Policy BL2 - South of Dog Kennel Lane

Part 5
The Concept Masterplan document should be read alongside this policy. Whilst The Concept Masterplans are indicative only and may be subject to change in light of further work that may need to be carried out at the planning application stage. Future development proposals should adhere to the design principles and overall objectives set out in the Concept Masterplan
document for site BL2. Justification should be provided where there is a significant departure from the principles/objectives.

Delete following: any significant departure from the principles outlined for Site 12 BL2 will need to be justified and demonstrate that the overall objectives for the site and its wider context are not compromised

See Attachments

To build another 1668 homes right next door to cheswick green after cheswick place has just been built is totally unfair. The road infrastructure cannot cope now let alone having another 2000 plus cars being added to the mix. When the floods happened last year there was no way out only creynolds lane and the queues were hours long. Solihull Gp’s are unable to cope I waited 2 and half hours to book a medical review disgusting!! Why should we as a community have all these new houses dumped on our doorstep when our children are fighting for places at primary and don’t get me started on secondary schools.....where are they expected to go when your proposed housing goes ahead why should our children suffer and have to go elsewhere just to line the pockets of the landowners and developers who want to destroy everything about are community and just make it one concrete jungle!! Go somewhere else stop building houses in our area and making all the residents suffer the consequences of a poor health care service which cannot cope as it is, destroying green belt areas which are so precious and so enjoyed by all and also a massive topic air pollution I don’t want my child growing up with poor health due to the fact that we live in a concrete jungle I didn’t choose that lifestyle I chose to live here because of the semi rural location the fresh air the wildlife not for it all to be destroyed by councillors who don’t give a toss because it’s not on their patch!! Out of sight out of mind springs to mind!! What about building a few more houses in dorridge there seems to be no mention of them towing the line??? I am totally against this development and the expansion of cheswick green school which will also cause endless problems with regards to parking, pupils from outside the area being brought into our community and yet again more pollution!! Totally unfair proposals take your 15000 houses elsewhere!!!

Just read a green party leaflet about all the housing being built in and around Shirley and having visited your site also around Solihull.

There seems to be no mention of school's, shops bus routes doctors, hospitals that would needed to support all the people that would be moving into the area. The road infrastructure also seems to be lacking in thought or have I missed something here

Re Proposed Housing Development Site 12 Dog Kennel Lane.

I am writing to object to the proposed new Site 12, 1000 house development at Dog Kennel Lane Solihull. I am objecting on the grounds that the area surrounding Cheswick Green, has already had several other housing developments built such as Bloor Homes Cheswick Place, Bloor Homes Blyth Valley as well as Barratt Homes Evolution. I am therefore of the opinion that this area cannot support any further developments.

I have lived in Cheswick Green for forty- five years, and have found during the last few years there has been a gradual deterioration in the local services available to its residents. For example, I used to be able to arrange a doctor's appointment within a few days, now, I cannot get one for at least a week and quite often longer. Why are these new developments not having a Doctors surgery provided for their own residents instead of putting the increased load onto The Village Surgery which clearly cannot cope? Cheswick Green School is now having to be extended to cope with the additional intake of children from these new developments. Cheswick Way, in the area of the school, is already an accident waiting to happen due to the number of parents trying to park when delivering or collecting their children from the school, so what will it be like if another major development affects it? It is morally wrong to build all these developments without the facilities they need locally available within them, and not to allow their residents to overcrowd the existing ones at Cheswick Green.

Surely, there are other areas in the borough that can be found for building new homes possibly brown field sites, as opposed to using up precious green belt land.

The roads are also becoming overcrowded, I often walk the lanes in this area, and it is obvious to me that at peak times the traffic is excessive for their size and therefore struggling to cope.

There are far too many houses being built in this area: there were approximately one thousand built, but now there are two thousand, and by the time the Blyth Valley development is completed it will bring the number up to three thousand. If the Dog Kennel Lane development goes ahead there will be a further one thousand homes all trying to use the local services that were originally provided for only a quarter of that number.

I appreciate there it a need for new housing in the Midlands but the area surrounding Cheswick Green has already had more that it can realistically cope with, so I urge you as a council to please rethink this option.

Yours Faithfully,


J W Corbett.

I write with reference to the Local Plan Review in respect of Solihull and the proposed housing developments in the Tythe Barn Lane (BL1) Dog Kennel Lane (BL2) Whitlocks End Farm (BL3) allocations.

As a resident of Neville Road I write to register my concerns and objections to the proposed development sites and the number of proposed dwellings to be included on each site.

In total the 3 sites are proposing in the region of 1650 additional homes. Whilst no-one can dispute that additional housing is needed, the area and amenities cannot support the proposed number of proposed dwellings. I note that you are including provision for some additional primary school places, but I cannot see in the review that there is any intention to increase or offer any additional secondary school places. Secondary school places in Solihull are already in demand and many residents do not get their first place choices. I do consider that if you intend to allow an additional 1650 houses to be built in the local area, there will not be enough places for our children and this needs to be considered alongside any proposals for additional housing..

Further, i note that you state you intend to improve access on Bills Lane. This is already an extremely busy road and there is always a backlog of cars during peak periods. There are limited ways in which you could improve this area and with the additional proposed number of homes that would increase the number of traffic travelling on Bills Lane and surrounding roads to dangerous levels. Currently the pathways on the side of Bills Lane which joins Neville Road is too narrow and there is no foothpath at all on the opposite side which runs along Bills Wood. Also Bills Lane itself is a fairly narrow road which cannot support the current traffic levels without the proposed expansions on housing.

I have concerns also regarding the provision for Doctors surgeries, which are struggling now without additional patients. Further the proposed closure of Solihull Police Station would leave a highly populated area with no provision for Police support. With the closure of Solihull Hospital for accident and emergency and maternity services, there is also limited provision for hospital support in the area and does not reflect the population and any additional proposals for housing.

I note from having reviewed the draft local plan, that Shirley has the largest number of proposed additional homes that the area simply cannot support and which will put pressure on all services within the community.

The majority of current proposals in the Shirley area are retirement properties. Whiist there is no doubt a need for these types of properties, not every pensioner wishes to live in this type of property nor wishes to pay the extortionate service charges that are applied as a resident of one of these developments. Surely these would be better placed as having a smaller development of houses to accord with the need of the area. Particularly the proposed developments at the former Office World site and former Morrisons site.

I look forward to hearing from you further in due course.

As a resident of Cheswick Green, I would like to raise serious concerns about the soundness of the Solihull Local Plan for the following key reasons:
 The spread of housing is not distributed fairly across the borough, with 39% in Shirley/Blythe (B90 postcode), including the site at The Green Shirley (site 11) currently being built.
 Many areas of the borough, such as Dorridge, are having no homes at all and will not meet their housing needs in the plan, while the Shirley/Blythe area is disproportionately over-contributing to the local housing need. This is unfair and is an imbalance that needs to be addressed through modification to the plan.
 The loss of Green Belt is too high considering that brownfield sites at Solihull Town Centre and the HS2 Interchange site are being under-utilised for housing and masterplans for both locations are not included in the plan.
 There is a lack of supporting evidence to demonstrate that sites BL1, BL2 and BL3 do not pose a significant flood risk, particularly in view of the fact that they feed into the River Blythe and Cole catchments which have flooded more than once in excess of 1 in 100 year levels in the past 15 years. These events are happening more frequently as a result of Climate Change, and the risk of building 1,600 more homes in the area cannot be underestimated.
 The cumulative effect of the quantity of housing being allocated to the Shirley/Blythe area will result in the gap between Shirley and Dickens Heath/Cheswick Green being narrowed too much, putting in jeopardy the remaining Green Belt buffer. The prospect of a new road forming a new Green Belt boundary at site BL2 is of considerable concern. Dog Kennel Lane provides a well-established and distinct separation between the built-up area of Shirley and the Green Belt, and this should be maintained. There is significant community concern that over time, the narrow gap in Green Belt that is left behind will be filled in and will result in a continuous urban sprawl.
 There is a lack of any detail in the plan on how it will cater for the increased demand for primary healthcare services, like GP surgeries in the Shirley area. With the housing numbers we already have, and proliferation of care homes and housing for older people, current facilities are struggling to cope and the system has fallen over during the Covid-19 pandemic. This is not sustainable and whilst the plan identifies sites for new primary schools, there are no sites identified for primary care.
 The plan has been rushed through with an inadequate timescale for public consultation, especially in view of the Covid-19 pandemic, with traditional outreach methods, like public meetings, not being possible. Requests to extend the consultation period have been denied by the Council.
 Documents in support of the plan were uploaded by the Council after the consultation opened on 30 October 2020, with some alterations made as late as the final week of the consultation. Despite this, no extensions were granted to allow people the chance to review their representations in view of the amendments made.
 A disproportionate amount of supporting evidence was uploaded in October (around a third of the total in page numbers) when the consultation went live. This gave a very limited window of opportunity for respondents to go through all the documents.
The plan should not be submitted for public examination until it is modified, as it would result in thousands of acres of Solihull Green Belt being lost unnecessarily, while the housing needs of many parts of the borough will not be met.
The vast majority of the land allocated in this plan is currently in the Green Belt, and contributes greatly to openness and recreation, improving mental health and wellbeing for our communities. Using Green Belt to the extent the plan does is flawed because it is the least sustainable from a transport perspective, resulting in high car dependency due to poor public transport and active travel links. Traffic congestion and air pollution are already major problems in the Shirley/Blythe area, and with the quantity of new development proposed in the plan, this will only worsen and the Council has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the inclusion of these sites.
Green Belt land is also essential for CO2 sequestration. Priority in the plan should have been given to verticalisation in urban areas rather than urban extension to maximise land efficiency for housing.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear in section 11 that “Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.”
Further to this, section 8 of the Council’s Draft Submission Plan FAQs states that “Developments will be located in accessible locations for sustainable transport, or improve the existing provision as well as being well-connected for cyclists and pedestrians.” The plan relying so heavily on Green Belt sites, which have poor access to sustainable transport options, does not achieve this. Additionally, policies P7 and P8 of the plan advocate ease of travel, reducing the need to travel and easing congestion. Relying on allocating so many Green Belt sites will not accord with those policies.
In conclusion, the plan does not meet the needs of the whole borough, sacrificing our Green Belt when this could be avoided with a sound and fair plan. The Shirley/Blythe area in particular is targeted with too high a number of new homes without the infrastructure to sustain this, whereas other parts of the borough are not taking a fair share of Solihull's housing need. Objections raised by residents, Opposition Councillors, Parish Councils and other third parties have been ignored and dismissed by the Council and the consultation has not been sufficiently inclusive.

Delay development in these areas until congestion on Stratford Road has been improved.

BL1 - West of Dickens Heath, BL2 South of of Kennel Lane - Both funnel traffic towards Stratford Road adding to congestion. It currently create further serious congestion around the traffic islands at the junction of Tanworth Lane, Dickens Heath Road, Blackford Road and Dog Kennel Lane. Queues extend from this point to DH Village clock, Town end Tanworth Lane, queues extend into Woodlands Road and Stretton Road. No evidence of plans with traffic impact.

To whom it may concern,

I’m writing to object to the local plan, particularly with respect to sites BL1, BL2 and BL3 in and around Tidbury Green, Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green. The existing infrastructure (schools, surgeries, roads) is already struggling, even before the completion of residences already underway, e.g. near Stratford road. Much of the traffic from these villages commutes to the M42 J4, and as such creates gridlock during rush hour. Building more houses along these already busy routes is only going to exacerbate the problem, and demand to travel to the M42 is only going to increase with HS2. The narrow, rural road network cannot take further development and is already overloaded.

With particular reference to site BL1, this site will be unassociated, both visually and physically, with the surrounding villages which have clearly defined boundaries. This site will start to fill in the gaps between villages, removing the unique character of the area and destroying the connectivity between local wildlife sites and ancient woodland, as highlighted by Natural England. The BL1 site is in a high performing green belt area, which has not been taken into consideration in the Sustainability Appraisal. Central Government Policy is to protect the green belt and develop on brownfield land first.

I believe a full sustainability appraisal should have been carried out prior to site allocation, rather than trying to make the preselected site allocations fit the plan.

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 application is submitted with sufficient archaeological information to enable a reasoned and informed planning decision to be made.

As highlighted on pg. 19 of the 2020 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.

*Warwickshire County Council, 2020. 'Archaeological Assessment to Inform the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Local Plan. Additional Sites, 2020'. Warwick: Archaeological Information and Advice

Delete Site BL2 from Plan

See attachments.

Delete Site BL2 from Plan

See attachments.