Q3. Do you agree with the spatial strategy we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

41% of the Solihull housing allocation is being built in Shirley South the real need for housing is along the HS2 route.

The infrastructure to get across the borough and to the centre of Birmingham will not support the increased demand for the expected new residents as a result of HS2.

The allocation of 2000 houses from Birmingham should not be built in Solihull until Birmingham has developed all of its brownfield sites.

There are around 9 football and rugby grounds that will disappear around Shirley South.

The council should be thinking about innovative ways to look at finding space, such as multi storey are parks at the nec and using the saved space for housing.

There is only one amenity area in Shirley, Shirley Park, This has already been developed.

Development should be concentrated on brownfield sites which have good access to public transport. The green belt should be preserved and the narrow part of the Meriden gap between Balsall Common and Coventry should be protected.

Far too much over development already in Shirley which is the dumping ground for Solihull, Dorridge and Knowle This is the only bit of green belt we have left and it will create total chaos by adding more traffic onto Bills Lane and the Stratford Road which are already over crowded. You have already ruined Shirley with all the current developments, suggest you concentrate on other areas, ie Solihull, Dorridge and Knowle

Allocation 4 is bad enough taking of our kids football pitches. Now you want to take their only bit of open space in Shirley that is left. We do not have the resources for this many houses. There are not enough schools, doctors surgeries etc.

see attached letter from agent

I understand that you wish to use the area by Bills Wood Shirley to build houses which surely goes against your view not to use open green belt land. In the plan you recognise the high traffic in Shirley building more properties would make traffic worse. It would also put pressure on local services. It's hard enough as it is to get a doctors appointment at the moment. I want to keep Shirley's green belt land please look at building on brown field land

I object to the special strategy on the grounds that the housing proposal for the Shirley area will have huge implications with green spaces, traffic congestion (already a problem in the area) and demand on schooling.

There are masses of wildlife in the area and a thorough review needs to be undertaken to ensure endangered species such as great crested newts are not affected.

RESPONSES 1-YES
2-YES
Spatial Strategy
3- The size of the proposed developments around rural villages appears out of proportion to the size of the villages themselves. This is particularly exemplified in Balsall Common. The proposed by pass that would create an area of land between it and the A452 that would eventually be filled in with future housing developments.
The alternative options would be to concentrate future housing developments closer to the local areas of employment-JLR, Airport, NEC, Motor Cycle Museum, Birmingham Business Park and Hams Hall. There are sites available around Bickenhill, the junctions of the M6 AMD M42,Melbecks Garden Centre and even perhaps the site that was proposed for the new National Football Stadium before the new Wembley got the nod.
There are also areas around Water Orton and Coleshill which could be considered Sustainable Economic Growth
4-YES
5-YES
6-YES
7-YES
8-See previous answer to 3 9-YES
10-See previous answer to 3 PROVIDING HOUSES FOR ALL 11-YES
12-The principle of 50% affordable housing is laudable but judging by past local developments around Balsall Common this is never realised. The current Elysian Gardens Development is a case in point. The proportion of larger 2-5 bedroom detached houses always seem to dominate these development I suspect so the land owners and developers and landowners can maximise their profits.
13-No opinion
14-NO-Why should we have to take on a proportion of Birminghams number of development in the HMA. If you travel by train in from Berkswell to New Street their are plenty of unused brown field sites to be seen, are these not an option as green belt is cheaper to develop.
15-NO-Refer to answer to question 3.The main reason for the size of the "Barratts Farm" development appears to be to get funding from the developers to fund the proposed bypass to relieve congestion on the A452.As mentioned before this will inevitably lead to further infill development. The infrastructure of the village barely copes as it is, parking in the "thriving village centre" is already positively dangerous. Cars reverse out from both sides of the roads and there are frequents bumps and pedestrians being knocked over, I suspect a future fatality is inevitable.
16-As identified the infrastructure within Balsall Common is small. There is a lack of capacity at the primary and secondary schools. They are already over subscribed and have lack of space to expand into. Re-siting them would take them out of their central position where most pupils can walk to. If that were to happen additional school runs would be inevitable adding to the traffic congestion.
It is identified in the report that parking at the train station is inadequate, Hallmeadow road has become the unofficial overspill(part of the proposed bypass)
Extra parking is proposed but where. The only land by the existing car park is not being considered for the housing development because of recurrent flooding. As detailed in the report the number of car to house ratio at 1.6 is the highest in the borough so compounding the problem. As a regular cyclist I can assure you that adding cycle lanes on already narrow roads will not work.
The village centre is quoted as "thriving" in your report, the only useful development recently has been the addition of the Costa store where local people can meet up over coffee and socialise.
An obvious opportunity that has been lost is the development of the disused office block and
parking area for housing by the Co-op. This would have been an obvious site for a public funded facility for recreation and social needs-i.e. citizens advice, meeting area for the elderly/vulnerable and planned activities for the teenagers. Instead as before it has gone to the more profitable housing option. The village centre as it is has nowhere to expand to, and if moved would completely change the individuality of Balsall Common.
The only existing facility within the village that could cope with an increased local population is the new health centre. With an increase in patient number there will follow increased funding and an ability to employ more doctors and associated staff. The village badly needs a public funded development as previously mentioned that could provide recreational and social facilities
for the whole age range. The existing youth club is barely used for lack of activities leaving the streets and the park for the kids to fill their free time.
If the proposed developments do go ahead-3 in Balsall Common far more thought needs to be put into the impact they will have on theses small rural communities. The whole purpose of developing the concept of greenbelt and the greenbelt acts was to stop the creepage of large towns/cities into rural areas so they can keep their own unique character and charm. Increased urbanisation of the countryside between the cites of Birmingham and Coventry flies in the face of this agreed and accepted philosophy
17-YES
IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY AND ENCOURAGING SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL 18-YES
PROTECTING AND ENHANCING OUR ENVIRONMENT.
19-YES
PROMOTING QUALITY OF SPACE
20-YES
HEALTH AND SUPPORT OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
21-YES AND NO-There is an historic under funding of health care between Birmingham and Solihull as reflected by our local CCGs overspend and the combined Birmingham CCGs underspend. Perhaps this issue needs to be addressed at a Governmental level but it grates somewhat when we are expected to provide additional housing sites to make up for Birmingham's shortfall.
DELIVERING AND MONITORING 22-YES
ANY OTHER COMMENTS
23-I refer to my previous comments about the purpose of greenbelt and attach a document which I think is self explanatory.

see attached letter

see attached letter

The draft Local Plan Review's spatial strategy which includes a variety of locations will enable housing to be provided in a range of locations across the Borough. This is considered to be positive and with reference to housing development, will enable sustainable development in sustainable locations.

The draft Local Plan Review's spatial strategy which includes a variety of locations will enable housing to be provided in a range of locations across the Borough. This is considered to be positive and with reference to housing development, will enable sustainable development in sustainable locations.

PDL sites have been ignored and only Greenbelt sites considered for Balsall Common.

No account of factors impacting Balsall Common. Draft plan indicates a bypass for BC is desirable but no proposed line on the map! No consideration is given to long term use of proposed HS2 construction site at north of BC, this is in Green Belt, so should reuse when build completed. also influence of Coventry based businesses on traffic flows in BC, Univ of Warwick and JLR are bringing skilled jobs to S of Coventry, need to consider this and where Coventry itself in planning to grow (ie abutting Solihull). No decisions on BC until crucial infrastructure is planned

i object and reject the assumption that large areas of green belt must be taken away for ever - worst of all to house Birminghams overspill

Yes, I agree with the criteria for selection of sites.

The selection of Greenfield sites while ignoring PDL sites and the opportunity for a new settlement north of Balsall Common are inexplicable.

Building in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap will increase the merging with Coventry

I object for three reasons:
*Criteria have been specified, but there appears to be no weighting attached to the different criteria. This will almost certainly lead to flawed decision-making. This should BE CORRECTED.
*A specific example is the preservation of the green belt. In the last few weeks, the Government has announced that it intends placing FAR MORE emphasis on green belt retention. This should retrospectively be built into weighted criteria.
*Therefore, preservation of green belt should TAKE ABSOLUTE PRIORITY over all other criteria, and the huge proposed developments in Balsall Common should be REJECTED.

point 96, section 1a should begin with brownfield land before previously developed land

You have identified potential growth for Balsall Common as being South and East of the village, this directly contradicts the common sense approach of developing where existing infrastructure is located (dual carraigeway with large capacity) and where all transport routes are located (HS2 stations, motorways, Birmingham etc). The central hub, a major focus of this development, is north, so why are you proposing to develop the opposite side?

The only eastern/southern link is Berkswell station, but this will be within 30 minutes walk of any housing development so is not a concern.

I welcome the sequential approach to site selection set out in paragraph 96 but note that this has not been followed in the case of Balsall Common. Proposals contain no brownfield sites (of which there are many around the village) and do not provide any form of explanation as to why they have been excluded.
Either the council should fully follow the NPPF and its stated policy or specifically provide reasons as to why Balsall Common is to be treated as an exception.

The increased development on greenfield land, where there are other brown field and old commercial sites to the north of Balsall Common that could have been considered, including a previous proposal to develop a new settlement on the land north of the village adjacent to the old quarry workings, would make more efficient and effective use of the space around the village rather than continue to erode the rural nature of Balsall Common itself.

Balsall Common is surrounded by green belt, present public transport fails to meet the new criteria for both rail and bus. No bus services after about 6.30pm none on Sundays, in the day once an hour to Coventry and 2 an hour to Solihull. Settlements like Balsall Common only exit because people have access to cars. Improved public transport will not encourage people to switch the convenience factor of the car far out-way other considerations. This means improved bus services are unlikely to be sustainable. Rail is the best but parking limitations at the station must be addressed

Important to make sustainable use of natural resources, design and integrate new developments into existing communities and protect green belt.

Allocation 13. Concentrating 41% of housing in one area will greatly affect the local infrastructure, already overcapacity since the building of Dickens Heath. The allocation of sites needs to be much more evenly spread and be built in small pockets throughout the borough so as to not adversely impact on any one community.

Our project lies within the Greenfield site of the Arden Triangle development and losing it would not only damage the 'Guiding Principle' relating to supporting developments which 'contribute to the health and Well-being of communities'; but also to the Guiding Principle stated in 'not in Support' where a development challenges 'the protecting, conserving, enhancing and restoring environmental assets' as our project has taken derelict and unused field and turned it into a community asset which would be destroyed if the development was to proceed as planned.

see attached letter received via email

see attached letter

I wish to object to Solihull MBC draft plan allocation 13.

My main reason for my objection is the size of the proposal of the development. I do not believe we have the infrastructure to cope with such a proposal and other sites in the borough should be considered to spread out the number of dwellings suggested.

I live in the B90 area and we do not have the road capability, the school places, the medical support ( currently we do not have a 24/7 A & E and attempting to getting a Doctors appointment is enough to make your illness worse ! ) to name a few of my concerns. My wife and I are amongst the vast amount of people who regularly use the fields for walking and the area will lose an important part of the countryside, should the proposal go ahead.

I realise the pressure the council face in regards housing developments but I urge you to consider spreading out the sites throughout the borough and not going ahead with such a large proposal.

Please can you include my objection as part of your draft plan consolation.

I am a resident of this area based specifically on the services and facilities also the proximity of open land that constitutes the character and nature of the of the rural settlements.

Access to the bridlepath and open land, which is prone to being waterlogged, are an essential factor to the well being and health of the local community as well as the wildlife.

The volume of traffic on the Stratford Road in both directions through Shirley. It is increasingly congested and the proposal to build such a large number of houses in a concentrated area can only exacerbate the problem that already exists, as well as increasing volume on all access roads such as Shakespeare Drive, Bills Lane and Tanworth Lane.
Extending existing schools not only increases pressure to access on local roads, but also increases need for provision for additional families and related activities.
Many activities that require open space are being cut.

Appointments at local surgeries are not always available, and there is additional stress in trying to access medical attention at an already reducing hospital service.