Policy BL3 - Whitlock's End Farm

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

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

See attached representations forms

Solihull Local Plan – Draft Submission Plan

Proposed Allocation Site:BL3 – Whitlocks End Farm.




The Current Draft Submission Plan shows plans for 300 houses. This would be built on green belt. The current owner of this site has previously applied for the site to be re categorised as brown field to enable the whole of Woods Farm to be re-developed.

On the Opus Consult document it shows potential planning of 300 houses however in the Solihull Local Plan Concept Master Plan 2020, (page 57) it shows the possibility of 1000 homes over the whole of the woods farm site.

Both of these sites would be off Bill’s Lane, an already a busy thoroughfare for cars from Wythall, Majors Green, Tidbury Green and I am sure many others. By adding to the already busy road, pollution would increase tenfold.

300 homes would produce 600 cars, as most families have two cars each, 1000 homes would produce 2000+ cars Bill’s Lanes would be unable to cope with this increase and would be dangerous to current residents and future.

The type of housing being build would be car users not public transport users, and there is currently no public transport on Bill’s Lane.

By building the 300 homes on greenbelt this would be an open gateway to sneak in the extra 700 homes that the owner would like.

With the1000 homes there would be a loss of the bridleway & footpaths. An amenity that is enjoyed by many (more now than ever with the current conditions). The basis of this comment is that the urbanisation of Dickens Heath has also removed public footpaths. One is unable to walk from one side of Dickens Heath to the other without Winding through the maze of roads, not a pleasant experience when walking breathing in all the fumes.

The loss of Trees that either of these developments would obliterate, will never be replaced by the proposed tree planting on the old site 13. To use the advertising spiel of the owner of woods farm, Every Acre of Christmas Trees grown produces the daily oxygen requirement for 16 people. A hectare of Christmas trees will absorb 6 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. The potential for the damage to the environment is Hugh by the increased road traffic and the loss of such a valuable resource. In the past the owner of Woods Farms has advertised that he is growing in excess of a million trees in any one time. How do the Council plan to replace all these trees?

In Both circumstances the building on green belt would lose the identity of Shirley and it would become another metropolis of Birmingham, there would be no distinction between Shirley, Hall Green and Dickens Heath.

The Council still not has addressed the concerns of the residents of Shirley that Shirley is taking the lions share of the building that Solihull has to address. There is a lot of land in Solihull that could be considered, which I highlighted in my previous correspondence.

Consultation Response to Draft Local Plan Shirley South Green Belt residential Development

I OBJECT to this proposed residential development for the reasons I will refer to below 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.

See attachments.

Change and expand site boundary to accommodate up to 750 dwellings and align with Vision Document prepared by site promoters.

See attachments.

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

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.

I have looked at your proposed form for Submission of Representations. It is not fit for purpose.

I wish to submit multiple and linked representations.

I find the plan and the consultation process severely flawed such as to make the current plan and timetable for consultation Unsound and not legal.

I outline my reasoning in the attached document which is ordered according yo your plan and where possible references specific paragraphs and Policies.

My high level objections to the consultation process are stated at the start of the attached document.

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.

The consultation period for this plan is only 6 weeks and is far less than other consultation in the West Midlands. More time should be allowed to properly scrutinize the plan particularly as most of the updates to the plan have been in the last 5-6 weeks. By only allowing 6 weeks is suggesting its being rushed through before the public have a chance to digest what is happening to the borough and green belt is built on.

The plan aim is to provide affordable housing in the BL2 & BL3 sites, however, the current average house price in Solihull is can range from £230,000 for a flat up to £600,000 for a detached house. The average salary in Solihull is currently around £30,000 so any new build house is going to be out of reach of most local people who they are supposed to be being built to house. This will inevitably mean these houses will be "second home" purchases by the people that can afford them and so denying local people from getting on the housing ladder. This is happening all over the borough and has for many years.

Shirley, where I live, is also receiving a disproportionate amount of these new build homes, where other areas of the borough appear to be untouched. There are already severe traffic issues around the surrounding roads near the proposed BL1 & BL2 sites so adding over 2,000 additional homes is adding at least another 4,000 cars to these roads. There are no proposed additional school extensions to take in the additional children that will live in these homes and getting to speak to or see a doctors at a SHP practice is a lengthy and time-consuming process now, which will be made worse by increasing the population in Shirley to the numbers in the plan. What are the council doing about increasing health and education facilities for all this new influx of people? The focus is always on housing but not the supporting infrastructure, roads, health and education. The plan states its considering the environment but this is not the case if the BL3 and BL2 sites go ahead. The vast increase of traffic from these to sites (and the BL1 development in Dickens heath, will bring the already very busy roads to a standstill at peak times of the day and all the pollution associated with it. Despite alluding to the contrary, people the will live on these sites will need and use a car to get around, the public transport system is sparse away from the main A34 and Solihull is now designed such that you need a car to get to supermarkets etc. There are buses but none go to Dickens Heath, Tidbury Green and Dog Kennel lane on a frequent basis to be of use.

Ensure these houses cannot be purchased as a second home and priority is given to first-time buyers.
Provide a larger percentage of these houses to be available for rent at a council regulated, rental value that takes into consideration the local average salary.

The proposed sites of BL2 and BL3 will not provide "affordable Housing" given that the average salary in Solihull is approximately £30,000 and the house price for these developments is £277,000. Therefore, these houses are 9 times the amount of the average salary for the borough meaning the vast majority of local people will not be able to get mortgages to purchase one thus denying them the chance to get on the housing ladder. This inevitably leads to more affluent people buying these as second homes and renting them out.

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