Policy BL3 - Whitlock's End Farm

WE all agree new homes have to be built but i'd ask that they be spread further apart across the borough and not bulit in such close proximity in shirley the roads network simply won't cope with such an increase in traffic especially if site BL3 and site BL1 are bulit .

The reasons i'm against the Site BL3 are because the roads in this area Bills lane ,Haslucks green road already struggle to cope with increased traffic since the new ASDA was built and at rush hour its difficult to even get off your driveway to increase this amount of traffic flow through Bills lane and Haslucks green road would be horrendous not to mention the extra strain on local services in shirley like the doctors which is extremely poor now and we now have an extra 803 retirement units on Stratford road too .

Greater consideration needs to be given to the potential changes to housing demand with the advent of HS2. The significant inter-change at Birmingham International will give a "pull" to people wishing to move out of London. There is now evidence of this shift and house prices in the borough are reflecting this demand. We could forsee a situation where commuters are dropped off at International then expected to travel across the Borough for housing.
Current trends suggest there is already a change in working and shopping patterns, which is unlikely to be reversed, hastened by the current pandemic. This means more empty office spaces and retail units. M and S are leaving Mell Square and could be followed by House of Fraser. Both retailers suffering from being outside Touchwood. If this decline in Mell Square continues there will be plenty of space that could be utilised for housing. Currently, former office space is being re-developed as apartment living and this is likely to continue. This rebirth of buildings will help prevent the continual incursion into valuable green belt. Amenities such as shops, public transport, entertainment, restaurants, local authority services exist in Solihull centre.

These comments could cover any of the proposals for Blythe Area but specifically for Whitlock's End Farm:
* the proposed density of development for the south of the Borough is placing an unequal burden on the area
* the pressure being placed upon local services especially healthcare including G.P. surgeries. There is increasing development of retirement homes in the area and as GP practices operate as "businesses" there is reluctance to open new surgeries where demand for services will adversely affect financial viability
* the pressure placed on road infrastructure already near capacity at peak times.

Spread the load on new homes over the borough not allowing Shirley to have the lions share on top of the new developments already completed.

Completely disproportionate for so many homes to be built in this area. The plan is to move traffic to Bills Lane and Haslucks Green Road - these are already very congested, how will moving traffic to these roads help congestion, pollution, road safety etc.

So many people use the fields and paths for exercise, loosing this will have a massive/negative effect on wellbeing

Include reference in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, to the requirement to consult Network Rail to determine the impacts of the proposal both in terms of construction management and residential traffic issues before any proposals are brought forward.

Network Rail is a statutory consultee for any planning applications within 10 metres of relevant railway land (as the Rail Infrastructure Managers for the railway, set out in Article 16 of the Development Management Procedure Order) and for any development likely to result in a material increase in the volume or a material change in the character of traffic using a level crossing over a railway (as the Rail Network Operators, set out in Schedule 4 (J) of the Development Management Procedure Order).

Network Rail is also a statutory undertaker responsible for maintaining and operating the railway infrastructure and associated estate. It owns, operates and develops the main rail network. Network Rail aims to protect and enhance the railway infrastructure, therefore any proposed development which is in close proximity to the railway line or could potentially affect Network Rail’s specific land interests will need to be carefully considered.

All planning policy consultations and planning application notifications should be issued to the following email address only:

TownPlanningLNW@networkrail.co.uk

With regards to the Local Plan regulation 19 review, Network Rail would comment that we are concern that 300 dwellings are proposed on site BL3 off Bills Lane near Shirley Railway Station and also Whitlocks End Railway Station. There is a low railway bridge (12 foot 3”) on Bills Lane and there may be an increased risk of vehicles striking the bridge if development is permitted.

Before any proposals for this site are brought forward Network Rail MUST be consulted by the council and developers to determine the impacts of the proposal both construction management / residential traffic issues. Any mitigation measures required by Network Rail to protect the railway bridge will need to be fully funded by the developer.
During the current situation all planning applications and planning policy consultation must be issued to:
TownPlanningLNW@networkrail.co.uk only. Please do not send hard copies to the Manchester office as the Town Planning team are working from home.

As this development is right on the border with the parish of Wythall, some evidence of consideration and collaboration should be included with plans of how the local road network will be improved to cope with the additional traffic.
Ideally a reduced number of houses would be preferable.

Wythall Parish Council Planning Committee have grave concerns over the effect to the surrounding area, particularly Majors Green, of policy BL3. Traffic will increase enormously on already busy and historically dangerous rural roads including Haslucks Green Road which has a hump back bridge, blind bend and adverse camber within a stretch of a few hundred metres. The Plan contains no measures to mitigate this detrimental effect on neighbouring parishes.
Also, there will be an increase in passenger numbers using Whitlocks End Train Station, yet there is no mention within the plan of how the already full car park will cope.

Site BL3 should be removed from the plan as it is inappropriate for the area.

I am concerned about building proposal for site BL3. I have lived close to this site on Bills Lane for 27 years and the volume of traffic has increased due to building Dickens Heath Village and the Retail Park. I note access roads are proposed from this site onto Bills Lane if a new housing development were built. There is a problem here with traffic jam between 08.15-08.45 a.m Mon-Fri during the school run. Woods Farm would be lost to the community and a natural habitat for wildlife lost forever. Shirley is turning into a "concrete jungle".

My preference would be for the development not to proceed or if it is for a significant reduction in the number of proposed dwellings with greater natural green space as it is today.

The BL3 development represents the spoiling of natural green spaces that have been enjoyed by generations of local and non-local people; natural green space that in part makes this area what it is. This development risks changing the character of the area significantly particularly when combined with BL2.

Furthermore, Bills Lane/Hall Green Road are already heavily congested a peak times, something this development will only add to.

Maintain distinct separation between Shirley and Dickens Heath. Keep essential green belt land for animals, plants/trees, people.

Essential green belt land, especially during these times. Plans will merge Shirley and Dickens Heath, lose distinct boundaries between areas making it one large conurbation.

PLEASE LEAVE OUR GREEN SPACES ALONE. This development makes a complete mockery of the recent removal of the adjacent development plot. This area is used by many people for varied uses and would be a loss of a key green space. It is rich in diversity of its users and in flora and fauna. The planners and their colleagues should take a walk on these paths and fields with local people to understand the devastating effect that ANY development of this area would have. I can guarantee that any ambition to continue with plans to develop this area will be fiercely fought by local people - my recommendation is to bin the whole development.

It does not seem like 5 minutes since the adjacent plot was blocked from built on, and now we are facing a larger development in an area that is totally unsuitable for such extensive housing. During (and since) lockdown this area has benefitted from dog walkers, families, cyclists, all able to spread out and enjoy the peaceful surroundings. These plans will totally decimate the area and bring unwanted traffic. Furthermore, the surrounding highway network is totally unsuitable and cannot accommodate this development. In particular, the road network would be unsuitable for construction traffic.
The area is home to an extensive list of flora and fauna with migratory birds utilising the widespread green areas. Birds include, but are not limited to: Cuckoo, Green Woodpeckers, Great Spotted Woodpeckers, Yellowhammer, Siskin, Greenfinch, Goldfinch, Goldcrest, Bullfinch, Buzzard, Kestrels, Kingfishers, Spotted Flycatchers, Peregrine Falcon, Red Kite... the list goes on. The areas is a paradise for wildlife enthusiasts who come to this area to see muntjac deer, roe deer, badgers, foxes, numerous species of bats, the list goes on. PLEASE LEAVE OUR GREEN SPACES ALONE. Your agenda to build on every last piece of green space is forcing our wildlife into smaller and smaller pockets.

BL3 site as proposed to be removed. The immediate area is incapable of carrying and coping the volume of traffic. Public transport is inadequate in size to cope with extra passengers and car parking. there is sufficient development in other ares of Blythe Valley that make the use of this site disproportionate and unnecessary. extra housing should be targeted to Brown Site areas. I understand the McCarthy Brown site on Stratford Road is not longer proceedings as Housing for the elderly and could be used in lieu of this site.

1. Public Transport/Traffic Congestion
2. Adverse Impact on Health Services
4. Eradication of acres of Greenbelt
5. Impact on local wildlife sites and general environment
6. Contribution to pollution and detriment to well being of local residents
7. Increased risk of flooding
8. Loss of Amenities
9.Sustainability

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 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.

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

See attached letter.

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 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.

“Draft Local Plan Consultation Response”
To whom it may concern:
39% Planning in Shirley
I am incensed that the Solihull Council should continue to be so unfair in their planning. Shirley is still unfairly loaded with 39 % planned homes. While we all realise there must be new builds. It is unfair that Shirley should take the lion's share. Open space for the residents of Shirley is small (most populated area in the borough). To take yet more green belt from this area is totally wrong.
Andy Street and Solihull Council, we are told, work hard to meet the challenge – “development on the Green Belt isn’t desirable”.
“At a regional level we are working to promote a ‘brownfield first’ approach to housing – and have brought in £434million to clean up derelict sites for homes, easing pressure on Green Belt sites in places like Solihull. This is a key part of the WMCA’s wider programme to advance the delivery of homes and is an example of how it is breathing new life into former industrial land by clearing the way for new homes and commercial premises to boost employment and the economy.”
Site BL3 formerly Allocation 26
Flooding in the area will be a major problem: The junction of Bills Lane and Haslucks Green Road already has a flooding problem when there is a high rainfall. More buildings in this area will alter the water table. Will the builders and Council pay compensation to the houses affected in this area, if they find themselves flooded out?
Why is there no development on the green belt in Dorridge and very little in Knowle to share some of the pressure from Shirley?
Traffic
Bills Lane Traffic: The roads are already busy with Shakespeare Drive completely transformed from a quiet lovely road to a thoroughfare. Haslucks Green Road is already a very busy road without additional traffic.
Doctor Surgeries
Shirley is overwhelmed with care homes and retired living accommodation. I am retired myself and I have no desire to be surrounded by nothing but old people, who already put a great strain on the local doctor’s surgeries, which is totally unfair to the younger members of the community. I have given up trying to get an appointment to see a doctor, so for families with young children it must be very stressful.
Social services generally will be overwhelmed with the need to support the aging community. I am not complaining from a personal point of view but for the greater good of the community.
I understand and, to some extent, sympathise with the Council having to answer to Local Government but please be fair. Shirley is becoming an area with no back yard or green belt. There are predominantly houses, Old people’s homes, care homes, car showrooms and very little else.

Sylvia Gardiner
22 Binton Road
Shirley
Solihull
B90 2QH

Dear Sir/Madam

My wife and I have lived in Bills Lane for 27 years. When we first arrived, there was little traffic on the road, now, and along with the surrounding roads, it is extremely busy with “Rat Run” traffic from Cheswick Green, Dicken’s Heath and latterly, Tidbury Green. We are very concerned about the development being built on Wood’s Farm land (BL3) and following the hill down to the railway bridge. The amount of traffic generated by this new estate emerging onto Bills Lane will make it even busier than it is at the moment, totally changing the character of the road.
Many local people use this area for walks and to enjoy the peace and quiet away from the constant presence of traffic. It is also part of a wonderful green space which already benefits from much needed tree stock and is well used for recreational purposes by the local residents.
We are also concerned that the much-needed green spaces between Shirley and the vastly increasing urban sprawl of Cheswick Green, Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green are rapidly disappearing. These should not be merged as these spaces will be lost forever and severe flood risk will result.
The proliferation of retirement properties is highly noticeable around Shirley and appears disproportionate to the needs of existing residents. What is needed are starter homes/apartments specifically affordable for first time buyers unable to afford the “Executive” homes so favoured by the developers. It would appear that Shirley is turning into a dumping ground for the majority of the housing requirements forced upon the Borough by the Government.
With the influx of a lot more residents coming into the area it is a foregone conclusion that the health services will be completely overwhelmed as will the transport infrastructure.

Yours faithfully
Ruth and David Neal
112 Bills Lane
Shirley
SOLIHULL
West Midlands
B90 2PF

To whom it may concern,

Please see below our representation with regards to the proposed housing development on the site of Whitlocks End Farm, Policy ref BL3.

We are residents of over 20 years in Shirley, living in Mallaby Close, near to the entrance of Woods Farm and Whitlocks end Farm.

One of our main concerns is if the entrance/exit to the proposed developed was at this juncture. It is already a very busy stretch of road and the 90° bend is a blackspot, at which cars have left the road on numerous occasions.

We also have a number of other concerns as follows:

- The site is a well known area of flood risk
- The current driveway follows the line of the public footpath down to the canal from Bills Lane. This is used by numerous local people out walking with children and pets. Changes to this would presumably result in the public right of way being re-routed
- Increase in pollution levels brought about by additional traffic both in the area and on the site
- Decrease in clean air caused by the decimation of thousands of trees to make way for development
- Loss of wildlife. Owls, bats, ducks, foxes and more are all prevalent on this site
- A totally disproportionate amount of development is being proposed in Shirley (39%), in an already highly populated area
- Huge resources would be needed to create a suitable infrastructure to support new road developments and provide additional services such as schools and doctors

We submit that this proposed development should be rejected. There are more than enough Brownfield sites in other areas of the Borough which would be more suitable and have far less of an impact on the local environment and people's quality of life.

Thank you in advance for reading and accepting our response.

Kind regards,

Barrie and Elaine Stanyer
22 Mallaby Close
Shirley
Solihull
B90 2PW

With regard to the Draft submission plan above my wife and I wish to register our grave concerns regarding to proposed areas BL1 west of Dickens Heath and BL3 Whitlock's End Farm. Both of these proposals will generate much more traffic and with the already severe traffic issues on mainly rural routes in this area will make the situation intolerable for every ones health, safety and wellbeing. In particular Haslucks Green Road has seen a substantial increase in traffic since the development of Dickens Health and Whitlock's End railway Station. The road is very narrow with severe and dangerous bends between Bills Lane and Tilehouse Lane/ Peterbrook Road this already being a high accident area, more traffic generated from these proposed developments will only exacerbate the problem. Dickens Heath although an award winning site has extensive parking problems with the village gridlocked at peak times, more vehicles from these additional properties would add to the problem.

In addition the loss of the sports facilities in Tythe Barn Lane is not necessary and would be a great loss to the community. We realise that the proposal states that these facilities will be replaced but nothing written as to when and where.

The proposal to run a bus route down Birchy Leasowes Lane is not feasible as the junction with Dickens Heath road has ancient woodland on either side which would prevent the junction being altered to accommodate buses turning safely.

We also have concerns with regard to flooding for example, Tythe Barn Lane was impassable on a number of occasions only this year after not significantly heavy rain, we feel this will only worsen with the onset of climate change. The football grounds at present flood and act as a natural soak away for excess rainwater, building on this land would prevent that happening.

Being conservationists we are also concerned if these proposals are adopted a number of local wildlife and ancient woodland sites would be lost forever also adding to climate change.

To summarise this area has seen extensive development over the last few years with Dickens Heath now much larger than the original plans and the further developments at Tilehouse Lane/ Norton Lane, High Street Solihull Lodge and Lowbrook Lane. We feel only so much development in a relatively small area is sustainable and we urge you to reconsider these proposals utilising brown field sites as opposed to the loss of our endangered and much needed green belt land.

I wish to register my complaint regarding the above-mentioned site.

I previously wrote to you to register my objection to Allocation 13 back in 2017.

However, I understand that this has now been amended and is now referred to as Site BL3 - this is 300 houses off Bills Lane on Woods Farm.

As far as I know this site is still designated as green belt land.

Shirley South is to receive 39% of proposed new housing in the Solihull borough, this is disproportionate and unacceptable given the size of the borough. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.

What about the possibility of buying larger houses in Solihull which have huge gardens and developing small estates with mews or flats as opposed to the exclusive developments that are cropping up along Blossomfield Road - The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses.

I do not see the revised proposal as sustainable due to the high volume of houses in one focused area.

The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes including Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive and Haslucks Green Road. The addition of hundreds of new homes will compound this issue and there is not enough space for the road infrastructure to be improved enough to overcome this higher volume of traffic.

In terms of other public transport, the local rail stations are not fit for purpose, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Station.

Doctors are also overwhelmed with the current level of housing and an ageing population so increasing the demand by introducing new homes to the area is not sustainable.

In terms of Site BL3, this is an area that is a benefit to the environment as it is currently full of trees - the area can get waterlogged and if houses are to be built on this site how will this affect the environmental issues from a flood point of view let alone the wildlife that will be displaced? The area has grass land, marsh and heath land and there are well-established ponds providing a varied eco system.

I understand we need more houses to accommodate the growing population - I have two children who will need houses in a few years - however I do not believe this current proposal is the right answer - there needs to be a balance of smaller sites across the borough.
Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

Draft Solihull Local Plan Response - objections and points to be considered

From Mark Taft Dec 2020
44 Langocmb road
Shirley , Solihull
West Midlands B90 2PR


• 5 % of green belt to be built on when there are other options
• Only 3000 housed planed for development on Hs2 Site - Could be treble this number.
• Not only helping to mitigate the road traffic congestion, but also saving valuable green belt, providing breathing space in the Blyth valley areas
• Little housing allowance has been considered in Solihull town Centre, where unwanted office accommodation could be repurposed.
• Little housing allowance has been considered in Chemsley wood area, which is classed as an urban renewal area and has better transport links.
• Site BL3 is designated as green belt of the highest value – why is it being built on?
• Doctors Services in Shirley are already not coping due to the high number of retirement home projects; indirectly causing doctors surgery’s to become unviable business units.
• Roads are already to capacity, making too difficult to get to the M42 for work travel.
• Houses are being built close to the Windmill in Balsall Common, a national monument. The outlook and site should be cherished not trashed by excessive building development.
• Blyth valley area is a known flood plain on mainly clay soil, while little of no recognition of this is given in the plan.
• Solihull should not have extra houses from Birmingham – this has not properly been addressed.
• National government guidelines state that Natural wildlife sites should have interconnecting routes, so why is site BL3, Bl2 allowed to be included.
• Alternate locations such as the Tisbury green golf course should be considered as its nearer the Station, and would allow preservation of the gaps between Shirley , Dickens heath and Cheswick green.
• There seems to be no sustainable assessments contained in the plan.
• On page 180 of the plan, it states it is expecting addition traffic to be feed through Haslucks green road and Bills lane. This is already highly congested already it is difficult to leave the local estates to get to work in the morning.

Draft Solihull Local Plan Consultation Response – Objections and points to be considered.
From Paula Pountney -
44 Langcomb Road,
Shirley,
Solihull,
West Midlands, B90 2PR 10.12.2020

With reference to the above, I understand that one of the main objectives and directives of the plan is to distribute development throughout the borough which is clearly not the case in this plan, as 39% is disproportionately designated to Shirley, with at least 5% being on the green belt.
• There has been a huge amount of development in the Blythe area already in the last 5 – 8 years and a significant amount more than elsewhere, is being planned additionally and this fact seems to have been disregarded.
• Site BL3 is designated as highest value green belt so why build there, when there are clear alternative options?
• Site BL1 is not sustainable, with the only advantage being it is near to Whitlocks End Railway Station. It is wholly inappropriate because it is very high grade green belt land around Dickens Heath rated 7 and 8 status and should have been a red site on the very first round of sustainability appraisals. I understand that The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England has stated that in paragraph 11B of the National Policy Framework because the site has very high areas of ecological value, including at least 4 nature reserves very nearby and a high flood risk, the constraints are proven to be so bad, it’s justified that this land should not be included for development.
• National government guidelines state that Natural Wildlife sites should have interconnecting routes, so why is site BL3 and BL2 included in the plan?
• Why have only such a small number of dwellings - in the region of 3000, been designated for the HS2 site, when it could easily accommodate three times that number? It would be a much superior option with great transport links, job opportunities and much less environmental damage.
• Regeneration in Chelmsley Wood - which appears to have little housing allowance being considered for the town, which is classed as an urban renewal area. This would be a much more appropriate area for extra development environmentally and for future sustainability.
• As previously recorded at the Council, the Solihull Town Centre Masterplan should be brought forward including many suggestions made several years ago. Following the very sad demise of Shops such as those in the Arcadia Group and also soon to be closed - House of Fraser, much of the redundant shop and office space could be re-developed for housing accommodation. It’s a stark fact that since the pandemic, many more people work from home and much of the structure of people’s lives have completely changed and this alone should be a critical reason for the overhaul of the whole plan.
• Alternative locations – such as the Tidbury Green Golf Course Site should be strongly considered as it’s nearer the Railway Station, and would allow preservation of the gaps between Shirley, Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green, preventing coalescence of areas.
• Why have the Council not agreed to these suggestions, in order to protect the majority of the sites on the greenbelt? More importantly, the kind of homes that are most needed, in locations that promote sustainable travel.
• Loss of vast amounts of sports grounds/playing fields with no mention of where all this valuable resource could be re-located? This would result in a loss of health and well-being to the community, which would be a total disgrace!
• The pandemic has had a drastic effect on Doctors Services already completely stretched and failing to keep pace with current demand. This is due partly to the existing retirement and extra care facilities, with more to follow. We know that there is an ageing population and the demographic is 30% higher in this area than the national average. This presents a massive challenge to existing services and should be acknowledged and mitigated by the plan. This has not been addressed, as far as I understand.
• I believe that there has been no extra provision for Hospitals, Dentists and other services featured in the plan. Infrastructure investment has not been clarified and the mechanisms designed to ensure Developers pay fair costs have not been outlined. The consequences of this could be disastrous, as future health and wellbeing have not been addressed. It should be mandatory, in my opinion that Developers are held to scrutiny regarding the protection and enhancement of high quality health and social care Services.
• Roads will be totally gridlocked in Shirley. The traffic is already to utmost capacity, resulting in even more air pollution and noise. This will really exacerbate problems to access the M42. It is also a really terrible idea for additional traffic to be fed through Bills Lane and Haslucks Green Road, which is already highly congested at peak times.
• The Blythe Valley is a well-known flood plain on mainly clay soil, while little or no recognition of this is mentioned in the plan. We are worried about the risk of flooding at the bottom of Bills Lane and Haslucks Green Road, as it is already prone to flood round this area. Will the Council and Developers compensate for any future damage done, as it’s a big risk?
• Solihull should not have to take an extra 2000 houses from the Greater Birmingham area. Andy Street has overseen a lot of development in the centre of Birmingham on derelict and brown field sites and they have brought in an extra £434million to clean up these sites for homes and businesses, easing pressure on Green Belt sites.
• I have been directly advised by Andy Street’s office that Solihull Council are working hard to get a Local Plan in place to provide a safeguard to communities across the borough against a barrage of speculative and unwelcome planning applications. The email stated that the Council have been determined to maximise the use of sites like UK Central and Solihull Town Centre to ease the pressure on the Green Belt Sites. The email states that there is a genuine and serious attempt to meet the challenge and he will continue to work with the Council to do whatever he can to help them in their ambition to defend the Green Belt.
• Is this truthfully the case? As I mentioned earlier in the point about building more development in Solihull town centre, Chelmsley Wood and UK central, why can this not be undertaken before the undesirable outcome of building on the precious Green Belt?
• This plan should be considered unsound as due diligence does not appear to have been carried out on analysing sustainability of the individual sites.
• I do not consider 6 weeks consultation to have been enough time for the public to have had time to adequately study the plan and it has very unfairly been pushed through under the cover of the pandemic. It’s almost like a smokescreen and other Councils have given people much longer to state their opinions and this can only be detrimental to Shirley!
• It’s really difficult to comprehend why the Developers have so much power over Councils to force development on the Green Belt? Shirley has 3 Green Party Councillors acting on our behalf that are opposed to so much development, particularly on the Green Belt in Shirley. Surely, in a democracy they should have a great deal of influence, after being voted for by the people of Shirley? How can Solihull Council impose this plan and believe it is fair and equitable to the already wonderful town of Shirley?
• Finally, please re-consider this contentious, unfair, unfinished plan adversely affecting Shirley. If continued, it will be a drastic legacy for the Council which will ruin the character and identity of Shirley.
Thank you
Regards

Paula Pountney

See attached form and written representations

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!

We reside at 81 Neville Road, Shirley, Solihull B90 2QX directly adjacent to the proposed allocation BL3 and wish to raise concerns about the Draft Submission Plan and particularly to this site being used as part of Solihull Local Plan.

We would first like to make clear that the Plan is voluminous and with a current plan and draft plan to consider, it has been impossible as a lay person to assess if the draft local plan is compliant with the four tests of soundness and relevant legislation and to assess if the Council’s plan is intra vires. It is also difficult to assess the impact to our property due to the poor quality plans in relation to site BL3. We cannot pinpoint the proposed access in relation to our house, which is directly opposite the site and opposite proposed access road to Neville Road from Bills Lane.

We have provided some specific points on the draft plan, but also some general concerns. We do not feel we have sufficient information, or were given sufficient time to consider and digest the information on the website to comment fully. We would therefore like to be made aware of any future documents or meetings and given the opportunity to make verbal representations on this site if it is approved for inclusion in the plan/development proposals are allowed to be made.

High Scoring Green Belt

Having considered the 2016 Green Belt Assessment, this plot scores highlight and is important area for the community. Firstly, we do not consider the land should be taken out of Green Belt, or that it allows for sufficient green belt to separate the adjoining settlements/Bromsgrove district. it is an important delineation of the adjoining areas, and brown sites should be prioritised to honour the committed housing needs of Solihull. For example those sites located closes to the HS2 station are of course the most logical. Development of this site is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 80 "Green Belt serves five purposes: • To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.’ Careful consideration should also be given to changes in Green Belt devaluing the area and appeal.

"38. Challenge E: Protecting key gaps between urban areas and settlements": location of site BL3 important it does not sprawl and ensure the we preserve the setting. We are young professionals and have chosen to live in this area for its setting. If development occurs on a scale that disrupts our enjoyment and health and wellbeing the green space brings us, we will be moving from this area. The risk is that other high earning young professionals will do the same if the appeal and special character of the borough changes.

Lack of ecological assessment: By virtue of the area currently being mostly woodland, it is home to numerous wildlife, there is no comment in the plan on any wildlife assessments undertaken. The land is important for the current community, and retaining the small site as a nature reserve will not satisfy the need to the current community let alone one significantly larger as a result of any successful development. Looking at the evidential documents we cannot see an Ecological assessment has been done on site BL3. Presumably this would be necessary considering the woodland and lakes, the area is home to diverse wildlife.


Challenge J. Improving health and well being: With the impact of Covid-19, our green spaces are more important than ever, more people are working at home and need access to quality air and spaces to walk and exercise. A proportion of site BL3 consists of bridle paths and green space that service, Shirley, Dickens Heath and surround residents, who throughout the day walk dogs or excise through this hub of green space. Development of this area will have a significant impact of the local community and their health and well-being. Site 13 that has been allocated as a nature reserve will not be sufficient. It will also ultimately negatively impact the environment as residents travel by car outside of the area to find green space to walk. Climate change - already heavily built up urban area, removing trees in this area, some of which are of significant age, will decrease air quality and add more traffic to already busy road.


Other relevant challenges set out in the plan: Conserving the qualities of the Mature Suburbs, rural settlements and characteristics of the wider rural area that make those places attractive areas to live; • Delivering the necessary infrastructure to promote sustainability of settlements:

Prior to lockdown, there were regular incidents of being unable to board trains to get to work in Birmingham City Centre due to overcrowding. Disruptions were rife, resulting in trains being cancelled and ultimately having to drive to the city centre. We do not have adequate infrastructure for the current local population, let alone increasing this significantly. It seems appropriate as set out in numerous occasions in the plan, that the housing need is met in line with when better transport links are delivered as part of HS2 ensuring sufficient infrastructure is in place for a larger population. (Challenge H)The plan at BL3 seems premature, in line with the infrastructure in place to service the current and additional proposed residents.

Other concerns:
1) Increase in traffic Pollution – 300 additional homes to be built with proposed access in and out of development unclear on illustrations, but proposed to be two access points on Bills Lane. Paragraph 621. Shifting the focus of vehicular traffic movements away from the congested Dickens Heath Road to Bills Lane/Haslucks Green Road. We have been unable to see any traffic assessments or evidence to substantiate the inference in this paragraph that the focus of vehicular traffic is on Dickens Heath Road as opposed to Bills Lane. Bills Lane and Haslucks Green Road are significantly busier, and existing and important links to Solihull and Shirley Town Centre, but also the Stratford Road. We would strongly suggest the road is not appropriate for the two access points. This should be an evidenced based decision and would suggest this is not safe for public access, neither do we believe traffic is busier on Dickens Heath Road and have seen no evidence to support this.
We have also been advised by an individual in the Community that they have seen more detailed plans showing a roundtable at the entrance to Neville Road opposite the site. We have contacted the Policy and Delivery Team by telephone and been advised that they are not aware of any additional documents. We would strongly oppose this, and submit this is not a transparent consultation if other relevant documents exist that do not form part of the plan.
2) Negative affect on neighbour amenity:
•Increased noise via traffic once built
•Being overlooked by the development of the site
•Loss of privacy for existing homeowners
•Increased pressure on local services such as General Practioners appointments and school application places
3) Objection based on the visual impact of the development as all but some of the surrounding houses are pre millennium build.
4) We consider this an overdevelopment of the site. Also, the development is not within keeping of surround established houses since the development notes high density housing. Surrounding houses are being severely impacted by the development are mostly single dwelling houses. Therefore the development is not in keeping with the scale of the rest of the neighbourhood.
We would reiterate that significant information and evidence appears to be missing. We would like to be notified of any further consultations or opportunity to submit thoughts an examination in public. We would also like to receive confirmation in writing regarding our comments on paragraph 621 and if any traffic assessments have been done, and particularly a response in writing regarding the comments made to us about introduction of a roundabout opposite our house.

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

I OBJECT to this proposed residential development for the reasons I will refer to below with particular reference to site BL3/ area 26 (which is referred to as both in plans. Is this to intentionally confuse the public?)
*Shirley South is still carrying the largest percentage(39%) of the proposed residential development throughout Solihull. This has only dropped by 2% from the previous draft plans. The plans are not taking into account the housing numbers created by current developments in Shirley and any plans for the previous Morrison’s site in Shirley either.

*Shirley and Blythe Valley has already seen extensive redevelopment over the past 5 to 10 years. Solihull Council have made minor changes to the road infrastructure which has not really addressed the increased levels of traffic.

*With the proposed developments there is little scope to extend the immediate road infrastructure. There are protected ancient hedgerows along Tilehouse lane which cannot be removed. Bill’s lane already carries heavy traffic at peak times, therefore the addition of 300 houses on site BL3 / allocation 26 ( have the council purposely referred to it as both to confuse the public? ) will add to this significantly, resulting in chaos at peak times with no scope to widen or add to the existing roads.

*increased traffic will exponentially increase the risk of road traffic collisions and pedestrian injury. Also sir pollution will be increased.

* sustainability has not been given consideration within this proposal, the plans will result in destruction of the local habitat and ecological balance of the area. We all have a duty to give consideration to the environment.

*It appears from the proposal that Solihulll are still planning to take a huge percentage of housing requirements on behalf of Birmingham. Why are the additional housing not being absorbed within Birmingham's initiative, utilising the Brown Field First site strategy: promoted by Andy Street. Why is Solihull Council intent on destruction of large areas of ecological sensitive Green Belt? This is Hypocrisy on a high level as our motto is “Urbs in Rure”

*The site in question is adjacent 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 ecologically sensitive greenbelt sites perpetually flood and are natural soak aways that reduce local flood risk. Thoughtless development as proposed creates flooding issues and removes the flood protection from the surrounding area it currently protects.
*The Shirley area is an ancient rural district, with lanes, bridle paths and narrow roads without pavement in places. It has poor public transport links 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.
*the utility infrastructure such as gas, water, electricity and sewage is near to breaking point. This is due to the constant addition or piggy backing on of new developments to existing services, which is, essentially on to the original and existing rural system. This appears to be short sighted which will lead to an eventual collapse as there has been 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.
*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 united in its 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 see good sustainable development in appropriate areas not those with disastrous environmental consequences.

Ref your letter concerning the above plan draft.
With regard to the above I have spoken to Charlene Jones and would like you to register my concerns regarding the amount of increased traffic that will affect Bills Lane should the 300 houses be built on Woods Farm land.
Since Dickens Heath was built Bill Lane has had increased traffic volume and houses built on Woods Farm will add to that.

I wish to register my complaint regarding the above-mentioned site.
I previously wrote to you to register my objection to Allocation 13 back in 2017.
However, I understand that this has now been amended and is now referred to as Site BL3 - this is 300 houses off Bills Lane on Woods Farm.

As far as I know this site is still designated as green belt land.
Shirley South is to receive 39% of proposed new housing in the Solihull borough, this is disproportionate and unacceptable given the size of the borough. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.

Under the government white paper 'fixing our broken housing market'
"The National Planning Policy Framework is already clear that Green Belt boundaries should be amended only “in exceptional circumstances”"
"authorities should amend Green Belt boundaries only when they can demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements, including: – making effective use of suitable brownfield sites and the opportunities offered by estate regeneration; – the potential offered by land which is currently underused, including surplus public sector land where appropriate; – optimising the proposed density of development"
As far as I can see this revised proposal is simply an amendment of the previous and has not considered alternative sites.

What about the possibility of buying larger houses in Solihull which have huge gardens and developing small estates with mews or flats as opposed to the exclusive developments that are cropping up along Blossomfield Road - The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses.

I do not see the revised proposal as sustainable due to the high volume of houses in one focused area.

The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes including Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive and Haslucks Green Road. The addition of hundreds of new homes will compound this issue and there is not enough space for the road infrastructure to be improved enough to overcome this higher volume of traffic.

In terms of other public transport, the local rail stations are not fit for purpose, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Station.

Doctors are also overwhelmed with the current level of housing and an ageing population so increasing the demand by introducing new homes to the area is not sustainable.

In terms of Site BL3, this is an area that is a benefit to the environment as it is currently full of trees - the area can get waterlogged and if houses are to be built on this site how will this affect the environmental issues from a flood point of view let alone the wildlife that will be displaced? The area has grass land, marsh and heath land and there are well-established ponds providing a varied eco system.

I understand we need more houses to accommodate the growing population - I have two children who will need houses in a few years - however I do not believe this current proposal is the right answer - there needs to be a balance of smaller sites across the borough.
Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

See attachment