Question 38 - Amber Sites

Site named allocation 4 shouldn't be part of the plans. The provision for the three sports clubs won't be adequate losing a large part of the community. There are currently at least ten pitches and the new plans would only give back two. Clubs will have to disband as they just won't have the facilities or space. Further development will only add to existing flooding issues. A lot of local wildlife will also lose their habitat along with a large number of mature trees.

Yes they should be protected. Again we are being endangered of becoming a spawling extention of birmingham. Congestion in the whole borough is already unacceptable. The more large developments approved for high prices small footprint houses with tiny gardens, the more congestion & Solihull loses its character and becomes like redditch!

Land r/o 114 to 118 Widney Manor Road, Solihull (ref A7)

The proposition to build up to 22 new dwellings within the rear gardens of 114-118 will incur several detriments on the location:

1) Access road would be in a potential blind spot on Widney Manor Road. The road has heavy traffic in rush hour, with daily congestion toward the junction with Widney Lane. Additional traffic, and the need for a left/right turning would further interrupt traffic flow
2) Damage to mature gardens and trees
3) Notable change to the character of the area, in terms of housing styles, architecture and gardened areas

Also noteworthy is that one house within the proposed development area is run as a business (i.e. a bed & breakfast). As such, it may be that their concerns for commercial gain over impact on the area are significantly different to those of their neighbours.

Amber site 413 should be omitted in order to:
1. mitigate against already increasing urban sprawl
2. preserve Green Belt land to maintain open, green spaces that support and sustain our dwindling and pressured natural world - both its flora and fauna (and at the same time, help to reduce greenhouse gases and global warming - major modern-day issues for present and future generations). I believe that the proposed use of Green Belt land would be contrary to the purposes & objectives of Green Belts as set out in national planning policy.
3. give opportunities for local residents and visitors to benefit from the character of the landscape and the visual amenity it offers, as well as to enjoy nature and the mental wellbeing which that affords
4. retain agricultural land which is vital for food production
5. help to reduce flooding and erosion by maintaining land drainage, which would be adversely affected by further expansion of the built environment - this is already an issue on Blue Lake Road and Norton Green Lane

In addition, the proposed density of housing in Amber Site 413 is significantly out of keeping with existing adjacent developments (almost three times the housing density). The effect of this would be as follows:
1. It would put a massive strain on already stretched local amenities and infrastructure, especially given the proposals for other major increases in housing numbers and population in the surrounding areas. The pressure on local roads is already significant, there is no means by which they can be altered to accommodate a significant increase in traffic, and there is no likelihood of the provision of (currently totally absent) public transport on these surrounding roads.
2. It would be at odds with, and would adversely affect, the rural character of the local area,(some of which are Conservation Areas) in respective of its existing open spaces, the currently generous spaces between houses, the sizes of gardens (and the amenity they provide not only for residents but also for plant and animal life), and the general rural character of the area.

In summary, development of Amber Site 413 would have a detrimental effect on the local and surrounding area in terms of congestion and pressure on infrastructure, loss of Green Belt land, loss of amenity for humans and wildlife and loss of character of the local environment.

With reference to SITE 308. As a resident I strongly object to building development taking place on this site for the following reasons:
1. It is in a clear green belt area.
2. For conservation reasons - there are bats in this specific area.
In addition there are other wild life in this area specifically bagers, deer and fox as well as a variety of rare birds.
3. Access and congestion issues - there is currently no clear access point to the land.
4. Traffic and safety as the limited access is close to a cross roads accident hot spot.
5. Environmental - pollution issues and increased noise and traffic.
6. Proximity to railway and station - see points 4 and 5 above.
7. Dangerously close to a flood plain.

Blythe & Shirley
Land r/o 575A to 587 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green (ref A1)

The above is not clearly listed on your website for support or objection. This needs to be made easier for the general population to support or object. It appears to have been set up in favour of the developers. It also appears that this deal has already been agreed as the one of the houses included has already been sold.

The letter sent to residents does not explain the intentions of the council and developers. It is not written in a way that residents can understand. It does not give reasonable instructions on how to navigate to the correct online web page or links.

I have read the Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation document which includes all the developments already started in the area. There are plenty of houses already being built in Cheswick Green and surrounding areas.

The idea of building more houses near or on the sites of 575A to 587 Tanworth Lane shows a complete disregard to the residents of Cheswick Green in particular those who live on Coppice Walk and Tanworth Lane. We have already had to put up with years of disruption, noise and site traffic to Cheswick Place development. Any new development is therefore strongly opposed.

Although I understand the government and councils are under pressure to build more houses and the development companies can cash in it is the poor local residents who will have to suffer.

This plan is strongly opposed

In reference to site 100: Mount Dairy Farm. It sits to the rightmy property boundary and Planning permissions have recently been given for a development to the rear for an imposing extension,now under construction. I only took residence 18 months ago and am very worried that now a second, even more imposing,light restricting,privacy stealing development will take place. Mount Dairy Farm is part the local heritage. The land sits on higher ground, newbuild will therefore cast a south-east shadow over all of my garden if built within 10 meters of boundary. Not to mention the possibility streams of rainwater running onto Archer Drive in heavy downpours where gardens already get bogged. I believe any further development to build on site 100 will take away from it's current rural appearance and add to the urban sprawl. I am also concerned that it's being ringfenced as an Amber site would be developer driven with financial rewards the ultimate incentive.

NOT ENOUGH FACILITIES COMPARE TO MORE HOUSES BUILT TANWORTH LANE IS OVER 1 MILE LONG THERE IS NO BUS SERVICES NO BUS STOPS PUBLIC TRANSPORT IS VERY POOR IN AREA IT IS NO EXACTLY SAFE FOR PEDESTRIANS AS IT IS VERY NARROW WALKWAY ON BOTH SIDES MOST OF TIME IT IS COVERED WITH LONG BUSHES TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD HAS GONE EXTREMELY BUSY SINCE NEW ESTATE HAS BEEN BUILT THERE IS NO TRAFFIC CONTROL OR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING EITHER

Land r/o 575A to 587 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green (ref A1)

Where I live in Cheswick Green Bloor homes have just built approx. 200 houses at the back of me and you can access them via Tanworth lane or coppice walk. The Blythe Valley development has also just started with another 750 home being built. There is also a proposed new development for Dog Kennel lane. How many houses are due to be built around the Cheswick Green area ?

I am not opposed to having new developments built but I am opposed to so many, the infrastructure isn't being improved when these developments are going up, no care is being taken to improve the roads so therefore more and more traffic is on the road making it harder to get of my village in the morning. This is just for starters.

There are no proposed new schools, doctors.

Not only that, if this development goes through off Tanworth lane that effects my house. In May last year coppice walk got flooded and my house was one the houses that got flooded. The water poured through my garden from Cross Roads garage like a river into my house. This causing a substantial amount of damage. Damage I am still putting right. If new houses were to go up at the back of me this would cause major problems. Also cross roads garage is an active fuel station so the contamination would be a big worry for residents on this road.

See Letter

I object to the land at r/o 114 to 118Widney Manor Road being down graded to Amber. My property is adjacent to this land. I feel building here will be detrimental to the area, increase traffic & air pollution, and spoil the general area. I feel this will impact negatively on house prices within this over 55s estate.

I object to the proposal to extend the Greenbelt on the land at Golden End Farm.
I believe that the existing Greenbelt boundary should be maintained and that the infrastructure does not provide for such an increase in housing on this already busy road.
Furthermore, I don't believe that Knowle as a village has the capacity to cope with such a large influx of residents.
It is very important to maintain the village as a village and such an increase along with the already agreed expansion would significantly impact negatively on the village.

My objection is primarily to A1 575 A to 587 Tanworth Lane but also covers A2 Land at Dairy Mount Farm.

My objections are based on three issues :

1) Increased risk of flash flooding
2) Reduced security
3) Development unlikely to be in keeping with the character of the area

1) Flooding
My biggest concern is the increased risk of flash flooding. My property in Coppice walk is the lowest adjacent to the site and is already subject to flooding. Flood water has entered the propery twice in July 2007 and May 2018. In addition there have been numerous other occasions when the garden and garage have flooded during heavy rain. During heavy rain significant amounts of water enter our and our neighbours properties through the rear boundary to the proposed site and being the lowest propery all this accumultes on my propery and the storm drainage becomes overwhelmed.
The proposed Site at A1 slopes down Tanworth Lane until it gets to our property. Consequently all rainwater falling onto the site will drain the same way. Currently the site is over 99% grass and woodland which attenuates the run off although as mentioned above heavy rain still causes problems.
If the site is developed then I expect a large percentage of it to be covered by buildings driveways and roads which rainwater would run off immediately putting my and my neighbours propery at risk everytime it rains, increasing the frequency of flood events and potentially making our properties more or less unsalable and uninhabitable.
Of course flood defences of the type used on Cheswick Place could be incorporated into the plan but they take considerable room on what is a reasonably modest sized site and the developer will no doubt push to minimise their scale, cost and consequently effectiveness. I also have concerns who is going to maintain such flood defenses into the future as if they fall into disrepair they will end up useless.

2) Security
Currently our property has no public access to the rear making it secure. Crime in the local area has increased significantly since Cheswick Place has been built probably due to the accessible nature of the development and lack of working streetlighting. Development of the A1 site has a high risk of creating public access to the rear of our property reducing its security. Properties with open garden boundaries are at greater risk of crime and harder to sell.


3) Development in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood

There is obvious pressure both from the developers and the local authorities to increase the density of new housing being built. Considering the current lowrise and open aspect of the neighbourhood in this part of Cheswick Green I would consider the three story type properties being built on Cheswick Place not to been in keeping with the current character of the neighbourhood

The amber land r/o 114/118 Widney manor road should not be used for housing as this will make an already busy road even worse. The land is very much a wildlife habitat. Also the land further along has tree preservation orders and is hilly. I live at 20 The Spinney and if building was proposed by me I feel it could block the light out from my lounge if a building was erected. Also Widney lane is very busy and indeed at times very congested and very difficult and dangerous to get out from the Spinney so extra roads or traffic is only going to make this worse.

The Council is seeking views on two sites in the KDBH Area.
It appears that these are put forward as possible additional sites if the Council has to make further site allocations. It is not clear if they are candidates to replace sites which are currently draft allocations. However, if the Council is persuaded that any draft allocations are unacceptable, then it is assumed that these sites will either be possible alternatives or additional sites.
It is clear from the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum (NF) objections to the 2016 DLPR that residents were opposed to that scale of development for the reasons set out in its 2016 response and summarised below:
* 1400+ houses in Knowle is disproportionate and unsustainable
* 1400+ houses in Knowle is inconsistent with the spatial strategy which itself is inconsistent with other Council strategies and Draft Local Plan policies
* the scale of development proposed in Knowle is not justified by the Council's methodology and study findings
* the site selection methodology is unclear and its application seriously flawed
* the scale of development proposed in KDBH fails to take into account the impact on services and infrastructure
* the views of residents as expressed in the KDBH Residents Survey have not been taken into consideration
* there has been inadequate consideration of reasonable alternative patterns of distribution either Borough wide or at the KDBH level
* the proposed scale of growth will lead to an unacceptable loss of village intimacy, identity and character with adverse impacts on the Knowle Conservation Area and the wider KDBH area.
These comments still hold good and therefore the suggestion of any additional housing in KDBH, over and above the scale that is already opposed, is not acceptable. However, if some parts of the amber sites could be developed as alternatives to all or parts of the draft allocations, then there may be some merit in considering those further.
Once again, there is no indication of possible impacts or community benefits on which to make a proper assessment in the Supplementary Update.

Golden End Drive, Kenilworth Road
As a highly performing parcel of GB, it would be contrary to the Council's assessment criteria to allocate this site. It has some advantages because of its proximity to the centre of Knowle but could only be considered if small scale rounding off were possible that retained views of the church/Conservation Area and protected the canalside environment by a substantial green buffer.
Blue Lake Road, Dorridge
When the original, much smaller, submission was displayed at NF Developer Day, it attracted a number of positive comments. The original part (site 104) and part of 413 have merit as they are closer to Dorridge centre and the station and are on less well performing Green Belt. However, there is no bus access and the far parts of the site are similar to the Arden Triangle site in terms of distance from shops and services.
It is unclear if site 109 Land south of Grove Rd is intended to be included in this wider proposal.
Overall, if Arden Academy stays in its current location, the western end of the Blue Lake Rd site performs better than the remainder of the Arden Triangle site as it is lower performing GB which integrates better into the landscape and existing settlement. This site, or a clearly defined part of it, may be considered as an alternative to the Arden site (not in addition to it) and only in the event that the Academy is not relocated. For the reasons previously given, the KDBH infrastructure cannot accommodate even the 900 plus houses proposed without serious harm to village life and character.
The Council should consider the possibility of taking only parts of some of these sites out of the GB. This does not mean that substantial permanent boundaries will not exist. Well defined field boundaries can be appropriate which could lead to more sympathetic development and a less blunt approach than the Council is currently taking.
The Council should also review its assessment of sites in its Appendix D. I referred in my response to Q2 to the apparent inconsistencies in the assessment of several sites. In particular, many of the small sites were not included in the Interim Sustainability Appraisal and some appear to perform reasonably well but are placed in the red category. Examples in KDBH include those referred to in Q2 but also small sites such as 207, 210, 344 and 135. Some of these perform well on a number of criteria and may be able to overcome concerns such as defensible GB boundaries through the creation of new boundaries (as proposed at Hampton Rd). Consideration of some smaller sites could also enable more 'rounding off' or infill of the built area in some places as well as spreading the impacts across a wider area. A mix of large and smaller sites in a more dispersed pattern would have less impact on the GB, be more consistent with government guidance and potentially being less damaging to village character and infrastructure.

Address 112 and the proposed development would be next door.
We are deeply concerned with any proposed development taking place on widney manor rd, we have recently purchased a property and the proposed development will impact on the local area and the value of our properties on the said road. We have been in contact with out solicitors Shakespeare's martinue in respect to the people proposed development because we would not have spent such a vast amount of money if we knew this was taking place and would like to know what if any money's will be paid in compensation.

Flooding
Should the site eventually be considered for re-development, possibly the strongest (and justified) objections will come from residents of Coppice Walk.
The lay of the land means that in times of only moderate rainfall, water will flow from the garage site and enter gardens. This is evidenced by the fact that the garage owner dug a trench alongside a part of his site to try and prevent this happening. It failed. There are often times when our gardens are so boggy from this additional water flow that they are practically unusable.
If yet more land in the proposed site is concreted over, the situation will only get worse.
We are already under siege from the River Blythe with its inability to handle flood waters in times of heavy rain. Cllr. Ken Hawkins, in his latest newsletter made reference to several balancing ponds being required in the Shirley area to prevent so much water entering the brooks and rivers surrounding Cheswick Green and Dickens Heath. He says he is on the case but I will not be holding my breath!
The effects of new (and still under construction) development stretching from Coppice Walk to Tanworth Lane is still to be tested in times of heavy rainfall. We have had moderate rainfall since the deluge of May 2018 and I understand from some residents that the balancing ponds didn't even pass that test. Since then many more houses have been built and land which once soaked up water is now concrete.
Environment
As I am sure you appreciate there are also environmental concerns regarding the garage (part of the proposed site) which has underground fuel tanks requiring removal plus I am informed that the site is currently green belt and should remain so.
Safety
The proposed exit from the site onto Tanworth Lane is an accident waiting to happen. The road is narrow with a blind bend and is already having to cope with the excess traffic now exiting the previously mentioned development between Tanworth Lane and Coppice Walk.

See attached letter

Site 413 - Development on this scale in addition to what is already planned would destroy the very fabric and charm that is Dorridge village. Infrastructure would be crippled and the additional traffic created would cause a significant health and safety risk. Much green belt land would be lost, hedgerows destroyed as well as many mature oak trees, which would affect wildlife. Inevitably property prices would be adversely affected in surrounding areas, causing hardship to many. With 950 units already in the plan, I consider KDBH have accommodated more than their fair share of housing development in the Birmingham area.
see letter submitted

see attached letter

I object to the inclusion of Golden End Farm Ref A4 as an 'amber' site, and believe this should be permanently omitted from the plan. The area designated is highly scoring green belt (11) and must be preserved to keep the rural charm of Knowle. Kixley Lane is used daily by walkers, dog walkers, cyclists, and canal traffic, due to its lovely, peaceful, countryside feel and historical beauty (such as Far End, serving as one of Knowle's oldest inns). I use this route frequently and believe development adjacent to Kixley Lane would spoil this site's historical importance for future generations.

I am commenting on site 59 and 110and a red site 98.
Site 59 kixley Lane is the oldest road in knowle with historical importance and the proposed Amber site 59 would be detrimental iif that road were submerged in the middle of a new housing site at 59. It is currently situated on edge of the village and adjacent to green belt landscape going down to the locks. The same applies to site 110. From the canal you see a beautiful landscape on the edge of the village. Which would be lost if houses were built here. When approaching the village by car or foot from the kenilworth road, if a housing development were built here it would result in losing the real village character you experience as you approach knowle and the church from the kenilworth road. Kixley Lane is so narrow it takes one car in one direction only and even small delivery vans struggl to navigate. it is not built to take the traffic that would be created and already the kenilworth road is congested and it takes me a good five minutes to cross the road at kixley junction each morning when walking my dog down kixley Lane. Site 98 was red but may now be amber so I would like to comment on that too. Site 98 is at the back of my property and is so important for wildlife, it is wooded and has foxes, a pheasant, woodpecker, wood pigeons, a doe, rabbits and two cats all living on that land as well as numerous birds and bats. They have settled here because people do not pass through the area and the wildlife feel safe here. I have pictures of these animals and birds that I have taken at various times if proof is required. It would be a terrible loss to nhe natural wildlife if this site were lost to development.

This site should be omitted as if it was built on then it would cause a massive traffic flow problem down Kixley Lane and also along the Kenilworth Road. The Kenilworth Road is already extremely busy and living in Cook Close I find it very difficult to cross the road at all times. Kixley Lane is a very old established lane and would not benefit from having traffic up and down it. There is also an entrance to the school there, so at times the lane is already congested with traffic collecting children and dropping them off at the school.

Cheswick Green cannot cope with more development

These sites should be omitted. The Arden triangle and Hampton Road sites already add circa 900 dwellings to Knowle & Dorridge, village environments never designed to deal with this capacity (schools, doctors, roads, parking). Specifically, land off Blue Lake Road already suffers with flooding. Grove Road, Blue Lake Road and Norton Green Road are all narrow and without footpaths making them hazardous to pedestrians and traffic. The area has been heralded nationally as desirable, attracting wealth creators, bringing greater prosperity to the area. Further development would surely destroy one of the last desirable village locations in the Solihull Borough.

I live at no 43 and was not one of those formally notified.
For now at least the land should remain green belt
It would seem the designation is being debated following the description
In the Site Assessment Document dated Jan this year at pp393 ff
The sustainable appraisal there is not one sided but it is difficult to comment
Because the reasoning behind the various judgements is unspecified
The built development in Kixley Lane was commissioned by the Council
For those then working locally in agriculture and is now a conservation area
And of local historic interest
Those on the westerly boundary fewer in number but more substantial were allocated
To those working locally particularly I am told in the Health Service
So the ribbon on either side is unlikely to be extended
The Shella heading may well merit re examination of the economic aspect because of growing uncertainty regarding inter alia the importance of retaining good quality
Agricultural land
So in summary leave as is unless compelling reasons for alteration based on experience following 1/4/2019

FTAO THE POLICY AND DELIVERY TEAM:

I wish to express my concern regarding the proposed use of land adjacent to Kixley Lane for a further development of housing.

Firstly the letter, passed on to me by my mother who lives on Kixley Lane, states to make comments through the online portal. I cannot work out where on your site this is and since there is no indication of a link in the letter, I have chosen to email. The www.solihull.gov.uk/lpr brings up nothing relating to the proposal on Kixley Lane as far as I can see?

Solihull Council has approximately 1200 empty/derelict houses and it is infuriating to think that rather than renovate these, the council are considering taking more of our beautiful English countryside - our green and pleasant land.

It would be absolutely criminal to build houses on the field adjacent to Kixley Lane; this being the oldest lane in Knowle and a pathway for many to our beautiful countryside and beyond. Canals do not look quite so appealing when lined with housing. This is green belt/farm land and needs keeping this way.

Kixley Lane needs to stay as it is. Please do not ruin yet another beautiful Road in Knowle. We live on Hampton Road and have already been subjected to the development by Miller Homes; we lost the fields behind us - tragic.

Keep Kixley Lane as it has been for years and should always be. There is no need to develop on this land. This site should most definitely be excluded from the plan in my opinion, for what it's worth.

See letter

This land should NOT be considered for future planning development:
1.The land in question is a wildlife corridor that supports badgers, bats,
foxes, muntjac deer etc. These animals are picked up regularly by our
wildlife camera.
2. The road infrastructure cannot take the additional traffic congestion
and access issues which would result, particularly the junction at Widney
Lane/Widney Manor Road and railway station access. Accidents at this spot
are a regular occurrence and there is not enough room to add a traffic
island.
3. Additional light, noise and environmental pollution would add to the
current incessant road and rail pollution.

The local plan should not include 413 as it would significantly compromise the local area due to the inability of the local roads and infrastructure to cope with a large increase in traffic usage. Such a large development will destroy the uniqueness of Dorridge.
There are other areas adjacent to the motorway which would be better location for new housing such as 207 which already has better road infrastructure and proximity to Solihull town centre which would also allow residents to travel into town without having to use cars.