Question 44 Are there any other comments

We live on lawnswood avenue in Shirley adjacent to our long rear garden is freasley close council owned bungalows. There is potential access from freasley to our garden for 4 new bungalows. But the developers says council will not consider selling small pockets of land as short staffed? This seems wrong when chance of council selling land & 4 new needed bungalows could be built?

Dear Gary Palmer/ Planning Team,
Thank you for your response and updated proposal regarding the new spatial allocation plans for south Shirley Blythe Valley area 2019

First i would like to say thank you and i welcome the decision to remove the controversial Allocation 13 from the draft local plan. The new proposal of Allocation 26 looks like a far better proposal.
Regarding the new Allocation 26 if this development does go ahead my only concern would be that this site is developed tastefully and reflects and blends in with the areas rural location taking in to account the area is rich in native wildlife,so any development would also be nature and environmentally friendly. Also i would hope that the Historic Bridleway (Peacock Lane) is left undisturbed along with the English Heritage site of Whitlock End Farm. Also my self and other local residents would hope that the new development of Allocation 26 is contained and does not spread any further towards existing Baxters fields or any further towards land towards the Dickins Heath canal so that this new Allocation 26 site does not further encroach other existing communities of south Shirley of Baxters & Woodloes Road south Shirley communities or destroy further greenbelt towards Dickens Heath Community so as to prevent a coalescence of communities as set out in the governments NPPF. paragraph 80 function of greenbelt.

Regarding other Allocations in the south Shirley Blythe Valley area noting Allocation 4 Dickens Heath and Allocation 12 Dog Kennel Lane i know there is still some serious concerns that these proposed amounts of housing development sites of land are still far too large and may cause some serious local infrastructure problems along with excessive pollution especially as we know Bromsgrove District Council have large Allocations along the Whitlocks station side which if they go ahead may lead to a serious problem for existing local communities. My thoughts on this is that you could consider reducing the size of these developments so that they do not over load the south Shirley Blythe Valley Villages.

After looking at looking at the proposed greenbelt land developments for the solihull borough it has been noted that the Blythe Shirley south area is still bearing the brunt of excessive development of 41% while knowle is 17% Dorridge & Hockley Heath is 7% Meriden 1% & Bickenhill 31% ???
This obvious percentage of greenbelt loss for South Shirley Blythe Valley is still unbalanced and unfair and i would again ask Solihull Council to look again at this and spread the developments more fairly across the borough especially as we know we are taking on some of Birmingham Councils Housing shortfall and from what i understand Birmingham Council are still dragging their feet in clearing up the large amounts of Brownfield sites that are still available I would ask that Solihull Council can continue to press Birmingham Council to get its act together and clear up the Brownfield sites before anymore of Solihull greenbelt is sacrificed as i still think Brown field sites of Birmingham should be developed first before we lose our precious urbs in rure .

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.

Any proposals for development on land around Clopton Crescent/Newby Grove are unacceptable on both environmental and community satisfaction grounds

I would like to register my opposition to any future development in the Clopton Crescent as outlined in the SMBC Draft Local Plan.

The areas concerned were always intended for public recreation purposes as outlined in a Covenant with The City of Birmingham. This Covenant was overturned without the knowledge of, or consultation with the local residents.

The Parks Depot was only allowed to be constructed on the understanding that ir was for storage of machinery necessary for the maintenance of the local Green Spaces. We were assured at the time that if the depot were to close at anytime the land it stands on would revert to Green Belt for the benefit of the locals.

In an era when the Local Authority itself is expressing concerns over air quality I find it amazing that they are attempting to build on every green space possible. The green areas as we have are the lungs of the Borough

The proposed development which is to include 3 story flats is be totally out of character with the rest of the estate.

It is difficult enough to exit from Clopton Crescent onto the Chester Road at present, adding potentials another 40 vehicles to the estate can only lead to further delays

1) Why weren't all owners of Pinfold Road informed about the plans.
2) Why did the council originally send letters out about drop in after they had already taken place. This happened last time as well. I was the only person in my road who went to one and nobody else was informed!
3) Why at drop in do there appear to be only fairly junior council staff. Why aren't senior council officials there, why aren't the locals MP's there, why isn't the Major at one or two. Most of those people said they would fight to protect the Green Belt.
4) Why is there no new discussion on traffic impacts, transport impacts, Medical Centre impacts.
5) Why on the plan diagrams is so little regard paid to existing property owners. No details about fences, ways of blocking properties now being overlooked. Nothing about how wildlife that visits gardens may be effected and how to counter act this.
6) Why are locals not asked face to face about these plans. For instance why not have a drop in near each development and at a time when people who work can visit. Why not have the local MP attend.

I feel that this consultation is really just the council going through the motions and they really have no interest in people who are effected and their complaints.

see attached letter

Dear Sir / Madam

Thank you for consulting Lichfield District Council on the Local Plan Review. The comments below focus on the primary areas of concern Lichfield District Council have. It remains the case that Lichfield District Council would welcome Duty to Cooperate meetings to address such matters prior to the regulation 19 publication version of the Solihull Local Plan.

* There remains concern that Solihull is not committed to fully addressing the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) shortfall. The supplementary consultation does not seek to provide justification as to how Solihull has arrived at providing an additional 2000 dwellings in addition to its OAN as a ceiling towards the shortfall, and does not have regard to the housing requirement options set out in the further strategic growth study.
* That whilst the recognition of the potential need to revise the housing requirement figure in the regulation 19 publication version is welcome, the concern regarding failure to meet the commitments associated with cross boundary cooperation remains as it is indicated that Solihull will only be updating their position in the version that is published. Without cooperation with authorities in the Housing Market Area, it remains the case that any finalised figure has not had appropriate assessment.
* That the land supply of 726 more than the OAN plus the 2000 identified to meet the shortfall in Birmingham is noted, but that it is not known if the provision provides a sufficient buffer to meet the need because, the requirement has not been justified.
* The refinements regarding methodology and approach to site selection appear to be soundly based on a sustainable approach to allocating sites based on their previously developed / greenfield status, accessibility to services and impacts for the Green Belt in line with the NPPF approach. However, the flaw remains that the identification of the additional 2000 to meet the shortfall has not been justified for the reasons previously set out. Accordingly, further sites may need to be identified and released.
* That the Local Plan should look to identify requirement and provision to 2036 which is the end date for the Strategic Growth Study and not to 2035. This ensures consistency in meeting provision across the HMA authorities.
* That the sustainability appraisal has not been updated to take account of the changes proposed in the supplementary consultation to the Draft Local Plan. Lichfield DC is also concerned that without agreement through duty to cooperate in respect of how the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area shortfall requirement is apportioned in the most appropriate way, the SA assessment will not have properly considered suitable alternatives and established the most sustainable strategy.

Dear Sir / Madam

Thank you for consulting Lichfield District Council on the Local Plan Review. The comments below focus on the primary areas of concern Lichfield District Council have. It remains the case that Lichfield District Council would welcome Duty to Cooperate meetings to address such matters prior to the regulation 19 publication version of the Solihull Local Plan.

* There remains concern that Solihull is not committed to fully addressing the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) shortfall. The supplementary consultation does not seek to provide justification as to how Solihull has arrived at providing an additional 2000 dwellings in addition to its OAN as a ceiling towards the shortfall, and does not have regard to the housing requirement options set out in the further strategic growth study.
* That whilst the recognition of the potential need to revise the housing requirement figure in the regulation 19 publication version is welcome, the concern regarding failure to meet the commitments associated with cross boundary cooperation remains as it is indicated that Solihull will only be updating their position in the version that is published. Without cooperation with authorities in the Housing Market Area, it remains the case that any finalised figure has not had appropriate assessment.
* That the land supply of 726 more than the OAN plus the 2000 identified to meet the shortfall in Birmingham is noted, but that it is not known if the provision provides a sufficient buffer to meet the need because, the requirement has not been justified.
* The refinements regarding methodology and approach to site selection appear to be soundly based on a sustainable approach to allocating sites based on their previously developed / greenfield status, accessibility to services and impacts for the Green Belt in line with the NPPF approach. However, the flaw remains that the identification of the additional 2000 to meet the shortfall has not been justified for the reasons previously set out. Accordingly, further sites may need to be identified and released.
* That the Local Plan should look to identify requirement and provision to 2036 which is the end date for the Strategic Growth Study and not to 2035. This ensures consistency in meeting provision across the HMA authorities.
* That the sustainability appraisal has not been updated to take account of the changes proposed in the supplementary consultation to the Draft Local Plan. Lichfield DC is also concerned that without agreement through duty to cooperate in respect of how the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area shortfall requirement is apportioned in the most appropriate way, the SA assessment will not have properly considered suitable alternatives and established the most sustainable strategy.

see attached letter

See letter

See letter

Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

I wish to register my objection to the on-going proposal, in the Draft Local Plan, to build 220 housing units on the greenbelt, greenfield land between Windmill Lane and the Kenilworth Road in Balsall Common known as Site 3.

I understand that the council has recently decided, in line with government policy, to develop three brownfield sites in Balsall Common at Wootton Green Lane, Lavender Hall Farm and Pheasant Oak farm. These sites were suggested by residents to the council as alternatives to site 3 (and also site 2, Frog Lane) in the last consultation in 2017. However, rather than developing these sites instead of the greenfield sites, they are to be developed in addition. Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers (South Shirley and Dickins Heath) and Dorridge has not been allocated any housing sites at all. This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.

To manage any significant expansion of the village needs careful planning, in terms of schooling, traffic, housing sites and amenities, alongside HS2. There is no timing plan within the Draft Local Plan to give residents the confidence that any growth will be managed. The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. There is no capacity to take any more children until a new school is built. Public transport is inadequate with infrequent bus services and there are only 2 trains every hour during peak times, so people depend on their cars. As yet, there has been no assessment done of the Highways to ensure the road network can cope, at least until such time that the bypass is built. The Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. All this affects the air quality in our village and the health of the residents. Given that many of the proposed sites are in open countryside, it is also worrying that no Ecological Assessments have been made available to the public. I understand that there is a proposal to build a new settlement to the north of Balsall Common and I would urge the council to seriously look at that as an alternative to imposing any significant level of new housing on Balsall Common, a village which is already clearly "bursting at the seams".

Turning to site 3 itself, this is a greenfield, greenbelt site in the Meriden Gap. Mayor Andy Street and Leader of the Council, Bob Sleigh, have both pledged to protect this precious area. The development of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet so, as residents, we do not understand why the site is being included. The council has also assessed the sustainability of the site and it scores very poorly (9 negatives and only 2 positives), not least because it stretches so far out from the village boundary that you would need to drive to the village shops, the medical centre, the train station and the primary school. Just because there are two housing estates now built in the vicinity should not provide a "shoo- in" to build on the rest. The area is rich in wildlife - owls, red kites, woodpeckers, deer, hawks, numerous insects, bats, amphibians and the protected Great Crested Newts, to name but a few. As there are no plans to include nature reserves, unlike the other two greenfield sites at Frog Lane and Barrett's Farm, the habitat and feeding grounds for these creatures will be destroyed. There is also the danger of light pollution from street lights having a detrimental effect on nocturnal creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads, clearly putting the lives of the newts at risk.

Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane. Otherwise new residents will be expected to access their homes through the Meer Stones Road estate. This means that drivers from 280 dwellings (including Meer Stones Road residents) will be trying to access the road network from two points, one of which is the busy Kenilworth Road and the other Windmill Lane. This lane is already turning into a fast "rat run" as drivers try to avoid the congestion in the village. This is not sustainable.

Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local, regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill, but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this would be an absolute travesty. This is a magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for generations to come.

All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.

Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise as well.

In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no need to build here.

The Borough's criteria for social housing includes priority for 'Troubled Families' and victims of domestic abuse. My concern is that currently all the support infrastructure for these families is based in the North of the Borough. The plan mentions no arrangements to bring in such support systems. Current bus time tables means public transport is not available to help these families access much needed support services. This plan reflects the recent rehousing for such families in Meriden who are now looking to return to the North where the support exists and facilities for young people are more readily accessible.

Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common
I wish to register my objection to the on-going proposal, in the Draft Local Plan, to build 220 housing units on the greenbelt, greenfield land between Windmill Lane and the Kenilworth Road in Balsall Common known as Site 3.
I understand that the council has recently decided, in line with government policy, to develop three brownfield sites in Balsall Common at Wootton Green Lane, Lavender Hall Farm and Pheasant Oak farm. These sites were suggested by residents to the council as alternatives to site 3 (and also site 2, Frog Lane) in the last consultation in 2017. However, rather than developing these sites instead of the greenfield sites, they are to be developed in addition. Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers (South Shirley and Dickins Heath) and Dorridge has not been allocated any housing sites at all. This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.
To manage any significant expansion of the village needs careful planning, in terms of schooling, traffic, housing sites and amenities, alongside HS2. There is no timing plan within the Draft Local Plan to give residents the confidence that any growth will be managed. The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. There is no capacity to take any more children until a new school is built. Public transport is inadequate with infrequent bus services and there are only 2 trains every hour during peak times, so people depend on their cars. As yet, there has been no assessment done of the Highways to ensure the road network can cope, at least until such time that the bypass is built. The Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. All this affects the air quality in our village and the health of the residents. Given that many of the proposed sites are in open countryside, it is also worrying that no Ecological Assessments have been made available to the public. I understand that there is a proposal to build a new settlement to the north of Balsall Common and I would urge the council to seriously look at that as an alternative to imposing any significant level of new housing on Balsall Common, a village which is already clearly "bursting at the seams".
Turning to site 3 itself, this is a greenfield, greenbelt site in the Meriden Gap. Mayor Andy Street and Leader of the Council, Bob Sleigh, have both pledged to protect this precious area. The development of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet so, as residents, we do not understand why the site is being included. The council has also assessed the sustainability of the site and it scores very poorly (9 negatives and only 2 positives), not least because it stretches so far out from the village boundary that you would need to drive to the village shops, the medical centre, the train station and the primary school. Just because there are two housing estates now built in the vicinity should not provide a "shoo- in" to build on the rest. The area is rich in wildlife - owls, red kites, woodpeckers, deer, hawks, numerous insects, bats, amphibians and the protected Great Crested Newts, to name but a few. As there are no plans to include nature reserves, unlike the other two greenfield sites at Frog Lane and Barrett's Farm, the habitat and feeding grounds for these creatures will be destroyed. There is also the danger of light pollution from street lights having a detrimental effect on nocturnal creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads, clearly putting the lives of the newts at risk.
Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane. Otherwise new residents will be expected to access their homes through the Meer Stones Road estate. This means that drivers from 280 dwellings (including Meer Stones Road residents) will be trying to access the road network from two points, one of which is the busy Kenilworth Road and the other Windmill Lane. This lane is already turning into a fast "rat run" as drivers try to avoid the congestion in the village. This is not sustainable.
Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local, regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill, but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this would be an absolute travesty. This is a magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for generations to come.
All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.
Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise as well.
In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no need to build here.

See letter

South Shirley seems to be the soft target in this planning. We have had the sprawling Dickens Heath conurbation foisted onto us and it has grown beyond what we were told it would be.
The council say they are concerned about traffic pollution...have they even come onto Tanworth Lane and the surrounding roads at peak times??

See Letter

The proposed development of the simon digby green space will i believe will have a severe / detrimental effect on the Cole bank nature reserve.
several years ago a habitat improvement project was completed. This , to quote

"will encourage the development of river features such as gravel beaches, riffles and pools which will themselves support a greater diversity of wildlife."

"to enable cleaner, greener, safer and healthier neighbourhoods."

I regularly use this park and it has supported a great diversity of wildlife i.e. kingfisher, herons, buzzards to name a few.
The development of the simon digby site will certainly undo the development of this area and it would be a great pity to lose this valuable greenspace

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?

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?

Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

I wish to register my objection to the on-going proposal, in the Draft Local Plan, to build 220 housing units on the greenbelt, greenfield land between Windmill Lane and the Kenilworth Road in Balsall Common known as Site 3.

I understand that the council has recently decided, in line with government policy, to develop three brownfield sites in Balsall Common at Wootton Green Lane, Lavender Hall Farm and Pheasant Oak farm. These sites were suggested by residents to the council as alternatives to site 3 (and also site 2, Frog Lane) in the last consultation in 2017. However, rather than developing these sites instead of the greenfield sites, they are to be developed in addition. Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers (South Shirley and Dickins Heath) and Dorridge has not been allocated any housing sites at all. This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.

To manage any significant expansion of the village needs careful planning, in terms of schooling, traffic, housing sites and amenities, alongside HS2. There is no timing plan within the Draft Local Plan to give residents the confidence that anygrowth will be managed. The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. There is no capacity to take any more children until a new school is built. Public transport is inadequate with infrequent bus services and there are only 2 trains every hourduring peak times, so people depend on their cars. As yet, there has been no assessment done of the Highways to ensure the road network can cope, at least until such time that the bypass is built. The Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. All this affects the air quality in our village and the health of the residents. Given that many of the proposed sites are in open countryside, it is also worrying that no Ecological Assessments have been made available to the public. I understand that there is a proposal to build a new settlement to the north of Balsall Common and I would urge the council to seriously look at that as an alternative to imposing any significant level of new housing on Balsall Common, a village which is already clearly "bursting at the seams".

Turning to site 3 itself, this is a greenfield, greenbelt site in the Meriden Gap. Mayor Andy Street and Leader of the Council, Bob Sleigh, have both pledged to protect this precious area. The development of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet so, as residents, we do not understand why the site is being included. The council has also assessed the sustainability of the site and it scores very poorly (9 negatives and only 2 positives), not least because it stretches so far out from the village boundary that you would need to drive to the village shops, the medical centre, the train station and the primary school. Just because there are two housing estates now built in the vicinity should not provide a "shoo- in" to build on the rest. The area is rich in wildlife - owls, red kites, woodpeckers, deer, hawks, numerous insects, bats, amphibians and the protected Great Crested Newts, to name but a few. As there are no plans to include nature reserves, unlike the other two greenfield sites at Frog Lane and Barrett's Farm, the habitat and feeding grounds for these creatures will be destroyed. There is also the danger of light pollution from street lights having a detrimental effect onnocturnal creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads, clearly puttingthe lives of the newts at risk.

Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane. Otherwise new residents will be expected to access their homes through the Meer Stones Road estate. This means that drivers from 280 dwellings (including Meer Stones Roadresidents) will be trying to access the road network from two points, one of which is the busy Kenilworth Road and the other Windmill Lane. This lane is already turning into a fast "rat run" as drivers try to avoid the congestion in the village. This is not sustainable.

Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local, regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill, but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this would be an absolute travesty. This is a magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for generations to come.

All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.

Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise as well.

In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no need to build here.

The Recreation Ground off Meeting House Lane in Berkswell is a long established and valuable recreational space and we support its designation as a Local Green Space as proposed in the Berkswell NDP; therefore Site 169 Blessed Robert Griswold should be removed from the LP as a potential development site.
The LP should also specifically exclude the development of Site 30 Land rear of 67-95 Meeting House Lane because of its ecological, landscape and historical importance.

See Letters 1&2

A stated aim of the Draft Local Plan is to"identify land where development would be inappropriate because of its impact on, for instance, environmental or historic assets" (para6). We would strongly argue strongly that that it fails in this aim with regard to the proposed development on the eastern edge of Balsall Common.
Balsall Common
If the Local Plan is to deliver "sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities"(para 1) then it has a duty to act on their views. We are very concerned that the Draft Local Plan does not mention the Berkswell Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan despite it having reached the Submission Plan stage after extensive consultation with residents. SMBC must take into account and act upon the content of that Plan and the outcome of the consultation; specifically, it must respond to the strong opposition expressed to the 'overwhelming scale of change' proposed. The selection of Balsall Common to meet much of SMBC's housing needs is not supported and it is not a sustainable location for large amounts of new market and affordable housing, which should be focussed in the main urban cores and areas.
With regard to the village infrastructure requirements (Q3, paras87-94) the Plan correctly identifies the existing significant pressure on the village centre, station parking, traffic and community facilities. However, this must not be used to justify the proposed scale of development with its consequent loss of Green Belt Land and the increase in population and traffic which would turn the village into a town. Such large scale development (900 houses on the Barratt's Farm site alone) creating a potential 50% increase in population with the associated increase in traffic and infrastructure requirements must not be permitted without undertaking a full formal analysis of the additional impact it will have on the village centre and facilities.
If development is to be permitted then the infrastructure improvements to the village centre and the construction of the bypass must be completed before development of the Barratt's Farm site is commenced.
Concerns about the Preservation of the Green Belt
Para 97 - Once this historic landscape is removed from the Green Belt it can never be reclaimed. The importance of protecting the Meriden Gap cannot be too highly emphasized. To extend the Green Belt boundary at its narrowest point to the east of the village (only 2 km) and build on Barratt's Farm will defeat its primary intention of restraining urban sprawl between Coventry, Birmingham and Solihull.
We would urge you to adhere to the findings of The SMBC Solihull Borough Landscape Character Assessment (Dec 2016) which states
LCA5 Balsall Common - Eastern Fringe "is an attractive largely rural landscape with urban influences, being in close proximity to Balsall Common. It is characterised by its historic field pattern and pastoral fields. * Overall, the area would be able to accommodate only small areas of new development, which would need to be of an appropriate type, scale and form, in keeping with the existing character and features of the landscape. Any new development should not result in the loss of the historical field patterns or facilitate the further expansion of Balsall Common into the countryside."
Para 96 discusses land taken up for development as providing"an opportunity for not only additional accessible open space, but also for wider Green Infrastructure improvements (e.g. parkland/woodland). This is especially important in the context of the Barratt's Farm development and provides an opportunity to link up with the Greenway (which is now to be extended further to link to the station). Before, and in addition to, any additional accessible open space provided it is essential that any permitted development on the wider Barratt's Farm site preserves the existing playing field/recreational space off Meeting House Lane as well as the significant footpath network. Both of which are of major importance to the community and routinely used by walkers, dog walkers and runners.
Concept Master Plan Barratt's Farm
We believe that the Concept Master Plan for Barratt's Farm is inadequate and insufficiently developed. In its final version it must be strong enough to ensure that from Day 1 it protects the whole site.
The final version of the Concept Master Plan must:
1. ensure the rural aspect of the land is maintained and preserved by retaining established trees and hedgerows and that green space is clearly shown between existing and new development
2. include a strengthened version of Para 103 to prevent piecemeal development taking place before the completion of HS2 and its full impact is clear.
3. cover the wider site and include all small sites adjacent to Barratt's Farm itself, especially those adjoining existing properties, to prevent piecemeal planning permission to be granted ahead of building on the main area.
4. specifically exclude development of Site 169 Blessed Robert Griswold Site, the Recreation Ground off Meeting House Lane which is a long established and valuable recreational space. In the First Draft Plan consultation of the NDP 92% of respondents (846 in total) supported the designation of the area as a Local Green Space. A detailed description of the site's history and public use was been prepared as part of the NDP evidence base and is provided on the NDP website.
5. specifically exclude the development of Site 30 Land rear of 67-95 Meeting House Lane because of its ecological (see below), landscape and historical importance.
a. We note that p 12 of the Masterplan details concerns that "included the impact of the built form on the heritage assets such as the listed buildings and hedgerow network. The Council's Ecologist also highlighted that Great Crested Newts were known to be on the site and that findings from survey work were likely to have an impact on the layout of the site."
b. This is echoed in the Berkswell NDP p24 Figure 7 - Habitat Distinctiveness (shows land off MH Lane medium-high) , p.29 Figure 10 protected Species Map Presence of Great Crested Newt, p.30-31 including Figure 11 Barratt's farm Constraints Map.
6. specifically exclude Meeting House Lane as an access point to any new developments (e.g. Site 30 & Site 102) and most importantly as access for a first phase of building prior to the completion of HS2. Meeting House Lane is an important cycle and pedestrian route, narrow and without pavements with traffic calming measures already in place, all characteristics which make it unsuitable for any additional traffic both during and after completion of any building development. Any such access would permanently change the character and feel of this traditional lane.

See attached letter

I would like to propose another site for development at Bridle Cottage, Rough Close, Tanner's Lane

CV7 7DD

I have concerns over the removal of green belt outside of the allocated development areas. this will open up the risk to a blanket coverage of the village of unplanned and uncoordinated developments.

Issue with the selection of Balsall Common as the recipient of so many new houses - this is significantly greater than other areas, changing the nature of the village. I have not seen a rationale for this distortion.The releasing of brown field sites in Balsall Common, leading to other schemes outside Balsall being stopped, rather than a reduction of Green field development in Balsall itself is telling.