Blythe

Focus should be on regeneration of deprived areas like Chelmsley Wood. New builds should be affordable to those on a full time minimum wage. Shirley attracts people due to its proximity to greenbelt and that should be protected. Stop building massive and ugly retirement homes here - we have enough now and the doctors won't be able to cope with all the elderly.

Affordable housing is needed - not overpriced new builds that won't benefit first time buyers. Shirley is to take on 39% of the new builds - more than its fair share and decimating the greenbelt that makes the area attractive. This is on top of the countless retirement homes already being built here over the last couple of years. Shirley is already an ageing population and extra retirement homes means that'll go up - our GPs are already stretched thin and the older our population is the worse this will become.

1. Remove Whitlocks End Farm from planned new housing and significantly reduce the remainder of new homes in the Blythe area.
2. Share the planned housing equitably around the borough. It is remarkable how some Borough areas are marginally affected and there is a sense of a grievous imbalance in this political process
3. Listen more to local residents living in the affected areas and address current unacceptable levels of traffic, air pollution, and reduction in adjacent green space
4. Make better use of existing brown field sites/vacant premises within the Borough to build affordable starter homes and stop the saturation of expensive new build homes for the elderly

Having lived in Shirley South for 36 years I object strongly to the disproportionate amount of new homes planned for the Blythe area. Already significant expansion has taken place in the Dickens Heath/Tidbury Green area. Further expansion of housing at sites 26, 4 and 12 will impact adversely on increased traffic flow, congestion, and air pollution as well as the reduction of green space and natural habitat. Moreover building on Whitlocks End Farm will create excessive traffic flow on Bills Lane already a nightmare for local residents including pedestrians who have to walk the narrow path near the railway bridge

The draft proposals for the housing developments still has far too many sites with large numbers in the Shirley Area.
We already have far too much traffic on roads due to people from Dickens Heath,Tidbury Green etc developments passing through our roads.
The Doctors surgeries are full to overflowing with the present population and the erosion of Green Belt land is not acceptable.
We already have a plethora of housing/apartments for elderly developments. It's time to build some affordable housing for first time buyers and young families. But we can't cope with the disproportionate amount of suggested development in and around Shirley.

A smaller number of units allocated to the Shirley area.

An urgent review of the use of greenfield sites.

An urgent review of the provision of new schools.

An urgent review of medical facilities for the new houses, e.g. doctors and dentists.

These additional houses necessitate the need for additional leisure facilities, e.g. a swimming pool, health club etc along the lines of Tudor Grange leisure centre.

An urgent review of traffic provision for the new site and parking provisions. As a resident of a new development, a lack of visitor parking poses problems on the estate for many properties.

This plan represents a significant increases in the number of houses in the Shirley area; with this borough taking more than its fair share of units across Solihull. I appreciate the need for more housing, but there seems to be a significant use of greenfield sites.

My biggest objection, however, is the fact that existing infrastructure and amenities are going to have to accommodate the extra demand. Specifically:

Schools - local schools are at capacity and the provision included is not enough; especially for secondary schools.

Medical facilities - We can no longer get NHS dental care for our children and

With the coming of HS2 in the north of the borough and development of a significant inter-change at Birmingham International it would make more sense to consider more housing development on the north side. This is not NIMBY approach by someone living in the south but a rational view determining where people likely to be attracted to the borough could take advantage of public transport in its various forms, HS2, other rail connections, air travel. There is going to be a significant "pull" of people moving from London. Why get them dropped off at Birmingham International then expect them to travel across the borough to find housing?
Current trends would suggest that even more office space and even retail space eg in Mell Square could be converted to living space rather than further incursion into Green Belt. The effects of changing work patterns due to Covid 19 need to be reconsidered before our open spaces are lost.

My main concerns are:
1) the density of development envisaged for Blythe, south Shirley in particular
2) the pressure to be placed on local services especially healthcare, doctor surgeries
3) seemingly over development of retirement homes
4) items 2 and 3 are linked as doctor surgeries tend to operate more on business models and do not wish to be over-burdened with older patients
5) the pressure to be placed on the road infrastructure with an already near capacity at peak times on Haslucks Green Road, Bills Lane and Dickens Heath Road.

We had 1000 houses in the original village. After Cheswick Place and Blythe Valley are completed we will have approx. 2300 houses. If the Dog Kennel Lane development is approved there will be an increase of a further 1000 dwellings without any apparent improvements to the local infrastructure. The likelihood is that flooding will increase and eventually the gap between Shirley and Cheswick Green will eventually disappear.

Too much housing is being allocated to this ward (Blythe).

Flooding is increasingly an issue, especially since Cheswick Place has been completed.

We need to maintain the Green Belt between Shirley and Cheswick Green.

Reduce the retirement planning for this area and introduce more affordable HOUSES for young people so that we can regenerate the area. No one in the UK actively WANTS to live in a flat!! We need to be in a multi-generational area - not an area for old rich people.

I was under the impression that we were supposed to be providing more affordable housing in the area so that the young people don't have to leave as they are being priced out of the area. Instead all we are getting is EXCESS retirement planning in Shirley. Already it is hard to get appointments with Doctors. What will it be like when all the proposed retirement developments are full. Although the fact that retirement developments already constructed aren't full MUST tell you that there is not a requirement for these. Old people don't want to leave their houses!!!!

I propose regeneration in Chelmsley wood making better use of the HS2 interchange site for housing and bringing the Solihull Town Centre masterplan forwarded.

This plan is not fair for Shirley. We are taking more of the burden for new homes than elsewhere in the borough. This will impact on traffic, pollution, physical and mental health due to the lost of green space and oversubscribed doctors and health services.

A more equitable development of the Borough prioritising sites other than those in Green Belt. The term is fast becoming a joke, it would be funny if it were not so serious.

The proposed development of Blythe is totally disproportionate to the Borough as a whole. The area is already under tremendous strain in terms of traffic congestion, education and medical facilities and cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of another 1000 homes and families. Our precious green belt is continually being eroded by developers and I do feel that it would be only a matter of time before the the 'adequate separation' as referred to (para 587) merges into one. I have no confidence in this proposal whatsoever.

Ideally the provision of residential areas should be targeted at brownfield sites and sustainable reuse of existing buildings. This was a policy of the West Midlands mayor,

Due to the rural nature of the area, the small country lanes can not accommodate any more traffic. The loss of green belt and sports playing fields is a loss of facility that will not be compensated. Previous housing developments had conditions attached to them that have not been followed through.

Please refer to attached statement. Land allocation proposed under policy BL2 should be omitted from the Local Plan.

Please refer to attached statement. Policy is not in accordance with NPPF policy and is not based on clear and robust evidence.

Scale down the plan for this area.
Make greater use of brownfield sites
Reduce the planning approval rate for accommodation for older people in this area which appears to be an unnecessary quick fix for Council to gain funds from developers to satisfy infrastructure demands.
Provide the necessary education and healthcare infrastructure that is currently inadequate for current demands.

The expansion of Blythe is in effect enlarging Shirley so that it incorporates Cheswick Green, Tidbury Green, Dickens Heath, Blythe Valley, Ilshaw Heath, etc.
Shirley does not have sufficient infrastructure facilities to support the plan nor do the proposals alleviate my concerns. There is already a massive over capacity of accommodation for older people in this area and no more needs to be planned for in the foreseeable future. There is clearly a need for increased infrastructure to deal with education and healthcare which are already grossly inadequate.

see attached

see attached

Scrap buildingmore houses. Build them in more deprived areas where housing is actually needed rather then thinking of profit

Cheswick Green cannot cope with any more developments
Five years ago, Cheswick Green had 1000 dwellings; at present there are 2000 dwellings. By the time Blythe Valley is complete there will be 3000 dwellings. If this development goes ahead there will be 4000+ dwellings.

A disproportionate number of houses are being built in Cheswick Green compared to the rest of the Borough. Not enough houses are being built on brownfield sites.

Even more problems accessing local services

This development will put further strain on the NHS for your hospital appointments, operations, and a longer to wait to see your Doctor. There is no plan to build a new GP surgery alongside these houses.

Strong likelihood of more flooding

Some have suffered from flooding recently. The more green space that is lost to housing the greater, the likelihood of future flooding to a greater extent. Following the flood of 2109, a report was produced by Solihull MBC, but little finance is available to protect your homes even though the responsibility lies with Solihull MBC.

Travel, employment and public transport

Consider how much longer will it take you to get to and from work with already busy roads likely to become gridlocked at peak times. There are no local employment and public transport benefits and a new transport policy is not included within the draft plan.

The environment

National planning policy confirms that Green Belt should be defined by permanent features such as roads, railways or water courses.
The Council intend to create an artificial boundary by building a road as part of the proposed development. This goes against the spirit and intentions of national planning policy.

Preventing even more development in future years

Dog Kennel Lane is the only boundary between Cheswick Green and adjoining areas of the Borough. If that boundary is lost the rest of our Parish is open to further extensive development. We face the likelihood that very little if any green space will remain.

I don't think that there is the capacity available.

There isn't the infrastructure, healthcare or transport to support the application.

Decline it. There is no need

The infrastructure can't cope with the extra pressure this would create. The roads, healthcare and impact on the countryside is not acceptable.

Please see separate email

Please see separate email

I object to building on green belt land first and foremost. But if any more building is to take place, the council must address infrastructure issues FIRST. Eg GP, hospital and public transport offerings.

The area is completely overdeveloped. I moved with my family to Cheswick Green six years ago as living in a quiet village on the edge of countryside really appealed. My husband and I both commute to Birmingham and Coventry. Since we moved here, Cheswick place and Blythe valley have been built, along with many many other developments in shirley. During all of this time NO improvements have been made to local public transport. The roads have got busier and air pollution has worsened. I’m worried about more flooding in the area.

Plans to build on what little remaining green belt between Cheswick Green and the edge of Dog Kennel Lane need to be pulled entirely. There will be other better-suited sites, away from a river and a flood-prone area to build on. The area has already expanded substantially with the new housing development (Bloor Homes' Cheswick Place), there is only so much the area, its infrastructure and its amenities can handle.

The area is prone to flooding and this plan will make it severely worse, the area cannot handle a 400% increase in homes. The plans are being drawn up without full thought being given to other matters. E.g. GP, school and road capacity. Public transport is limited, calls to provide more have been ignored in times past. It is not viable, and will create problems that will be near impossible to fix. The plan is not sound, and the council have not complied with its duty to co-operate; they have failed to "engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis"

should not be built

traffic congestion
no school or doctors provision

It not to happen - no extension of the school and no additional housing! Go build somewhere else!

Why build here? We have too many houses built on green and brown belt land already. We have traffic problems already and congestion so why build here? The crime rate has already gone up. This lovely village/area will be ruined!

Not enough homes being built on brownfield sites

More likelihood of flooding
Not increasing doctors capacity and already with 1000 additional homes it cannot cope
Loss of green belt
Transport will be affected with increased road congestion

The plan should acknowledge the viability of small enclaves of quality such as Kidpile Farm and its redevelopment which would enhance the viability of the southern part of Blythe valley without impacting on the Green belt,

the plan ignores the development potential of the Kidpile Farm site which is no longer suitable for economic agricultural purposes. A redevelopment of the existing site to include domestic dwellings ,light commercial and craft units is viable without impact on the amenity of the area with no additional transport requirements. Rumbush Farm and Fulford Hall farm being similar.

Remove the wording in 588 and 589. Or alter policies BL1 and BL2 to make development conditional upon these sustainable transport improvements being delivered.

588. The plan makes unsupported claims about public transport improvements.
The sites are not on an existing public transport desire line, and developments of the size proposed will not lead to new or enhanced services.
589. The plan includes no clear proposals to enhance pedestrian or cycling connectivity. It is vital that these are improved, but we should see the proposals, which would be mainly outside the site boundaries.

Brownfield sites should be used before decimating even more precious green space. The huge concerns of every single Cheswick Green resident I have spoken to should be heard, acknowledged and answered. We have already been adversely affected by the recent and ongoing developments in our area, which as I mentioned seem to be highly disproportionate to other areas. From what I understand, it is intended that an artificial boundary is created by building a road as part of the proposed development? I believe this is at odds with the intentions of national planning policy and opens the area up for even further development.

The Cheswick Green area has already been subjected to extensive development, which has heavily impacted our public services and ability to use them. To further add to this, when it is already impossible to see your GP or drive safely past the school, is utter madness. Development in this area appears to be extremely disproportionate to other areas. Reassurances and provisions given for previous approved developments regarding public services and flooding proved to be pointless and our concerns were proved to be completely valid. Further development of the area will decimate even more of our precious green space

No more building. DH & TG has seen over the past 10 years significant building already.

1. Roads already congested heavily into DH village, building 350 houses would have a detrimental impact on roads and peoples safety especially around TG & DH schools. 2. Village schools have already been extended to cope with the recent influx of children from the last build. 3. Adding more houses will take away the village feel of TG & DH. 4. DH has been subject to flooding in the past . 5. WE train station in normal times is used by many residents and people travelling into the village where the carpark is always full, this will put additional pressure.

I would like the proposal to build 1k additional houses on dog kennel lane to be scrapped, I do not believe the local area can cope with it unless there is plans to heavily invest in the local roads and amenities also. Nothing like this has been detailed only plans to put yet more houses into an area that's seen many developments in recent years. Cheswick Place began as a good idea yet many that have moved into it are now looking to move back out due to issues with parking, lack of available GP appointments, etc or properties are brought by private landlords, this doesn't aid those wanting to buy a property in this area. Many moved to Cheswick Green due to its location and available green space, I soon fear there will be no greenery left if this type of proposal continues.

This area and its infrastructure cannot cope with a further 1k dwellings built in this area. A disproportionate number of houses are being built in this area on green field sites where brown field sites seem to be converted to retirement villages where affordable housing is actually required! GP surgeries, dentists, schools and especially roads are already over crowded. This development potentially brings a further 2k cars to the area the roads cannot cope. Flooding is an issue and removal of more trees will not aid this and the damage to the local environment must stop, we need green spaces.

For it not to go ahead.

The pressure is always on this area of South Solihull. This is not reasonable nor compliant. The road network in this area is staggeringly under prepared for an extra 1000 cars. The land around here is continually flooded. This is by way of loss of flood planes and natural drainage. A new school etc added to the development will only encourage yet further housing at a later date...we have already seen that with Dickens Heath. This will be catastrophic to the locality. Why not Knowle, why not Dorridge? The roads are rural. Not designed for this amount of traffic.

Plans objected and houses built elsewhere.

Cheswick Green cannot cope with any more developments.
Five years ago, Cheswick Green had 1000 dwellings; at present there are 2000 dwellings. By the time Blythe Valley is complete there will be 3000 dwellings. If this development goes ahead there will be 4000+ dwellings.

A disproportionate number of houses are being built in Cheswick Green compared to the rest of the Borough. Not enough houses are being built on brownfield sites.

Even more problems accessing local services.

This development will put further strain on the NHS for your hospital appointments, operations, and a longer to wait to see your Doctor. There is no plan to build a new GP surgery alongside these houses.

Strong likelihood of more flooding

There is too much traffic on creynolds Lane, Stratford road. Accessing the m42 takes a significant amount of time.

Already busy roads likely to become gridlocked at peak times. There are no local employment and public transport benefits and a new transport policy is not included within the draft plan.

The environment

National planning policy confirms that Green Belt should be defined by permanent features such as roads, railways or water courses.
The Council intend to create an artificial boundary by building a road as part of the proposed development. This goes against the spirit and intentions of national planning policy.

Preventing even more development in future years

Dog Kennel Lane is the only boundary between Cheswick Green and adjoining areas of the Borough. If that boundary is lost the rest of our Parish is open to development.