciduous trees and mature hedgerows within site 26 enhances the air quality, absorbing greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane. Losing this would significantly increase pollution, increase the Carbon footprint and have a considerably detrimental impact on air quality affecting the health of people living by this site.
The impact on the function of high performing Green Belt status of land will be lost which is contrary to Government Policy.

If the proposed development of Site 26 was to go ahead then there would be significant effects on the water table in the area, both in terms of run-off and drainage. The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy from April 2015 doesn't factor in surface water, meaning that the flood risk at site 26 is significantly underestimated. The long term predictions are for wetter weather throughout parts of the year. I am concerned that the constraints map used to detail the flood risk across the borough doesn't fully capture all the areas of concern, including Site 26.

Building houses on site 26 is contrary to the objective of protecting key gaps between urban areas and settlements. Site 26 provides a valuable green, healthy area separating the areas of Shirley and the ever expanding Dickens Heath Village. 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. If this site were to be developed then the greenbelt between the two would be little more than a belt.

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 traffic situation is really bad. Site 26 would add to this. The new Local Plan does not seem to realise the scale of this problem or even that it exists. 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 and Bills Lane cannot be effectively improved. This is not being addressed by SMBC.

The access to this site would be off Bills Lane. This part of Bills Lane is already subject to heavy traffic and there are visibility problems accessing Bills Lane on this part of the road which would become even more potentially dangerous.

I accept that there are no easy solutions to addressing the housing crisis, but protection of the greenbelt and reducing pressures on infrastructure need to be at the forefront.

The current plan proposes a totally iniquitous and disproportionate 38% of Solihull's additional housing needs concentrated in the Shirley South area. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Developing residential buildings in the town centre makes good sense especially in terms of offering good transport connections and supporting the local economy in the town centre. However, the concentration of settlements to the south of Shirley does not make any sense. The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive and Haslucks Green Road. The addition of new homes on this site will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.

I can understand the logic of building residential properties in the vicinity of UK Central, but not around Shirley. Residents would need to utilise both the A34 and the M42 to access employment areas, worsening what are already congested roads.

The Blythe Valley Business Park development should be supported by well planned residential development that will create an overall sense of place and a more sustainable location. There should be an integration of residential and business developments at the Blythe Valley Business Park and not building homes away from job growth areas on the greenbelt land of Site 26.

Also there are other smaller sites throughout the Borough that are more sustainable to locate this development which are designated as amber category in the Local Plan to replace the Site 26 proposal.

I object to this latest proposal as it is no better than the original proposal of Allocation 13.
The original plan was for 600 houses and the area touched on to Dickens Heath Road/Tanworth Lane at one end and Bills Lane/Haslucks Green Road - an assumption would have been that approximately 50% of traffic would exit/enter one end, and 50% would exit/enter at the other putting more traffic onto already congested roads - this latest site 26 proposal will now only affect Bills Lane/Haslucks Green Road end with 300 houses - therefore the traffic impact will be no better for Bills Lane and Haslucks green road which is already overloaded with traffic coming from Dickens Heath. This point is touched on in the plan in the word "shifting" and acknowledging that Dickens Heath Road is already congested - 'Shifting the focus of vehicular traffic movements away from the congested Dickens Heath Road to Bills Lane/Haslucks Green Road.'

I do not see this current proposal as sustainable due to the high volume of houses in one focused area.

Despite changes to the initial plan I gather that Shirley South is still to receive 38% of proposed new housing in the Solihull borough, which remains disproportionate and unacceptable given the size of the borough.
The effect on the local area by way of flooding and environmental issues is in no way fully understood and not addressed in the proposal from what I can understand. This area suffered massive flooding in April of 2018. If housing is built on the natural land and flood plains the results could be much worse than previously.

I will also refer to a point I made in my initial objection of the 38% of housing in Shirley is that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In the case of HS2 which is referred to in the current plans, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to these proposed Shirley developments - therefore more congestion would be caused by people driving to the proposed HS2 station as there is inadequate public transport to that area of the borough.

Traffic congestion and accident black spots on Bills Lane, this will only increase.

Increased erosion of our green belt.

Sadly not.
There is much to commend in the wording around this section of the plan. Maintaining the gap between Dickens Heath and Shirley, removing Site 13 from the plans, Green Belt compensation enhancements. But there are still issues with it.
A precedent of acceptable distance between settlements is set by Site 26.
Whilst I commend the Council for removing Site 13 from the Local Plan, there are issues with Site 26 that need addressing. I will go into as much detail as possible, so as to avoid any confusion.
The Site is clearly not as harmful as Site 13 was. Though it is "less bad" in relative terms, it does not mean that it is bad in and of itself. The most significant aspect of this is the precedent it sets with regards to the acceptable distance between Shirley and Dickens Heath. Residents were told that the existing distance between the settlements was the minimum and would be preserved. The encroachment in numerous places between settlements is creating a problematic precedent that risk merging distinct areas.
In terms of access, there are two main concerns here. The site has two access points shown, which may or may not be deliverable. Currently one acts as access to a private property so may not be suitable without significant adaptation or by removing that property. The other is either the access to the Christmas Tree Farm (Wood's Farm), or the access to the bridleway. If it is the latter, that is problematic. The bridleway currently acts as a service road to a minimal number of properties on the site. Increasing the volume of traffic will be disruptive and potentially dangerous to walkers and riders (and animals - dogs/horses). This would act as a deterrent to those accessing the canal at the far end of the bridleway. There should not be developments that deter people from active leisure and so this has to be carefully considered.
The second issue around access is with regard to how accessible the site is. Whilst on paper relatively short distances could be drawn between parts of the settlement and the two closest train stations, Whitlocks End and Shirley, they are not direct routes that can be walked. Furthermore, this location has next to no bus connectivity. The upshot is that it will increase car dependence and prohibit some modal shift. This will all place greater load on Bills Lane, which is experiencing issues primarily around the Burman Road, Shakespeare Drive area. It will place greater load on Shakespeare Drive, Burman Road, Haslucks Green Road, School Road, Hurdis Road, Union Road and the A34. Whilst some of these roads act as arterial roads, they are residential in their design. There is limited possibility for adaptation and many play a pivotal role in encouraging active transport. Bills Lane currently acts as a barrier to active transport. A clear indication of this is to watch school children trying to cross it at peak times. It is terrifying to watch and should be taken into account when putting plans forward.
Expanding the issue of safety, it should be noted the number of accidents that have happened in recent years close to the access of the site. Problems come about from speeds of drivers coming up the hill from Haslucks Green Road and a perception of it being a rural road, due to the vegetation on the rail embankments. There are also challenges with speed coming from the Stratford Road, with a fatality in the vicinity in recent years. This is exacerbated by navigation encouraging the route as a cut through that avoids the M42. Ensuring pedestrian safety in this area and environs should be front and centre of any potential plans. Sadly, the plans as they are laid out do not demonstrate how they will enhance safety, but do present challenges with greater vehicle movements, especially with exiting onto a stretch of road with concerns over speeding.
Finally, the concentration of housing in Blythe is disproportionate and not fair. As such this would be a reasonable site to remove.

Although extremely pleased site 13 has been removed, this replacement is not much better, Bills Lane and the stretch of Haslucks Green road that border site 26 are extremely narrow with no potential to improve them , there is also the question of where school age children who would inhabit this site would be educated ?

The quality of the developer proposal image is so poor it is very difficult to understand what is being proposed to therefore make an informed judgement on suitability. It would be undesirable to lose green belt land. This in site alone may be acceptable, but in addition to the other proposals around Dickens Heath will result in significant overdevelopment and more properties than the area can support. It will cause significant issues with traffic, parking, overcrowding of trains and strain on facilities.

WITH FURTHER HOUSING BEING PLANNED FOR AREA 26 I WOULD BE WORRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ON BILLS LANE, WHICH IS BACK TO BACK TRAFFIC IN THE MORNINGS AND EVENINGS. THE FOOTPATHS DOWN PART OF BILLS LANE ARE NARROW AND ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC.VOLUME WILL MAKE THE AREA CONGESTED AND DANGEROUS.
BY BUILDING IN AREA 26, IT WILL ONLY LEAVE A NARROW GAP BETWEEN DICKENS HEATH AND SHIRLEY IMPACTING ON OUR LIMITED GREEN OPEN SPACES.
IN COMBINATION WITH THE NEWLY EXPANDED SITE 12, IT WILL END UP ENCLOSING THE AREA COVERED BY SITE 13 ON 3 SIDES AND POSES A THREAT FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ON SITE 13.
SEE BELOW

See Letter

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

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

See letters 1-4

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.

On behalf of our Client Mrs M Joyce, we now formally submit on her behalf representations in connection with the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation.

The key question raised in the DSLPRSC is Question 39, which offers
an opportunity for our client to confirm she wishes her site to be included and the
reasons for that. In addition, this representation also addresses the following
questions: 2, 7, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 39 and 44.

see letter attached

We write on behalf of our Client, Kendrick Homes Limited, who have an interest in land to the north side of School Road, Hockley Heath - referred to as Land adjacent 84 School Road (Site Ref: 49) within the Council's current Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation (DSLPRSC).
see details in attached letter

We write on behalf of our Client, Belle Homes Limited in respect of Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Numbers 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green, Solihull B90 4JE. This letter is submitted in response to the current Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation (DSLPRSC
See detail in attached letter

We write on behalf of our various Clients, who jointly own land described below:
Proposed Allocated Housing Site 22 - Trevallion Stud, Wootton Green
Lane, Balsall Common CV7 7BQ
Also including consideration of land west of No. 32 Wootton Green Lane Site
Reference 160
see detail in attached letter

See Letter

see letter attached

representations submitted on behalf of Real Christmas Trees - see attachments

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