Policy BL2 - South of Dog Kennel Lane

The council should not build on site 12 because of the reasons above.
Building should be on derelict and brownfield sites.
Leave this area as a natural habitat and respect the boundary.

This development will take out a precious Boundary line for Cheswick Green.
More green fields lost to housing developments has an enormous impact on flooding which we already have in this area.
We need to protect our green open spaces for future generations, thinking of people's mental health.
Infrastructure cannot cope during peak times as it is.
NHS services in this area are already at breaking point.
Stop using Shirley/Cheswick Green/ Dickens Heath as a getout -
why not use areas in Knowle / Dorridge - or is this because Councillors live in these areas?

It needs to be removed altogether from the plan. Solihull Council's shameless approach to decimating every last area of green space is a significant concern.

The proposed plan for 1000 dwellings is staggering and turns a blind eye to the highway capacity issues that exist currently on Dog Kennel Lane and the surrounding network. In the evening peak it is possible to walk from the junction of A34 Stratford Road to the roundabout at B4102 and this is before the development which is currently under construction on the opposite side of DKL is complete. The proposals also note the need for a school, but fail to explain how this will be factored into the highway network, especially given the distinct lack of public transport in this area. The proposals make a brief reference to a need to promote and enhance transport, but do not give any details on how a significant upgrade to public transport could be accommodated.
The proposals are overbearing and inappropriate for this area of greenbelt. The historic Light Hall farm setting would be completely ruined, and the quiet peaceful semi-rural footpaths will be completely detached from their setting, much like the abomination that you have created at Blythe Valley. If the COVID pandemic has taught us anything, it is that we need to protect and enhance our green spaces and ensure people have quiet areas to retreat to, rather than building everywhere and providing no upgrade to the surrounding infrastructure.

Delete policy BL2.
The site is has poor accessibility to the existing and proposed major employment centres.
There is no high frequency bus service near the site.
Travel to and from the site would be predominantly by car, which would exacerbate existing known congestion problems on A34, M42, and to and through Solihull Town Centre.
This is the wrong location for a major housing site. The site itself would be far too small to justify its own bus service. It is located in the wrong place to benefit from the re-routing of a high frequency bus service.

Not fully compatible with P7.
P7.1. Site is not in one of the most accessible locations. In particular access to the Central Hub area is poor, being the worst of all the larger sites. It would involve driving through Solihull Town Centre, an acknowledged problem, or via A34 and M42, both very congested normal at peak times.
p.7.2.ii. There is no high frequency bus service within a 400m walk of any part of this site.

Delete Policy BL2.
If the aspiration to address these shortcomings exist, site BL2 must not be released for development until there is a firm commitment to the proper provision of sustainable travel alternatives to the private car; and pedestrian safety and travel congestion issues have been addressed and resolved.

Not fully compatible with P8.
P.8.1.i. The site is located away from existing high frequency public transport services. The main mode of travel to Central Hub, BVP and Solihull Centre will be by private car. This is contrary to the stated (and essential) environmentally sustainable aspirations of the plan.
P.8.2.i,ii. There has been no assessment of the impact of this development on pedestrian safety or traffic and public transport congestion. This site was not taken into account in the Stratford Road Enhancement study.

Make the plan documentation internally consistent. There can be only one definition of the site proposed for release. Which is it?
Re-consult locally with an unambiguous proposal, and appropriate detail.

The plan documents include 5 different versions of the site and its boundary. The Concept Masterplans document shows four different versions: Site Analysis Page52; Landscape Assessment P54; Developer Proposal P56; Illustrative Concept Masterplan P58. The proposed policies map shows a fifth. Until only one is defined, it is impossible to properly assess and address many of its impacts and associated proposals. Particularly Green Belt and boundary; hedge and tree retention; visual impact; whether or not a Country Park is intended, and its extent, impact and details.

In my opinion both the SUDs in Cheswick Green, and the SUDs at the proposed BL2 site need to be rebuilt/built to a higher specification eg to prevent flooding of surrounding area in a 1 in a 1000 year event.

https://www.solihull.gov.uk/Portals/0/CrimeAndEmergencies/Flood-Investigation-Report-Various-Locations-Solihull-27-May-2018.pdf

The SUDs at the Bloor homes development in nearby Cheswick Green have proved inadequate to prevent flooding in Cheswick Green. (See Solihull.gov.uk flood report below)
The BL2 development would further increase the risk of flooding in Cheswick Green, as Cheswick Green is downstream of BL2. I am concerned that if the SUDs at BL2 are built to the same specification as those in Cheswick Green, they will be inadequate to prevent increased flood risk in Cheswick Green.

BL2 2.v. should be modified to:-
Trees and hedgerows along Dog Kennel Lane and Stratford Road should be retained to protect the character of the highway. All significant trees and ancient hedgerows within the site should be retained to enhance views into the site from public footpaths and the wider area, and to reflect the adjacent Arden Pastures Landscape.

BL2, 2.v. requires the preservation only of trees and hedgerows fronting Dog Kennel Lane. It is equally important to preserve these along Stratford Road, and to preserve all the existing significant trees within the site and the important historic hedgerows in the eastern part - similar to the protection proposed for the less prominent BL1 site.

There is insufficient focus on building on brownfield sites which should be a top priority.

I agree with the Cheswick Green Parish Council that Dog Kennel Lane is an established and permanent boundary feature. It provides a distinct separation between the built-up area and the Green Belt.
The existing Green Belt boundary is consistent with NPPF policy but, the creation of a false boundary within site BL2 is not and the site does not have the permanent features that are required to define a Green Belt boundary, so there is no guarantee, that development will stop at that point. In fact I can guarantee that the boundary will moved even further. If this development goes ahead, Solihull MBC therefore has a duty to guarantee that no further development will take place between site BL2 and Cheswick Green within the next 10-15 years.

Cheswick Green cannot cope with any more developments and is completely overwhelmed. The number of houses in Cheswick Green has doubled from 1000 to 2000 homes in 5 years times. By the time Blythe Valley is complete there will be 3000 dwellings. If this development goes ahead there will be 4000+ dwellings.

- Accessing local services will be even more difficult.
- Creynolds Lane will be even more gridlocked at peak times.
- Strong likelyhood of more flooding.
- Green belt should be defined by permanent features, not by creating an artificial boundary (no new surgery proposed)

Delete BL2.

Or at least clarify the location, form and appropriateness of the new green belt boundary.

Define the extent, purpose, uses and features of the proposed Country Park, and its impact on Cheswick Green.

The location of the proposed new Green Belt boundary is unclear. The present boundary has been long established and marks a sharp distinction between open farmland and urban usage. Such boundaries should not be altered unless they can be replaced by an equally strong permanent boundary. BL2. 4. refers to Green Belt enhancements and a country park, with no information on their scope, extent or boundaries. This affects the viability of remaining farmland, and could heave a serious impact on Cheswick Green. The much narrower Green Belt risks failing to properly fulfil GB purposes.

BL2 should include:-
Development of the site is dependent upon walking, cycling and public transport improvements being secured and capable of being viably maintained, in full compliance with P7 and P8.
Development of the site will positively contribute to reducing flood risk caused by Mount Brook and River Blythe at Cheswick Green and further down stream .

The site should be expected to comply fully with policies P7 an P8. The wording within BL2 is weak. Compliance with these policies should be mandatory.

Also flooding caused by Mount Brook and River Blythe downstream of the site is a recognised problem. More floodwater storage capacity is required upstream. BL2.3.iii. should require the development to make a significant positive contribution towards reducing downstream flood risk.

Equestrians are able to enjoy on average only 22% of the PRoW network. Any enhancements to a bridleway should consider the needs of all users, for example using an appropriate surface materials. Please see British Horse Society guidance on surfaces https://www.bhs.org.uk/advice-and-information/free-leaflets-and-advice
Active travel includes equestrians as vulnerable road users (Jesse Norman MP, 2018). Improvements to the connectivity of cycle and pedestrian routes should include equestrians where it could avoid horse riders being sandwiched between fast moving motorised traffic and fast moving cyclists, to improve safety.

2iv is written in a way that suggests the bridleway will be a footpath.
3v does not include equestrian access.

The policy should reference the significant archaeological potential of this area and highlight that, prior to the submission of any planning application, a detailed archaeological assessment, including evaluative fieldwork, should be undertaken. It should further advise that results of the assessment should inform the development of a strategy, if appropriate, to mitigate the potential archaeological impact of the proposed development and that this strategy may include designing the development to avoid impacting any archaeological features present which are worthy of conservation.

This will help to ensure that any planning application is submitted with sufficient archaeological information to enable a reasoned and informed planning decision to be made.

As highlighted in the 2018 Archaeological Assessment undertaken by the Warwickshire County Council Archaeological Information and Advice team on behalf of SMBC*, this site has significant archaeological potential. This potential, and the need for further archaeological assessment in advance of the submission of any planning application is not referenced in this policy. As the results of the assessment may influence the final form of the development across this area, it should be.

*WCC Archaeological Information and Advice, 2018. 'Archaeological Assessment to Inform the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Local Plan'. Warwick: WCC Archaeological Information and Advice

Amenities provided for the additional development such as Gp surgery, local shops, school, addition funds available for people in the local area to protect their homes against flooding and lastly a transport policy

Cheswick green cannot cope with more development, any further increase will put a strain on the NHS for hospital appointments and more locally GP appointments as I understand there are no plans to build a new go surgery alongside these additional 1000 houses. It is likely to increase the risk of flooding and some homes on Cheswick already live with the worry of their properties flooding again.The surrounding roads are already very busy and likely to become grid locked at peak times and a new transport policy is not included within the draft plan.

- The existing road should be the fixed boundary marking green belt land

1000 New houses Cheswick Green – Site -12 – Dog Kennel Lane

Cheswick Green cannot cope with any more developments. A disproportionate number of houses being built are in Cheswick Green compared to the rest of the borough. Not enough houses are being built on brownfield sites. Also this closes the gap between Cheswick green and Shirley and makes this less of a rural village. 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. The existing road should be the fixed boundary marking green belt land and this shouldn’t be built on just by adding a new road/boundary. 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.

Further strain will be added to the NHS. There is already no nearby hospital a and e for residents here and almost impossible to obtain doctors’ appointments and there are no plans to add to these facilities.

Flooding risk is heightened, what are the measures in place to prevent further flooding.

Only 2 roads in and out to the main motorway and towards Solihull. No local train station so car is only option. It is already ridiculous at peak times and this will only be made worse with no increases to parking spaces at train stations or to extending the railway line to this area/Blythe.

Please accept below my response to the Local Plan Review Consultation.

My initial comment is that distribution of new housing in the Borough is biased towards two geographic areas resulting in 31% of the total being proposed in the Balsall Common area within the Meriden ward and 39% within the Shirley South and Blythe ward areas that are geographically adjacent. The majority of the land involved is within the Green Belt. The Shirley South site is site 11 within the previous iteration of the Local Plan document, which is in the process of being built.
There are proposals included in other wards which are not particularly significant in terms of housing numbers and consequent impact on those local areas.
The document refers to proposed housing provision within Solihull town centre and the Arden Cross and National Exhibition areas adjacent to the proposed HS2 railway station. No numbers are provided within the current iteration of the Local Plan document for either of these locations. This is a significant omission from this version of the document as it means that inclusion of the detail for these sites could take a significant amount of pressure off the areas detailed above and reduce the amount of Green Belt that is currently committed within the document.
A further significant impact of the proposals is the situation regarding local school places at the primary level. This is a particular issue within the Blythe ward area. Primary schools exist at Cheswick Green, Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green. All are currently single form entry with nursery units. The sites in the Local Plan document within the catchment areas of these schools are BL1 in Dickens Heath, BL2 at Dog Kennel Lane and BL3 also in Dickens Heath. Two sites currently being built which have an impact are site 11 from the previous iteration of the Local Plan and a further development at the Blythe Valley Business Park site.
Dickens Heath school is single form entry with no scope for expansion. Both Cheswick Green and Tidbury Green primary schools are in the process of being extended to two form entry. A further two form entry primary school is proposed as part of site BL2.
My main concern regarding primary level schooling in the area is that the increased number of houses will generate significant traffic level increases in the surrounding area on what are already busy roads with some effectively being country lanes. This will also significantly increase already high traffic pollution during school drop off and pick up periods. This will have an impact on the Council’s developing Net Zero Carbon plan.
Congestion is already a problem around both Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green schools as there is no off road parking provision at those two locations.
Another concern is that the Local Plan proposals in its current form will add to the existing significant pressures on the local health service provision. There are no documented proposals to enhance the existing local health service provisions to support the increased number of residents.
The proposals also cause merging of the existing settlements within Blythe ward.
Potential flooding in the area is also a concern. Rainfall run off from the sites discussed feed into the river Cole to the north and the river Blythe to the south. The river Cole impacts on roads within Shirley West ward, particularly Nethercote Gardens. The area has suffered from two one in a hundred years flooding incidents within the last 15 years. The river Blythe impacts on Cheswick Green village In Blythe ward and the lower part of the village has also been impacted by two one in a hundred years flooding incidents within the last 15 years.
The proposed local plan does not conform totally with the sentiments of the National Planning Policy Framework which contends that brown field sites should be considered ahead of Green Belt land for housing. The Arden Cross area and Solihull town centre fall into this category and their use to support housing should be considered ahead of use of Green Belt land.
The climate change agenda suggests that locations for housing should be sustainable and not car dependant. Within Blythe ward all roads are very busy and not conducive the cycling and walking. Local bus services are infrequent and follow circuitous routes which are not conducive to encouraging large numbers of users. Consequently there is a high dependency on the use of private cars in all of the settlements within the area. The proposed developments will only make the current situation worse with consequential increase in local pollution.
There is no defensible boundary identified between site BL2 and Cheswick Green village.
My final concern is that there are mainly inaccuracies within the issued Local Plan.

See attached letter.

Provision should be made within Policy BL2 to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Policy P14 sets out how developments which will cause or be subject to existing
noise, odour or atmospheric pollution, will need to satisfactorily mitigate or abate the identified negative impact on amenity.
The Policy in part covers NPPF paragraph 182 agent of change principle. However, it fails to consider circumstances such as a developments adjacent playing field site for example a cricket club, which could be at risk of ball strike. In such circumstances, in line with NPPF paragraph 182, the development would need to provide mitigation through the provision of ball stop netting to ensure the use of the playing field is not prejudiced or that any unreasonable restrictions are placed on the use of the site.
An additional criterion should be added to Policy P14 to ensure consistency with national planning policy paragraph 182.
* Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.

Policy P15 could be made more effective in promoting health and well-being, in line with NPPF paragraph 127, by referring to Sport England’s Active Design Guid-ance. The Guidance sets out 10 principles which developments should seek to ad-here to promote activity, health and stronger communities through design.
Active Design is supported by Public Health England and is part of our collabora-tive action to promote the principles set out in Public Health England’s ‘Everybody Active, Every Day’, to create active environments that make physical activity the easiest and most practical option in everyday life.
Add reference to point Policy P15 point 4 to help achieve Objectives F, H and J -
4. All developments should comply with the urban design principles set out in es-tablished current design guidance, including at present; The National Design Guide (2019), Urban Design Compendium 1 and 2 (2007), Manual for Streets 1 (2007) and 2 (2010), Active Design (20015), Building for Life 12 and Secured by Design principles, or their equivalents.

Sport England are supportive of Policy P18 Health and Wellbeing with it containing a number of Active Design Principles which help to promote physical activity.
Sport England considers the policy could be made more effective through the promotion of co-location (the grouping of destinations such as community facilities, schools, shops, work places, sports facilities and leisure centres within close proximity of each other), allowing users to make only one linked trip to an area for multiple reasons. Co-location assists with linked trips reducing the need to travel and allow more time for people to linger and be socially interactive, whilst also creating variety and vitality in town and local centres.
Linked to the above supporting infrastructure should also be promoted such as public conveniences; drinking fountains; cycle, mobility scooter and pushchair storage; changing rooms; quality of seating; Wi-Fi access; shelter and showers. The above are all elements that can influence physical activity choices and should be provided where appropriate to meet the needs of a range of potential users.
Supporting infrastructure to enable sport and physical activity to take place should be provided across all contexts including workplaces, sports facilities and public space, to facilitate all forms of activity.
Provision of new public open space, children’s play, sports and recreational facilities
Point 7 sets out new housing development will be required to provide or contribute towards new open spaces or the improvement of existing provision in the area, in line with the minimum standard of 3.57ha per 1,000 population.
The Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy Update and Playing Pitch Mitigation utilises Sport England’s Playing Pitch Demand Calculator Tool to ascertain the playing pitch demand from proposed housing allocations contained within the Plan.
Sport England promotes the use of the calculator with it being informed by a local evidence base document assessment of supply and demand. It is unclear if the standard of 3.57ha per 1,000 population encapsulates playing field provision and if so, how has the figure been justified to identify demand in line with Playing Pitch Strategy and whether it would meet the CIL regulation 122 tests.
Provision of new public open space, children’s play, sports and recreational facilities
Point 9 states new housing developments will be required to provide or contribute towards new open spaces or the improvement of existing provision in the area, unless financial unviability is clearly demonstrated. It is unclear why the viability caveat is included particularly given Policy P21 and the Plan’s objectives F and J, it might be the circumstances that other contributions should not be sought or that contributions should be proportionality reduced.
Indoor Sports Facilities Strategy 2012

Policy P20 points 10 and 13 refers to an Indoor Sports Facilities Strategy 2012. The document sets out provision standards based on deficit and surpluses for the Borough and then applies these standards to the 2026 projected future population of the Borough. Therefore, the standards proposed and identified deficits/surpluses are not based on robust and up to date assessment of need as there is a failure to consider needs up to 2036.
On the basis of the above the policy (and the IDP) is not consistent with national planning policy with NPPF paragraph 96, which requires planning policies to be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities (including quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses) and opportunities for new provision.
Playing Pitch Strategy
Sport England welcomes the authority undertaking a monitoring and review of its Playing Pitch Strategy 2017. The Playing Pitch Strategy (update) 2019 provides an update on the following inputs amongst others; sites (where informed by national governing bodies and the LPA); team numbers (informed by national governing bodies); strategy period (extending from 2026 to 2036); and site actions.
The update document reaffirms that there are current and future shortfalls in playing field provision within the Borough. Therefore, to ensure demand for pitches are met there is a need to protect existing sites; provide new sites and to improve the quality of the existing sites where identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy Action Plan. The document also provides a robust evidence base to inform the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy which establishes the need to replace existing playing field sites proposed for development and identify the playing pitch demands from residential developments. The use of the Playing Pitch Strategy Mitigation report within the site allocations policies contained within the Plan is welcomed and in line with NPPF paragraph 96.
It should be noted dialogue with the LPA as part of the PPS update work confirmed that the authority will conduct a full Playing Pitch Strategy in early 2022, this is supported by Sport England to ensure that authority evidence base remains robust. It should be noted that the authority should still undertake annual reviews in line with Stage E of Sport England’s Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance.
1. The incorporation of the below text within P20 ensures that the demand for playing pitches will be informed/justified by evidence namely the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy in line with NPPF paragraph 96.
Developer contributions will be required to enhance provision of playing pitch-es, based on additional demand generated by the new residential development and the sufficiency of existing provision to meet current and projected need. The Council will have regard to Sport England’s strategic planning tools and findings of the Playing Pitch Strategy to determine an appropriate amount and type of contribution or provision within new developments.
Where it is agreed by the Council that on-site pitch provision is appropriate to meet identified demand, the applicant is required to provide the new pitch(es) and make provision for its management and maintenance in perpetuity, and clarify these arrangements within a management plan to be agreed by the Council.
2. To ensure that the policy is effective in achieving its objective and policies considerations are not replicated the following amendment is suggested:
New housing developments will be required to provide or contribute to-wards new open spaces or the improvement of existing provision in the area, unless financial unviability is clearly demonstrated.
3. Indoor Sports Facilities Strategy 2012
The authority should commit to updating its Indoor Sports Facilities Strategy 2012 with works commencing prior to the adoption of the Plan to ensure the Plan is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96.

Policy BC2 2. V states the retention of the existing playing field site which is welcomed and in line with the finding of the Playing Pitch Strategy. However, SMBC illustrative concept masterplan appears to display a road abutting the playing field site and the removal of part of a hedgerow which creates a boundary for the playing field site. It is unclear why this has been proposed as it could lead impact on the use of the site such as it being less secure and balls leaving the playing field site.
To ensure that there is reduced impact on the use of playing field the concept masterplan should maintain a strong boundary for the playing field site.
Sport England welcomes the vast majority of the proposed housing allocation policies identifying a need to provide a financial contribution towards the provision of new playing pitches and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy and the Playing Pitch Strategy which identified that there are current and future shortfalls in pitch provision.
However, at this point in time it is unclear as to where the contributions will be directed to with the Plan failing to identify the location or allocation of the new playing pitches/hubs sites.
Further to this on the larger proposed allocation sites (sites which generate the demand for multiple pitches) the illustrative concept masterplans fail to incorporate any on-site playing pitch provision As such there is a possibility that no additional pitches are created which could lead to the deterioration of existing pitches (which already in short supply) due to their use being exacerbated even further.
It should also be noted that ancillary uses such as car parking and changing room facilities will also be required to support the use of playing field sites for formal activities in line with the Playing Pitch Strategy.
Pitch Provision
To ensure the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy is met in accordance with NPPF paragraph 96 the Concept Illustrative Masterplans for sites which create the demand for multi playing pitches should clearly display locations for the pitches and ancillary provision. The need to provide for the pitches will rescind upon such time suitable new off site playing field site(s) have been identified to meet the developments demands for playing field provision. This approach will also assist in ensuring Plan objectives F and J are met.
Ancillary Provision
To ensure that the playing field demand generated from sites in accordance with NPPF paragraph 96 the policy should incorporate the provision of supporting infrastructure required to serve the playing field sites, therefore the below additional text should be incorporated.
v. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and supporting ancillary provisions) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.
The wording of paragraph 594 should be made clear that the replacement provision should be equivalent or better provision in terms quantity and quality to ensure consistency with NPPF paragraph 97. Further to this new sports provision would also be required to meet the demand generated from the new developments.
In relation to shortlisted replacement sites further details should be provided to ascertain the sites suitability and further clarification is required as to what part of P20 is an enabling policy for replacement pitches and facilities.
For clarity paragraph 594 should be amended as per the below:
Sports and Recreation - Replacement of any lost recreation / sports provision as a result of development will be required to an equivalent or better standard in terms of quantity and quality, including ancillary provision, access and use by the wider community where appropriate. Provision will also be made for playing pitches (and ancillary provision) to meet the demands generated from new developments. Several sites have been shortlisted in the vicinity of the existing clubs West of Dickens Heath, and an enabling policy for replacement pitches and facilities is incorporated within Policy P20

Policy BL1 sets out the existing sports facilities should be retained and remain accessible until such time replacement sites are in place, which is supported by Sport England.
However Policy BL1 fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches being utilised more intensively thus reducing their quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as the policy fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
To enable the sporting needs from the development are met in line with Playing Pitch Strategy and NPPF paragraph 96 the following change is proposed:
-iii Relocation of the existing sports provision. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Paragraph 605 incorrectly sets out the sports club sites to be relocated with Leafield Athletic FC being retained and Wychall Wanderers FC to be replaced. To ensure clarity as to the site’s to be replaced the following modification is proposed.
605 The larger site is currently occupied by Highgate United FC, Leafield FC Wychall Wanderers FC and Old Yardleians .Rugby Football Club, and re-provision will be required for these sports pitches.

Policy BL2 fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches being utilised more intensively thus reducing their quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as the policy fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Policy BL3 fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches being utilised more intensively thus reducing their quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as the policy fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Policy HH1 fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches being utilised more intensively thus reducing their quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as the policy fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

The allocation of KN1 would entail the relocation of Knowle Football Club within the site on land between the new development and the canal. The policy states that appropriate facilities associated with the provision of outdoor sport will be permitted in the Green Belt, provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.
To ensure the current site can be relocated in the area identified within the concept illustrative masterplan, the policy should make clear the replacement entails pitches and ancillary provision (such as floodlighting, clubhouse and car parking). Further to this provisions should be made within the policy to enable the capability of the site containing a 3G pitch in line with recommendations contained within the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy and the Football Foundations Local Facilities Football Plan to ensure demand in the area can be met.
With regards to the illustrative concept masterplan Sport England and national governing bodies are keen to be engaged with the layout of the replacement site as there are some concerns based on concept such as:
- the introduction of trees within the central areas of the replacement playing field area would reduce the flexibility of the site to be marked out for alternative pitch layouts.
- car parking is detached from the sports pavilion;
- pavilion should be centrally located to the main pitch it seeks to serve
- Pitch orientation should accord with Sport England’s Natural Turf for Sport Guidance which is endorsed by national governing bodies.
- Seek to ensure the provision of sports light and the potential for a 3G pitch is not impacted by the LWS, Listed Buildings or proximity to residential dwellings.
- Cricket pitch should be sited in an area which would be impact by ball strike.
Policy KN1 would result in residential development adjacent an existing cricket club the policy fails to identify this as a principle which should be taken account of within the concept masterplan. The policy should reflect the requirements of NPPF paragraph 182 requiring a ball strike assessment to be undertaken should residential development come forward on the football club site but not on the cricket club site. The findings of the ball strike assessment should be implemented and maintained by the developer (unless of otherwise agreed by the Club following consultation with Sport England and the ECB). It is viewed that this is necessary as the proposed development could be at risk of ball strike which could prejudice the use of the cricket pitch.
a) To ensure replacement provision is equivalent in terms of quantity and quality in line with NPPF paragraph 97 and Sport England Exception Policy E4 the following modification is considered necessary:
viii. Relocation of the existing playing field site (pitches and ancillary provision) sports pitches currently occupied by Knowle Football Club;
b) For consistency and clarity purposes all reference to the reprovision/relocation of the Knowle pitches within the policy and supporting text should be modified to playing field site (pitches and ancillary provision)
c) To ensure that the use of the cricket club is not prejudiced by the introduction of residential development adjacent to it the following design principle in line NPPF paragraph 182 should be incorporated into the Policy:
2.IX The provision and maintenance of ball stop mitigation will be required, if deemed necessary following a ball strike risk assessment, and implemented before any ball strike risk is introduced as a result of the proposed development.
d) To enable an identified need within the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy and Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy to be met at the site, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 96, provisions within the policy for a 3G pitch should be made within the replacement site.
4.IV The provision for a full sized 3G pitch with sports lighting to be provided at the site.

Policy KN2 entails the relocation of the Arden Academy site. The Academy’s playing field site contains hard court provision, AGP and a number of playing pitches. The Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy identifies that there are current and future shortfalls in playing field provision. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies that the site is used by the community, which should be formal secured via a community use agreement, and that sports provision should be replaced. In relation to the AGP the Playing Pitch Strategy states that it should replaced by a 3G pitch instead. Given the above the playing field site is not deemed to be surplus to requirement and the policy should ensure the playing field site should not be lost until a replacement provision of equivalent quantity and quality being developed and available for use.
Policy KN2 also fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches being utilised more intensively thus reducing their quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as the policy fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
a) To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 97b, as the playing field site incorporating hard court and AGP has not been demonstrated to be surplus to requirement by the Playing Pitch Strategy and utilised by the community, the following modification is proposed to policy KN2:
2. x Development of the Arden Academy Trust playing field site (inclusive of hard court and AGP) and its ancillary facilities shall not commence until the provision of replacement playing field is made available for use. The replacement provision will be at least equivalent or better in terms quantity and quality of that proposed to be lost.
b) To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Policy ME1 fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches be utilised more intensively thus reducing its quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as it fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Policy SO2 fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches be utilised more intensively thus reducing its quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as it fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Policy SO1 identifies that the existing sports pitches are to be retained. Sport England consider that wording sports pitches should be replaced with ‘playing field site’ which is aligned to the wording of NPPF paragraph 97. Further to this the sports pitch layout within a playing field can alter and is not fixed on the site.
Sport England considers this modification is necessary as it would appear that the illustrative concept masterplan for the site has a road which encroaches on to the playing field site reducing the capability of site to accommodate pitches (reducing the size of pitches). No information has been submitted to justify the loss of playing field land in accordance with NPPF paragraph 97/Sport England’s Exception Policies.
Policy SO1 also fails to set out how the playing pitch demand generated from the site will be met with no reference to the Playing Pitch Strategy/Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy. The Playing Pitch Strategy identifies shortfalls in playing field provision which will increase when taking account of future growth.
Should the site make no on-site playing field provision nor an off-site contribution, the shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy will be exacerbated with existing pitches be utilised more intensively thus reducing its quality. For this reason, it is considered that policy is not consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 as it fails to help address shortfalls in provision as identified within an up to date evidence base document.
A) To ensure the policy wording in relation to the retention of existing playing field site in accordance with NPPF paragraph 97 the following modification is proposed:
V. iii. Retention of existing sports pitch playing field site.
B) For clarity the Concept Illustrative Masterplan should clearly set out there is no encroachment on to the playing field site.
C) To ensure the policy is consistent with NPPF paragraph 96 provision should be made within the policy to address the current and future shortfalls identified within the Playing Pitch Strategy.
The following modification is therefore proposed in relation to likely infrastructure requirements to be included within the policy:
3.V. Financial contribution to provision of new playing pitches (and ancillary facilities) and contributions to enhancement of existing recreational facilities, to accord with the requirements identified in the Playing Pitch Mitigation Strategy.

Sport England welcomes the identification of the provision of leisure and community infrastructure though the needs for the site should be informed by a Playing Pitch Strategy and Indoor Needs Assessment. To ensure that the leisure provision and playing pitch demand generated for the site is met the policy/supporting text should make reference to the need to undertake a site specific leisure and playing pitch needs assessment to inform the requirements for the site.

Sport England are supportive of policy UK2 with it ensuring the retention of the existing sports provision site until a suitable alternative site, agreed with Sport England and national governing bodies, being provided and ready for use.

See attached letter

General

The development application detail only relates to this sole development which is insufficient considering the other determined and undetermined applications in the locality. The effects of these multiple applications need to be assessed as a whole when considering, flooding, transport, services, amenities and employment etc. This total BL2 proposal should be rejected.
Green Belt and Housing Numbers
Dog Kennel Lane is the only boundary between Cheswick Green and adjoining parts of the Borough. This boundary should be maintained to keep open the only green space between these areas, if not, not only will this green corridor be lost but then it risks further extensive development in the future.
The housing numbers are too large for the proposed development and insufficient space will be given in order to provide a good standard of living. If the development is agreed then a reduction in housing numbers will be required to overcome crowding. Recent planning approvals in Solihull have allowed the construction of back to back, shared drive, housing i.e. slums of the future to be developed. It is in the council’s interest to build as many houses as possible as this increases the amount of rates going into their coffers. Not a good incentive for development control.
Flooding Risk.
In order to prevent the use of injunction and/or possible future prosecution it will be necessary for the Developer and Planning Committee to have the Flood Risk Assessment agreed and signed off by all the existing land and property owners who may be subject to the effects of any development as per a minimum 1/1000 year level.
Should planning be given then a condition of that development must be that the maintenance costs of any required flood defence should be paid upfront by the Developer to cover a minimum 25 year period. Flood defences have failed on recent developments due to lack of maintenance.

Infrastructure

Should the development be approved then the developer should be charged for the additional infrastructure facilities in the area to relieve congestion, provide schooling, medical and flooding control, footpaths and cycleways rather than through the tax/rate payer

I object to the above application on the grounds that it is not sound nor is it legally compliant.

The application is too large to be accommodated around the Cheswick Green Settlement which five years ago had 1000 dwellings, now extended to 2000 and up to 3000 with the Blythe valley development. This proposed development will increase the number of dwellings to 4000 +. It fails to respect the important character and integrity of established village boundaries, puts additional strain on existing local services including NHS, local infrastructure, roads & transport and increases to risk of further flooding of existing properties. The use of Brown Field site should also be exhausted before Green Belt proposals.

The Flood Risk

It is unlawful to do anything to a piece of land that will increase the risk of flooding to neighbouring land and property. Protection from prosecution does not exclude the Planning Committee or Council employees from their moral obligation to the residents whose properties will have an increased flood risk. The Ordnance Survey Map shows that all the surrounding area including Dickens Heath etc has a surface water run off to the river Blythe.

The proposed development site drains into Mount Brook and on to the River Blythe increasing the flood risk to associated land and properties
It needs to take proper account of the actual recorded flooding and increase from natural drainage into the Mount Brook plus potential flood levels to existing properties bordering Mount Brook and the river Blythe.
The Established Climate Change Effect has shown that the use of the 1 in 100 year calculation no longer applies. The use of this base offers no guarantee that neighbouring property and land will not be flooded should development take place. In fact the Environment Agency has already set a precedent by using 1/1000 year calculation for storm defences in East Anglia.
With the increased flood risk already caused by Climate Change many existing properties along the Mount Brook and River Blythe are subject to either increased home insurance costs and or the failure to obtain flood insurance. Further development will not improve this situation and could leave these property owners with further cost together with associated property devaluation.
Although the Risk Assessment mentions Climate Change, it fails to provide any related risk calculations.

Green Belt Gap

It is important to retain the gap between Cheswick Green and the Shirley/ Dickens Heath conurbation as per the original planning concept for Cheswick Green. At the planning conference held by SMBC in 2011, residents in rural areas considered that Green Belt buffers around existing villages must be maintained in order to protect the communities and prevent urban sprawl. In recent times the number of dwellings in the area have increased 3 times to approx 3000 and further development means a disproportionate increase in the local area compared to the rest of the Borough.
National Planning policy confirms that Green Belt should be defined by permanent roads etc. The council with this development intend to create an artificial boundary by building a new road as part of the Development. This is against the spirit and intent of the policy.

Local Infrastructure
The local infrastructure is already struggling even though the Blythe Valley development is in its early stage of construction. Multiple planning applications are taken as individual when they should be considered as a whole. The area cannot accommodate the scale of development being proposed in terms of local services, medical, education and amenities in general, in an area where the private motor car is the main source of transport. The poor and fluctuating public transport service offers no guarantee for easy future access to and from Cheswick Green to access places of work. The local road network is already subject to gridlock during peak periods and school drop off and pick up times. This is not only caused by local traffic but it has now become a main commuter route by-passing a gridlocked M40/42 motorway route. This situation can only become worse.

There is already limited scope for ‘entertainment/ occupation’ of young people which has been the cause of anti-social behaviour in the past.

The provision of an extra 1000 dwellings, beside those others in construction will increase emissions of carbon dioxide and enhance climate change and risk of flooding. As these are new dwellings which will replace a green field site then there can be no offset. This will not only require provision of additional electricity generating capacity but also natural gas supply and treated water supply and maintenance of supply pressure, plus extra sewage treatment capacity.

Schools and Medical Centre

The existing Schools and Medical facilities will need to be expanded as well as main NHS hospital capacity. All these are already overloaded with long waiting times for local and hospital medical care. Schools are full and drop off and pick parking is a problem blocking road access and increasing the risk of accidents during these periods.

On these grounds I request that the application is refused.

General

The development application detail only relates to this sole development which is insufficient considering the other determined and undetermined applications in the locality. The effects of these multiple applications need to be assessed as a whole when considering, flooding, transport, services, amenities and employment etc. This total BL2 proposal should be rejected.
Green Belt and Housing Numbers
Dog Kennel Lane is the only boundary between Cheswick Green and adjoining parts of the Borough. This boundary should be maintained to keep open the only green space between these areas, if not, not only will this green corridor be lost but then it risks further extensive development in the future.
The housing numbers are too large for the proposed development and insufficient space will be given in order to provide a good standard of living. If the development is agreed then a reduction in housing numbers will be required to overcome crowding. Recent planning approvals in Solihull have allowed the construction of back to back, shared drive, housing i.e. slums of the future to be developed. It is in the councils interest to build as many houses as possible as this increases the amount of rates going into their coffers. Not a good incentive for development control.
Flooding Risk.
In order to prevent the use of injunction and/or possible future prosecution it will be necessary for the Developer and Planning Committee to have the Flood Risk Assessment agreed and signed off by all the existing land and property owners who may be subject to the effects of any development as per a minimum 1/1000 year level.
Should planning be given then a condition of that development must be that the maintenance costs of any required flood defence should be paid upfront by the Developer to cover a minimum 25 year period. Flood defences have failed on recent developments due to lack of maintenance.

Infrastructure

Should the development be approved then the developer should be charged for the additional infrastructure facilities in the area to relieve congestion, provide schooling, medical and flooding control, footpaths and cycleways rather than through the tax/rate payer

I object to the above application on the grounds that it is not sound nor is it legally compliant.

The application is too large to be accommodated around the Cheswick Green Settlement which five years ago had 1000 dwellings, now extended to 2000 and up to 3000 with the Blythe valley development. This proposed development will increase the number of dwellings to 4000 +. It fails to respect the important character and integrity of established village boundaries, puts additional strain on existing local services including NHS, local infrastructure, roads & transport and increases to risk of further flooding of existing properties. The use of Brown Field site should also be exhausted before Green Belt proposals.

The Flood Risk

It is unlawful to do anything to a piece of land that will increase the risk of flooding to neighbouring land and property. Protection from prosecution does not exclude the Planning Committee or Council employees from their moral obligation to the residents whose properties will have an increased flood risk. The Ordnance Survey Map shows that all the surrounding area including Dickens Heath etc has a surface water run off to the river Blythe.

The proposed development site drains into Mount Brook and on to the River Blythe increasing the flood risk to associated land and properties
It needs to take proper account of the actual recorded flooding and increase from natural drainage into the Mount Brook plus potential flood levels to existing properties bordering Mount Brook and the river Blythe.
The Established Climate Change Effect has shown that the use of the 1 in 100 year calculation no longer applies. The use of this base offers no guarantee that neighbouring property and land will not be flooded should development take place. In fact the Environment Agency has already set a precedent by using 1/1000 year calculation for storm defences in East Anglia.
With the increased flood risk already caused by Climate Change many existing properties along the Mount Brook and River Blythe are subject to either increased home insurance costs and or the failure to obtain flood insurance. Further development will not improve this situation and could leave these property owners with further cost together with associated property devaluation.
Although the Risk Assessment mentions Climate Change, it fails to provide any related risk calculations.

Green Belt Gap

It is important to retain the gap between Cheswick Green and the Shirley/ Dickens Heath conurbation as per the original planning concept for Cheswick Green. At the planning conference held by SMBC in 2011, residents in rural areas considered that Green Belt buffers around existing villages must be maintained in order to protect the communities and prevent urban sprawl. In recent times the number of dwellings in the area have increased 3 times to approx 3000 and further development means a disproportionate increase in the local area compared to the rest of the Borough.
National Planning policy confirms that Green Belt should be defined by permanent roads etc. The council with this development intend to create an artificial boundary by building a new road as part of the Development. This is against the spirit and intent of the policy.

Local Infrastructure
The local infrastructure is already struggling even though the Blythe Valley development is in its early stage of construction. Multiple planning applications are taken as individual when they should be considered as a whole. The area cannot accommodate the scale of development being proposed in terms of local services, medical, education and amenities in general, in an area where the private motor car is the main source of transport. The poor and fluctuating public transport service offers no guarantee for easy future access to and from Cheswick Green to access places of work. The local road network is already subject to gridlock during peak periods and school drop off and pick up times. This is not only caused by local traffic but it has now become a main commuter route by-passing a gridlocked M40/42 motorway route. This situation can only become worse.

There is already limited scope for ‘entertainment/ occupation’ of young people which has been the cause of anti-social behaviour in the past.

The provision of an extra 1000 dwellings, beside those others in construction will increase emissions of carbon dioxide and enhance climate change and risk of flooding. As these are new dwellings which will replace a green field site then there can be no offset. This will not only require provision of additional electricity generating capacity but also natural gas supply and treated water supply and maintenance of supply pressure, plus extra sewage treatment capacity.

Schools and Medical Centre

The existing Schools and Medical facilities will need to be expanded as well as main NHS hospital capacity. All these are already overloaded with long waiting times for local and hospital medical care. Schools are full and drop off and pick parking is a problem blocking road access and increasing the risk of accidents during these periods.

On these grounds I request that the application is refused.

Site BL2 should be deleted from the Plan

See attached form and written representations

As Cheswick Green residents, my wife and I would like to express our objections to the proposed development on the above Green belt site. It is evident from looking at the map of Solihull that the effect of this will be to draw our area from being one of a series of rural developments into a continuation of urban Shirley. When we moved here in 2015, Cheswick Green had around 1,000 dwellings, which soon increased to 2,000 with the development of Cheswick Place; when Blythe Valley is complete the figure will be 3,000 and the proposed development would mean 4,000 plus dwellings, a huge increase in a very short time. Surely there must be more suitable areas for development in the Borough; one wonders whether enough use is being made of brownfield sites.

Currently there are local congestion problems, particularly around the local school, which will only get worse under existing developments. Additionally, access to the A34 will become increasingly difficult; one shudders to think how congested that stretch of road between the M42 and Shirley would be with the Site 12 development as it is currently often gridlocked during busy periods.

Furthermore, there will be extra pressure on local services, particularly medical. The GP surgery is already stretched and the wait to see a doctor can only grow longer with delays in making hospital appointments, too.

There are possible environmental factors, too. It is generally agreed that loss of green spaces can make flooding more likely and there are areas of of Cheswick that are already susceptible. Nationally the risk is increasing and this development can only make things worse.

All in all, we feel that this area has had its share of development in the last few years and should be left alone to adjust to those changes. We feel that Site 12 would be a step too far and that alternatives should be sought. After all there are few areas where cows and and sheep can safely graze so near the centre of the borough.

My personal recommendation after consultation with the CPRE is that you would consider to halve the proposed housing numbers for both sites BL1 site 4 and site BL2 site 12. which would preserve some much needed space and green belt. and the excess housing numbers should be re considered for the area east of the borough near the HS2 interchange which would benefit from cutting excessive commuting across the borough and pollution.

Regarding the housing proposals and numbers for the South Shirley Area. While i am pleased to see site 11(668) is in progress and is suitable for the location i still have grave concerns over the size of area and excessive loss of greenbelt regarding site 12((BL2) and site 4 (BL1) which are clearly not Brownfield sites as promised by Council MPs and also mentioned in the NPPF which is too great for space regarding coalition of areas south Shirley Dickins Heath and Cheswick Green. In its current Draft proposal i will object to because of the excessive housing numbers for sites 12 BL2 and sites 4 BL1 which if go ahead will cause serious over crowding and local infrastructure problems for the south shirley area and will increase pollution and a great loss of environmental wildlife. Added to this we are too close to the border draft plans of Bromsgrove and Worcester who are also planning large scale allocations near the area proposed.

My personal recommendation after consultation with the CPRE is that you would consider to halve the proposed housing numbers for both sites BL1 site 4 and site BL2 site 12. which would preserve some much needed space and green belt. and the excess housing numbers should be re considered for the area east of the borough near the HS2 interchange which would benefit from cutting excessive commuting across the borough and pollution.

Following a discussion with the CPRE and NPPF I would ask you to re consider.

Regarding the upcoming plans for additional housing in the Cheswick Green /Dog Kennel Lane area I don’t doubt there are a lot of people who would like to live in this area but having seen the services that have been put in to accommodate Blythe Valley I do feel the Council should think again before agreeing to this proposal in it’s current state. Schooling is inadequate there should have been a facility alongside the housing in the Blythe Valley area before now, I do not think young children should have to come so far to school especially if on foot and as there seems to be no other form of transport currently provided other than car (for which parking is totally inadequate) maybe this should have been addressed from the start. Also Cheswick school whether doubled or not will not accommodate play, parking or any other space for the additional children. Please do not let these plans go ahead until much more research is done and practical measures are sought not just for the children but also for the elderly in the area of which I am one.

Ros Smith

I have lived at Cheswick Green since 1972.
My objections to the proposed new housing are that :

a)You are constantly building on Greenfield sites, when there are numerous Brownfield sites in the Birmingham area. Why? Surely “Greenfield” means they are the last areas to be built on. All we shall have left soon are the areas that contractors cannot be bothered to clear, when surely these should be used first.

b)Also, a disproportionate number of houses are being built on Cheswick Green compared with the rest of the borough.
Five years ago there were 1000 dwellings on Cheswick Green, after Blythe Valley there will be 3000, and if this development goes ahead there will be 4000+, yet there are no additional services planned. Cheswick Green School is already stretched. No extra doctors surgeries are envisaged. And hospitals?

When I came to Cheswick Green, I could get a doctor’s appointment when I called on the telephone. Just before Covid there was usually a wait of 5 minutes early morning before getting through and already very little possibility of an appointment within the week and lucky if one in the next fortnight. Now of course, it is impossible to do either. Also getting one at the actual Cheswick Green Surgery is nigh on impossible, one has to travel to Tanworth Lane or Knowle. Equally problematical with hospital appointments. This is how it is now. The future of our health looks bleak.

d)Roads are narrow around here and they will be unable to take more traffic safely. More accidents. Gridlocks at peak times, more pollution.

e)Dog Kennel Lane is the only boundary between us and adjoining areas of the borough. If that is lost, we will very quickly lose all our Greenfield areas and just become part of greater Birmingham.

Just one big city with no villages. No green space. Not good for our future generation

Why cannot brownfield sites be used instead of carving up our lovely countryside, losing trees that could be our lifeline?

f)And flooding: The more green space lost to housing, the more likelihood of more flooding as in 2019.

Please take these points into consideration. We Cheswick Green residents wish to remain in a safe, pleasant village with reasonable facilities, not be part of a huge city conurbation.

I wish to object to Policy BL2, which will encourage the building of 1000+ homes on beautiful green belt farmland to the rear of my house. I object for the following reasons.

This land extends from Cheswick Green northwards and eastwards to Dog Kennel Lane and Stratford Road.

These form clear and abrupt boundaries between open farmland and the built-up mass of the West Midlands. These clear, well defined boundaries must remain intact. The proposed developer's site boundary comes to within 100m of Cheswick Green. Development BL2 would leave an impossibly narrow gap to Cheswick Green village.

We will lose the valuable Arden Pasture Landscape fields and viable farmland. The remaining strip around Cheswick Green would be either a country park, or very marginal farmland.

I have lived in Cheswick Green all my life - I went to school here. This is my third Cheswick Green house, its main attraction to us being the beautiful open countryside at the end of the garden.

At the moment we enjoy weekly walks, with our daughter, round the public foot paths through the open fields, picking blackberries, learning about farming, the seasons and doing nature trails. These open rural paths would be lost forever, becoming at best suburban pathways, or roadside pavements – no substitute for the real thing. The see below a photo of our daughter at the bottom of our garden waiting for the sheep to come past with the farmer.

Flooding. The fields behind our house slope down towards us. Where will the run off water go if the fields become concrete?

New light pollution at night at the back of the house. Currently the back of the house is completely dark at night.

Noise and disturbance resulting from people, not sheep and cows, living in this space.

The natural habitat will be destroyed. We regularly see 2 fox cubs that play in the field behind and come into our garden. We watched lambs being born at the end of our garden this spring.
I’m at a complete loss to understand why the council would even consider the awful destruction beautiful green open fields in favour of building on and re-using brown field sites?

Inevitably there would be a significant increase of traffic on both small local country lanes and Stratford Road. This is bad enough already, with long delays on my way to and from work.

Why suggest a new school less than half a mile from the existing Cheswick Green school, just as the Council are consulting on doubling the size of the school to cater for new local development?

Over developing an already developed area and joining housing areas together with more housing to create a city of housing estates in place of fields.

There must be somewhere more appropriate for new houses. Please remove this ill considered proposal from your local plan.

Dear Sirs,
Cheswick Green has been at best “poorly served” by S.M.B.C. In matters relating to L.D.P. requirements.Local Govt. has to date shown little improvement in infrastructure requirements .
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 our hospital appointments, operations, and a longer to wait to see our local Doctor. There is no plan to build a new GP surgery alongside these houses.
Strong likelihood of more flooding
Some residents 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 homes even though the responsibility lies with Solihull MBC.
Travel, employment and public transport
Journey times will be much longer will it take 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 am emailing to express my great concern at the amount of new housing being built in the Shirley south area. There have already been vast amounts of apartments for the elderly being built in Shirley south. And now 15,000 more houses are being proposed! We do not have the infrastructure to support an extra 15,000 homes. We are already grid locked along Tamworth lane, Blackford road and Dog Kennel lane with the building that has already taken place in Shirley south, Cheswick Green and Dickens Heath which all converge on these roads already! 15,000 new homes means an extra 30,000 cars on average which means increasing traffic pollution and further gridlock! We do not have enough Doctor's surgeries, schools etc to support all the extra people who will live in these houses which would be many thousands if the average family has four people in one house! We are now having more elderly housing being built at The Green by TRW in Shirley south and that is before this next phase of building in Shirley South!
Shirley south, Cheswick Green and Dickens Heath are slowly being merged together with your inconsiderate housing plans!
Please reconsider what you are doing to this area before it is too late!

Consultation Response to Draft Local Plan Shirley South Green Belt residential Development
I OBJECT to this proposed residential development for the reasons I will refer to below:
The maintenance of sustainability does not appear to be given any consideration within this proposal, I have never observed such a lack consideration just to maximise the destruction of local habitat and ecological balance of this area. This is a time when greater consideration should be given to the environment.

The Shirley South appears to be carrying the main burden of the residential development throughout the Borough. I must highlight that Shirley and Blyth Valley area has already sustained significant redevelopment over the past 5 to 8 years.
Token tinkering with the minor road improvements appears to be the Councils only response, not really addressing the increased levels of traffic growth.

Could I ask why Solihull is taking the extra housing burden? Why are the additional housing not being absorbed within the Greater Birmingham's initiative, in order utilise the Brown Field First site strategy: promoted by Andy Street. Why is the council intent on devouring large swathes of ecological sensitive Green Belt? This makes a complete mockery of the boroughs motto Urbs et Rure


The site in question is adjacent to Whitlock End/ Dickens Heath is close to four local wildlife sites. In addition, being only one kilometre from a further 6 significant ecological natural sites. This development is too close to these sensitive sites and will have a catastrophic effect on the area, flora, fauna and wildlife, not to mention the quality of life for human inhabitants. These ecological sensitive high grade greenbelt sites perpetually flood and are therefore natural soak ways that mitigate local flood risk. Thoughtless development like this creates flood problems and removes the flood protection from the surrounding area it currently protects.

The Shirley area is a based on an ancient rural district, with lanes, bridle paths and narrow roads without pavement in many places. It has poor public transport, thereby making it a pedestrian and car dependant area. By increasing residential development this will exponentially increase car usage for each new household; the increase will be a 200% in car usage with a further potential increase of 200% because of natural family development. Expanding on this point, it does not consider employment in rurally established areas; they are by their very nature further away from employment, creating further stress on a low-key rural infrastructure, over time this grows further as families develop with the school runs and further education.

Problems concerning utility infrastructure such as gas, water electricity and sewage and water pressure of existing utilities infrastructure is near to breaking point. This is due to the constant bolting on of new developments to existing services, which is, essentially on to the original and existing rural setup. This appears to be short sighted and piece meal, leading to an eventual collapse due to inadequate planning. This is highlights the council’s agenda to purely expand the council tax revenue base, this is without any consideration of the utility infrastructure or the current residents.

Solihull Council must bear in mind the recent changes to the High Street brought about by the pandemic and changes in people shopping habits, which have created a significant change to the retail structure in this area. Many units are falling empty all over the borough; Shirley is a prime example, with the loss of Morrisons and closure of shops on the High street (even charity organisations have vacated) and stores Parkgate closing down. In addition, many units in Solihull town centre are empty, with a huge hole being created with the planned relocation of M&S. This calls for a completelynew look at utilising the vacant units that will be left by the devastating impact of the aforementioned shopping and the reuse of brown field sites.

The wider consequence of this development is the disproportionate effect that it will have on doctors and the wider health care provision. The existing system is stretched to breaking point with COVID as well as more residential developments already under construction. This will exponentially increase demand due to pressure of later life care, which is more complex and demanding. The health provision is exacerbated by the down grading of Solihull hospital surely this significant health resource should be upgraded rather than downgraded now, to secure the existing population.
The Shirley South community is whole heartedly behind this OBJECTION and will not allow this Borough council to destroy the ecological balance, quality of life of existing residents any further with the short-term revenue generation schemes.
The community of Solihull, South Shirley and the Blythe want to set trends with good sustainable development not shoddy cash grabs with disastrous environmental consequences.