Policy BL2 - South of Dog Kennel Lane

Ref Draft Submission Plan .

My concerns have not changed over the past 4 years , they are as follows :-

Shirley is already grid locked regarding road ways .
Lack of doctors .
Schools already over capacity .
Main roads grid locked .
8 additional care homes & retirement homes being built in Shirley .

Mr R.Godwin

With reference to the above I would like to formally object to the proposed development of 1000 new houses. You will hear and have heard these objections before, but they are still valid.

It was stated in the video of the councillor that investigations to develop brownfield sites first to me seems disingenuous. The BLR lists many sites in the borough that have or could have planning permission. In estimation enough for all 1000 houses and if not all certainly most. So why aren’t these chosen first. Probably because it would be too expensive for the developer to build on widely dispersed sites. Hence the pressure from them on the council to approve a site where they can build on one site.

The issue my family and others is that Cheswick Green cannot cope with any more developments. The Parish council sum the objections well and are detailed here.

Five years ago Cheswick Green had 1000 dwellings. At present there are 2000. By the time Blythe Valley is complete there will 3000. 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. As I have stated earlier not enough houses are being built on brownfield sites.

The development will put further strain on the NHS for hospital appointments and a longer wait (which is already too lng by far) to see the GP. There’s no plan to build a GP surgery alongside these houses.

Then there’s the flooding issue. The more green belt that is lost to housing, the greater the likelihood of future and worse flooding.

The roads already too busy and congested. With gridlock at peak times. There are no local employment opportunities and public transport benefits and the new transport policy is not included in the draft plan.

National planning policy confirms that green belt should be defined by permanent features such as roads, railways and water courses.

The council intend to create an artificial boundary by building a road as part of the development. This goes against the spirit and intentions of national planning policy.

Dog Kennel Lane is the only boundary between Cheswick Green and the surrounding areas. If this boundary is lost this will lead to further extensive development. What’s to stop it if so much has already been taken.

Urbs in Rure? More like Urbs in Urbs.

I strongly object to this proposed development.

Dear Sirs,
>
> On behalf of the Cheswick Green Residents Association, I wish to make representation to the above plan. Under the heading of “Justified”, it is argued that the plan is not “An Appropriate Strategy”.
>
> SECTION 575
> This section calls for Cheswick Green School (CGS) to become two-form entry, thus doubling the volume of pupils. It is noted that the additional capacity is designed to accommodate children from the Mount Dairy Farm and Blythe Valley Park developments.
>
> It is accepted that families from Mount Dairy Farm should be entitled for their children to be educated at CGS. However, as Blythe Valley Park is some 2.7 miles away and without footpaths, cycle lanes or easy accessed roads to Cheswick Green, it is not right that these children should be allocated just to CGS.
>
> Furthermore, 2.7 miles is too far for young children to walk and in most cases the return journey would be made by car. Not only would this be bad for the environment, but it would cause traffic chaos in the immediate area outside the school. It should also be noted that a number of vehicle accidents have already occurred outside the school.
>
> In July 2016, the Residents Association surveyed Cheswick Green residents on many local issues. The survey attracted 237 responses and the preferences for primary schools is provided below
> - Expand CGS with a rear drop-off point 9.6%
> - Build a new school on Blythe Valley Park 86.2%
>
> Following publication of the residents survey, the Residents Association recommendation was to accommodate children in all three local primary schools. This still represents the most sensible route.
>
> SECTION 608
> This section calls for the building of 1,000 homes on land south of Dog Kennel Lane.
>
> Residents already living in the Blythe Ward chose their location for the semi rural environment it affords. However, in recent years, Blythe has had more than its fair share of housing development which has contributed to flooding, traffic congestion, accidents and an erosion of the semi rural environment. In contrast the surrounding villages of Dorridge and Hockley Heath have virtually escaped new development.
>
> It is apparent that much of Solihull’s new housing has been dumped on the Blythe Ward and this has to stop. Accordingly, it is requested that this development is cancelled.
>
> Would you please acknowledge receipt of this note and confirm that our recommendations will be taken into account.
>
> Greg Allport
> Acting Chairman - Cheswick Green Residents Association

Cheswick Green - site 12- Dog Kennel Lane
I have lived on Cheswick Green for over 45 years and am very concerned at the impacted the building around us is having and will have in the future. Cheswick Green is a very rural village with lots of trees and green space, it seems to me we are being squashed, we were led to believe many moons ago that there would always be a green buffer between any future development around Cheswick Green.
The letter we received from Cheswick Green Parish Council worried me immensely.
Our lovely rural school. Doubling the intake size of our school without increasing the hall, library, office space canteen facilities and not providing adequate parking for staff, is offering a substandard school experience. the playing field has always been a well-used rescores to the school and the loss of this would be detrimental to the school experience. I am dreading the parking implications at opening and closing times, its chaotic now. Both Blythe Vallie and the new housing on Dog Kennel Lane should have their own infant and junior school facilities. The letter from Cheswick Green Parish Council, indicated that you have suggested children from Blythe Vally could walk two and a half miles to school or catch a school bus, parents of five- to nine-year-old children would not be happy with these two suggestions, both are extremely dangerous .
No provision for doctor's surgery, at the moment it can take days of phoning to get to see someone, Blythe Vally and the new development should have their own provision. I'm worried we will have to travel further to hospital appointments as our hospitals have more patients.
The roads around our area are already a lot busier, with more accidents than we have ever had, the extra housing on Dog Kennel Lane and Blyth Vally are already having an adverse effect on our rural roads and I've lost count as to how many times our bus service has been threated.
The flooding now on Cheswick Green is a lot worse since the new houses on Cheswick Green has been built, and all the new housing at Dog Kennel Lane is bound to affect the rivers making this even worse. When the new housing on Cheswick Green was passed, we were told that measures had been factored in but they don't seem to have worked.
With the housing already being built at Blythe Vallie and the new proposals at Dog Kennel Lane, you will be offering house holders inadequate schooling, problems getting doctor and hospital appointments, roads unable to cope with traffic jams and even more flooding on the older Cheswick Green Village, this is not really good enough from Solihull Counsel and not good enough for the people already living here working here and those who may buy a house hear in the futter. It would also be nice that if we have to have some new housing it was greener with space for trees and front gardens, the new development on Cheswick Green has no green spaces it looks worse than a housing estate,

site these homes on the other side of Junction 4 of the M42 where the A3400 has the capacity to manage the traffic flow. There is a site at Blythe Valley off Kineton lane and it would make sense to expand this further so that the area can support local shops or Doctor’s surgery to make it more sustainable and benefitting residents of the existing development.

The first observation is that none of the proposed locations are not accurately identified by postcode or any precise map. As such this makes it difficult to properly consider each proposal and I believe the document should be reissued with detailed site locations as an appendix.
An example of the problem this causes is on page 177 paragraph 605 where I believe that the football clubs listed as affected by the site to the West of Dickens Heath are incorrect. Having cross referenced other documents I believe it is Wychall Wanderers ground that is part of the proposed site rather than Leafield Athletic. I would appreciate written confirmation of this. Assuming this is the case I would reiterate the point ,if your own staff cannot accurately interpret the proposed site locations then this document needs to be reissued.
The proposed site West of Dicken’s Heath (pages 175 and 176) is problematic for a number of reasons. The primary one being the fact the football pitches are currently used by hundreds of children of all ages as well as adults to participate in grass roots sport, principally football. The number of football pitches available has reduced significantly over recent years and it is imperative that those that are left are protected. The council will be well aware of the importance and benefits of regular sport and exercise for the mental and physical well being of our community. While the plan does suggest alternative sites should be sought it does not identify any and the likelihood of finding sites of the same capacity and quality in the vicinity is very low – if they existed, they would have been identified within the plan already. This is reason enough to reject the proposal to build on this site. If alternative sites do exist, they should be identified and evaluated as an alternative for meeting the housing needs now as it does not make sense to move football clubs without proper evaluation of all options.
Furthermore there are a number of other reasons why site 4, West of Dickens Heath is an unsuitable:
- The location is a high performing Green Belt area which has not been taken into consideration in the sustainability appraisal. Central government policy is to protect green belt and develop brownfield sites.
- The sustainability Appraisal tries to prove the site is sustainable when clearly it is not, as evidenced by the numerous mitigation measures to attempt to make it sustainable – some of which are not achievable
- The council have not undergone a proper scrutiny of all other more sustainable sites in a sequential test that would have fewer constraints if the sustainability Appraisal has been carried out correctly in the first place, prior to site allocation, rather than trying to force preselected site allocations to fit the plan
- The proposed development of 250 houses will be un-associated, both visually and physically, with the award-winning village of Dickens Heath. The character of the village will be adversely affected and the sense of community and identity compromised. The canal, woodlands and ancient hedgerows form a strong definable boundary to the existing village and this proposal sits outside that boundary
- Traffic and Parking in and around Dickens Heath are already a problem as the council has and continues (Regency Fields and Tidbury Heights for example) to allow the area to be overdeveloped. Traffic is stationary in Dicken’s Heath at peak times and exisiting Parking is not sufficient. The surrounding rural road network is overloaded and cannot take any additional traffic, they pavements (where they exist) and street lighting are also insufficient. The council has proven unable to address these problems and therefore should not put further stress on the infrastructure.
The proposed site West of Dickens Heath is completely unsuitable and this needs to be removed from the plan. Furthermore the plan needs to give more consideration to the regeneration of commercial areas of the borough. With both an increase in people working from home and fewer people visiting town centres and shops in general, there is a strong case for converting office and retail space into residential. This will provide for the housing need but also help the footfall in town centres bringing much needed trade to our retailers, many of who are local businesses and residents of Solihull.
I am also concerned that traffic flow has not been adequately considered in this plan. For example the A34 carries a huge amount of traffic an is already unable to adequately cope at peak times and yet the plan proposes to build 1000 dwellings on the site south of Dog Kennel Lane (page 177). This will significantly exacerbate what is already a problem. It would be much more logical to site these homes on the other side of Junction 4 of the M42 where the A3400 has the capacity to manage the traffic flow. There is a site at Blythe Valley off Kineton lane and it would make sense to expand this further so that the area can support local shops or Doctor’s surgery to make it more sustainable and benefitting residents of the existing development.
When I moved to Tidbury Green (part of Blythe in the plan) I relied on the local authority search which stated the area was green belt. While I understand and support the need for additional housing, I feel that Tidbury Green and the surrounding area’s Green Belt status and rural character have been ignored in Solihull Council's handling of recent planning proposals - the locality has met significantly more than its fair share of the boroughs housing needs. This is completely changing the feel and character area and this should not be allowed to continue, particularly as it is not sustainable and the infrastructure cannot cope.

• We would require clarity about the size of the public open space between Cheswick Green and site 12.
• We require assurances that given the large number of houses built in and around Cheswick Green in the last few years the Public open space between our village and Dog Kennel lane will remain.

See attachment

I wish to formally state my objection to the proposed development in dog kennel lane.

This constitutes a further take of green belt in the borough and the erosion of open space.

This is not acceptable.

See Attachment

See attachment

See attachment

investigate alternative brown field sites

DRAFT LOCAL PLAN - CONSULTATION RESPONSE


A 'Fair Deal' for Cheswick Green and Dickens Heath - NO!


I have been a resident of Cheswick Green for nearly forty years. I have therefore witnessed at first hand the dramatic changes that have taken place in the immediate and surrounding areas.

I am deeply disturbed by this current Council's proposals which if implemented would continue to devastate the local environment. This once rural area has already experienced unimaginable changes over the past twenty years with no apparent attempt by this or previous Councils to protect its green spaces. There are a number of very valid and extremely significant issues which appear to have been ignored.

1)TRAFFIC

The A34 a major hub road into Birmingham constantly experiences huge volumes of traffic - and particularly so at peak times.
Hence, similarly any road linking to the A34 becomes congested.
Creynolds Lane where I live is one such road like many others and I use it purely as an example.
I cannot safely guarantee to exit or turn into my drive at these peak times. The volume of traffic ( queues in excess of
1000 metres to the junction are not uncommon ), the speed of vehicles ( more often now well in excess of the speed limit ), the inadequate street lighting, cyclists deciding against using the road and instead using the pavement for safety are just a few illustrations. This would be what Dog Kennel Lane would become and further housing development would obviously exacerbate the problem throughout the area.

My regular communications with local Councillors has earned scant reward. Promises but no action!

2) POLLUTION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

A significant boundary between the urban sprawl of our nearby neighbour Birmingham must be maintained as it is - the land to the side of Dog Kennel Lane serves this purpose.

Pollution from traffic and from litter over say the next ten years will take its toll. There are several supermarkets and fast food outlets in close proximity and (sadly) their products find their way onto our roads. Although this is not a legacy we might wish to leave to future generations it is nonetheless a fact that the local environment will suffer badly.

3)LOCAL AMENITIES

I do not see significant or sufficient reference as to how a major increase in the local population can be supported.

Is there a guarantee that a new primary school will be built ? Where are the new Health Centres/ Doctors and pharmacies.
Surely the Council appreciate that an ageing population and young families must have access to this support. Waiting times for appointments at GP practices in the area are at present unacceptably too long.


4)RECREATION - Where will the children play?

By soaking up green field areas the Council would deprive future generations of the opportunity to appreciate countryside/wild life. A quick visit to recent housing developments reveals that new homes will have precious little garden space for children to do this.


5)REGULAR MAINTENANCE

The Council concedes that it is inadequately funded.. As a consequence it continues to struggle to maintain the existing facilities that are necessary to safely support local roads. What will be the case when 1000s more cars use them? Pot holes, damaged road signs, road signs obscured by overhanging vegetation or covered in green mould, fewer than the statutory provision of speed limiting signs, poor lighting and of course no litter collection schedules are all issues that even at present are not being safely addressed.


6)IN CONCLUSION?

a) Why use Solihull's green field sites to simply extend the expanding population of Birmingham. Say NO.

```` b) Why not thoroughly and with
honesty investigate alternative brown field sites outside the Cheswick Green parish boundary? Why should the Parish carry such a huge burden?

c)Make a determined effort to acknowledge that the area already has a serious traffic congestion issue and seek alternative sites in an attempt to diffuse the flow elsewhere.

d)Why not re-think the whole Plan - be bold! Discussions I have had recently with many local residents suggest that there is no support for it. It is the belief of many that the proposals have simply been rushed through 'under the radar' whilst the local population is distracted by pressing national issues. Or ? Are they simply being cynical?

I wish to submit my objections regarding the above, but find the Solihull Council website non user- friendly. Hence the following email

I have lived at Cheswick Green since 1972. I am referring to the whole plan.
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) A disproportionate number of houses are being built on Cheswick Green compared with the rest of the borough;. Five years ago Cheswick Green had 1000 dwellings. At present there are 2000. By the time Blythe Valley is completed there will be 3000 dwellings 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.

The empty / unused buildings could be repurposed for joint domestic / commercial use thus saving the greenbelt and keeping town centres alive

f.a.o. Spatial Planning

LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION RESPONSE

I would like you to understand that the consultation time offered by the council for the local population to acquire, digest, read, comprehend and react to the Local Plan is far too short. The entire plan contains over 10,500 pages with 30% being added on October 30th, the first day of the consultation period. To be given only six weeks to formulate a response is far too short a time.

It is acknowledged that the population of the U.K. is ageing but within Solihull, over 65’s make up 21% of the population and it has been said that they will number more than 50,000 by 2035.
Shirley has a 30% higher level of older people than the national average.
In recent years and indeed to date, Shirley has taken more than its fair share of retirement and care homes in comparison to the rest of Solihull. This has had a marked impact on Shirley as residents in these kinds of properties have particular needs and demands on local services, many of which are unable to cope at today’s levels of demand. Doctors are struggling, indeed at least one new care home is unable to find a local surgery at which to register its residents. Care services are well over subscribed in the area and south Solihull now has no primary care facility. Adding to the housing aimed at older people will only make matters worse. If these agencies are struggling now, what will be the impact of building even more homes in the area?

Of all the new housing proposed for the borough of Solihull more than 39% is planned to be in Shirley. This does not include the homes already completed such as those on what was the Powergen site and other windfall developments. If the proposed plans go ahead then much of the greenbelt land between Shirley, Cheswick Green and Dickens Heath will be lost forever.
Since the pandemic has closed so many shops and offices generally, I would question the need for so many extra new houses on virgin land. The empty / unused buildings could be repurposed for joint domestic / commercial use thus saving the greenbelt and keeping town centres alive.

No matter how much developers advocate that public transport is the way forward, and that narrow roads and little off road parking are a sign of the future, public transport in Shirley, away from the Stratford Road, is generally poor. The railway stations that serve the area are not easily accessed by road, pedestrian footpath or cycleway

Dickens Heath was built on the premise that the residents would be dissuaded by limiting the number of parking areas, garages and spaces not need to use cars and would instead, use public transport. The public transport in the area is so poor that most families in the village own at least two cars and there is a huge parking problem. The existing road system in and around Shirley is already far too congested. Access to the major routes such as the Stratford Road, the Alcester Road, the M42 and M40 are extremely busy now. Many more houses in the area would completely gridlock the road system.

Much of Shirley is built on clay and there is a considerable amount of local flooding, the newer areas of housing to be built have had to have ponds / pools incorporated in order to contain excess water, I understand this to be called SUDS (sustainable drainage system) and seems to be developer’s favoured way of overcoming the problem of flooding. These pools / ponds do not add to the attractiveness of a development being filled with reeds or similar and they are a danger, particularly to young children.

Speaking of children, there is one primary school planned in the development and not a single secondary school. The proposed homes will attract families and families mean children. Where are they meant to travel to for their education given the poor transport system already mentioned and the lack of access to get to bus stops or the stations? Schools, doctors, chemists, shops are more than a convenient walk away and generally will rely on existing narrow twisty country lanes many of which have no pedestrian footpaths. The distances involved are in many cases too far and too dangerous for mums with pushchairs and young children to negotiate. As there is only one primary school and no proposed secondary school many parents will have to transport their children by car. The only other alternative would be to cycle but the roads are too narrow and will have an undisputed inherent extra amount of traffic on them.

I understand that the average selling price of a new home proposed to be built on the various sites in Shirley will be over £340 000 meaning the developers will get a return of over
£800,000 per acre, a far larger amount than they would make if they were to made to redevelop brown field or windfall sites which is what they should be encouraged to do as most of the required basic infrastructure is already paid for and in place.

I understand that people need homes but Shirley is being tasked with far more development than is fair or sensible, Chelmsley Wood is being regenerated, more homes could be built there where generally the infrastructure is already designed and existing, the new Arden development at the HS2 interchange can take more development of suitable homes not only the unaffordable ones that the developers are forcing on Shirley.

I feel that the Local Plan is being pushed through under cover of the pandemic with not enough time allowed for the general public to have their say. For the above reasons, I would like to register my objections to it.

Sites which were business properties should become residences with 24 hour services.

See attachment

See attachment

Delete Site BL2 from Plan

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

Delete Site BL2 from plan

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

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

Delete Site BL2 from plan

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

Delete Site BL2 from plan

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

Deleted Site BL2 from plan

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

Delete Site BL2 from plan

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

Delete Site BL2 from plan

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

- An additional sub-paragraph to be included under Paragraph “Development of this site should be consistent with the principles of the Concept Masterplan for this site, which includes the following”:
‘Create a place which is safe with a strong sense of identity, incorporating high quality design which meets ‘Secured by Design’ standards to reduce crime and the fear of crime and to this end applicants are encouraged to engage with the West Midlands Crime Prevention Advisor at the earliest opportunity.’

- An additional sub-paragraph to be included Paragraph “Likely infrastructure requirements will include”:
Developer contributions to Police infrastructure to ensure an appropriate level of service can be maintained so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.

See attached representations forms

- Green Belt definition is unclear.
- Question Para. 609 that internal estate roads should form boundary with housing overlooking the Green Belt. Other ways to provide a suitable urban edge.

See attached letter.

Further housing sites, such as the CFS 193, must be allocated to provide assurances that the
minimum housing requirement can be met.

See attached letter

Delete Site BL2 from Plan

See attachments.

See Attachments

All strategic housing allocations should be stated as a ‘minimum (unless mitigating factors determine otherwise)’.

See Attachments

Part 2
ii. Public open space and a range of play areas for children and young people should be provided in accordance with Policy P20.
v. Trees and hedgerows along Dog Kennel Lane should be retained, where possible, to protect the character of the highway.

See Attachments