Q14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?

I have heard from more than one source that the Council considers it 'will be lucky if it gets away with' making provision for only 2000 from Birmingham. Clearly the reason we are going through this expensive and time-consuming exercise is because the Council has repeatedly tried to 'get away with' unrealistically low numbers. The Council should not treat the Green Belt like a sweety jar which it can routinely dip into. GB boundaries are only supposed to be changed in exceptional circumstances, so the Council should make much greater provision and safeguard land not currently required. At least 10,000.

An extra 15,000 houses in an area that currently only has 86,000 houses seems an extraordinarily high number. The population of Solihull is around 207,000 people, compared to a national population of 64.1 million people. The Government's target is to build 1,000,000 new homes by 2020 (i.e. over its 5 year tenure). For the sake of argument, Solihull should be looking to build 0.32% of these houses based on its population, which is 3,229 houses over a 5 year period, which is only 9,687 over a 15 year period. Therefore, there is no justification to aim to build over 15,000 more houses at the expense of the quality of the surrounding area.

I wish to register my response to the draft local plan, specifically with respect to the developments planned within the Dickens Heath area - West of Dickens Heath (off Tythe Barn Lane, Tilehouse Lane & Birchy Leasowes Lane).

My objections are detailed below:-

1. Green Belt
These plans result in the loss of a large area of green belt land. Given the Government's recent announcement about restricting developments on green belt land, shouldn't these proposals be reassessed?

2. Road infrastructure
Currently Tythe Barn Lane is already struggling with the volume of traffic at certain times of the day, especially if there are any adverse weather conditions (such as fog). Traffic volume would be dramatically increased if these proposals were to go ahead in full.
I have been told from the roadshow that the plan is for the development to be within walking distance of the train station; however, there is likely to be a largely proportion of residents who are unable to use the rain for their commute & instead have to drive every day.

Also, this route takes traffic almost directly past Dickens Heath Community Primary School, at a point where the pavements are fairly narrow.

The draft plan mentions highway widening, but that would not be possible along most of that road. These infrastructure changes would be needed prior to the commencement of any building works.

3. Other infrastructure issues
It is my understanding that, especially with current building works that are already underway, medical services are struggling to cope with the number of patients, and that people are already struggling to get an appointment within a reasonable timeframe.

Parking is a major concern within Dickens Heath. Not only for the residences themselves, but also for the shops & businesses in the village centre - the parking there is totally inadequate, and with the vast majority of this proposed development being further than 800m from the village centre (the accepted standard distance for development around a village centre without the need to drive in), there will only be an increase in the number of people driving in to visit the shops (and if parking is not to be found, then they will take their custom elsewhere).

4. School Provision
I understand that Tidbury Green Primary school is likely to move back to a 2 form intake, which will certainly help to cope with the extra children who would be in the area, but will it be enough (especially as there will also be a large number of children from just outside Dickens Heath whose local primary school may not be able to cope with the expected increase)?
Also, what of Secondary capacity? Which schools have the capability to expand to cater for all of these extra children?

5. Sports Clubs
The proposal for 4 football clubs & a rugby club to share a single site in order to free up their grounds for development appear to me to be short-sighted. Take Old Yardleians RFC for example, the replacement provision they have been offered at the new site is less than half of what they have now. They would also be unable to raise funds by hiring out their grounds/clubhouse as they do now (a very valuable source of income for small clubs).

If the replacement facilities were not completed prior to the commencement of building on the existing pitches, there is a very real chance that some of the clubs may be forced to fold, resulting in a loss of local sports provision.

I am further concerned at the parking provision - each of these clubs has Sunday morning training/matches/etc, and I don't believe the proposed parking is adequate for the volume of attendees.
Also, if (as proposed) this site it fully open to the public, there is a very real possibility that Whitlocks End commuters will flood the car park (given that the station car park is generally full by 8am these days), rendering the site inaccessible to those who might need to drive there to make use of it. This may also apply to evening training, depending upon when commuters cars are removed from the car park.

Additionally, the proposed replacement site would result in the loss of Akamba, a popular & thriving local business that draws visitors into the area from elsewhere.

6. Miscellaneous
There is also the loss of stabling & grazing fields along Tilehouse Lane (between Old Yardleians RFC & the junction with Tythe Barn Lane), what provision has been made for these?

There are areas (such as the large field between Akamba & the existing housing, and a small area on Birchy Leasowes) that are within 800m of the village centre and/or would appear to offer the minimum impact on the existing village, it's facilities & infrastructure.

Given the size of Solihull's housing requirements, is there no scope for creating a whole new settlement on a more sustainable site?

Also, given the uncertainty over Brexit (amongst other things) should not the size of the increase in housing over this period be reassessed?

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached report
Balsall Parish Council resolved at the Council meeting on 15 February 2017 to submit this report in response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Consultation ending 17 February 2017

Solihull LPR Site 16

As a resident of Lugtrout Lane, I wish to voice my concerns over the possible building of 650 new homes according to the LPR ref. Site 16. I recognize that SMBC have to provide a solution to the identified housing shortage, but I ask you to review your intention to include this particular site in the plan on the grounds listed below.

1) Building on Green field land.

2) Potential loss of prime agricultural land

3) Loss of accessible recreational sports facilities which seems contradictory to Challenge J Improving health and wellbeing for everyone (page22 Draft Local Plan)

4) The field is within the Meriden Gap an area that you have recognized is under considerable development threat and should be protected where possible. It is possible to meet your own commitment by not promoting this site for development.

5) Whilst you recognize that most of the bordering roads will need upgrading I do not believe this will go anywhere to resolving the ongoing traffic issues that this area is constantly subjected to: widening roads does not reduce traffic. Promoting a site of 650 dwellings will ultimately result in potentially 6000 + traffic movements per day. The continual expansion of JLR facilities will result in increase in traffic particularly on Damson Parkway and Lugtrout Lane, which will be exacerbated by the movements to and from dwellings. Policy P8 suggests that the Council is unlikely to support developments where the increased delay to vehicles is severe.

6) Upgrading two of the roads mentioned namely Lugtrout Lane and Field Lane has the potential of completely changing the character of the rural local area, a feature which SMBC continually promote as a reason why the Borough is so popular.

7) The plan also recognizes that certain facilities need increasing, namely schools, public transport and local health services. The plan seems to contain no guarantees that the increased provision will be provided. Schools and local surgeries are already over -subscribed. At present bus services in the area do not meet "Policy P7 Accessibility and Ease of Access " requirements for new developments in terms of frequency. Currently operators have shown little interest in improving them.

8) Policy P19 Range and quality of Local Services promotes developments will need to be sensitive to local character and enhance public realm and suggest that a development of this size in this locality fails to meet this criteria.

9) By allocating this site for development SMBC are breaching one of its own objectives namely that shown on page 21 Challenge E Protecting key gaps between urban areas and rural settlements. The field you have selected is 1 of 2 that separate the settlement of Catherine-De Barnes from Solihull. By allocating this site the distance between Solihull and Catherine-De-Barnes is eroded by 50%.

I do hope you will consider the points raised when you discuss the proposed plan.

see attached letter and graphics

see attached letter and supporting statement

see attached letter

see letter and supporting statement

see letter

see letter

see attached letter

see attached response

Draft local plan
Accepting the need for more housing
The sites earmarked around dickens heath do not take into consideration the inadequate road system for the existing population

Dickens heath road itself is in a terrible condition. The pot holes are getting worse.

This road needs urgent resurfacing

The station car park is already full on weekdays.

Dickens heath road, rumbush lane and tythe barn lane are unsuitable to take the extra traffic the additional housing would require.

Akamba is a gem for the area. A lot of work has gone into making this the unique attraction it is. Please do not affect this.

I hope any plans to develop in dickens heath will be dropped.

l am emailing you on behalf of my young family to give our objections to your proposals to build a large housing estate on our local fields in south Shirley.

We have lived in the local area for three year and one of the main attractions to this area was the easy access to local open spaces. So as you can imagine, we are very, very sad and upset to learn of the Solihull's proposals.

Whilst we appreciate that the council has been directed by central government to have a five year housing plan, we feel that the sheer volume of the new housing development that is proposed near us is far too high. Therefore we would like to question why other areas seem to have "ring fenced " and be exempt from such a huge volume of development.

l shall firstly discuss

1. TRAFFIC

If we look at the current road network, our local roads struggle every morning with congestion. Tamworth lane is extremely busy at rush hour and on any one week day morning, commuters can be queuing past the entrance for the allotment to pull out onto dog kennel lane. lt is common sense that building a large new housing estate Will create MORE congestion. Almost every dwelling will have at least one car and probably two or three. lf we multiple these figures by the number of houses proposed surely this is just going to cause more traffic, more pollution and more accidents on the road!

AIR POLLUTION
Has any thought been given to increase air pollution?
Shouldn't the government be looking at aiming to decrease local air pollution???

2. PRESSURE ON LOCAL SERVICES

GP SURGERIES : We already struggle to get an appointment at our Medical (GP) surgery. Where are all the proposed new residents going to register for medical services? surely our surgery would not have the capacity to take any more patients without it having a detrimental affect on its current client group. So will local residents suffer ?

EDUCATION :
Our children attend woodlands primary school. The reception year is oversubscribed and again the school does not have the funding to expand and to take more children. Where will all these new residents children attend school or does the council have plans to build services especially for new residents?

3.WILDLIFE

Has any thought been given to the affect on our local wildlife?
It is truly shocking to think of all the animals and creatures that live in our local fields losing their natural habitats and/or dying out locally because of this proposal.

how will we educate our children about being responsible, caring adults who care and RESPECT local wildlife, if we let the council build on the only local fields we have , wildlife will disappear ? Is the council proud of its plans to kill local natural habitats?

This is 2017 , we know how much damage man has done to the earth already , please don't do it here !

4. MENTAL HEALTH

Lastly I want to talk about the mental health of the residents of this area. There is a lot of research that talks about the benefits of exercise and outdoor activity on ones mental health.

Public heath England , improving access to green open spaces (2014) states " There is significantly and growing evidence on the health benefits of good quality open green spaces. The benefits include self-rated health, lower body mass index, improved mental health and longevity. " The paper states " local authorities play a Vital role in protecting , maintaining and improving green space". It is evident that if residents have good mental health and well being the demand for health services will be lower hence less pressure on the NHS.

lf all the proposed site is cleared and made into a concrete jungle, all the local residents , children and their pets may well suffer from poorer mental health.
Why cant we as adults protect this area for the next generation?

PROPOSAL:

We appreciate that Solihull housing has to submit a draft plan to the government of their local five year housing plan and if you do not, developers have more right to appeal. So whilst I oppose this plan to build IN MY BACK YARD AND WOULD LIKE TO STOP ALL PROPOSALS TO BUILD HERE, I recognise this is unrealistic.

Therefore I propose that the council reconsiders exactly where they are going to build.

l would like to see the first two fields that face the housing on the woodlands estate to be left alone in their natural state. So the natural beauty of the area can be maintained, wildlife can continue to live there in their current undisturbed state and local residents, their children and dogs can continue to enjoy the fields.

Furthermore, I am aware that the laws on GREEN BELT LAND are changing to suit government policy but if we look at the original aim of the policy to "CONTROL URBAN GROWTH AND TO PREVENT URBAN SPRAWL by keeping land permanently open, and consequently the most important attribute of green belt is their openness". Surely this proposed development would be urban sprawl, would not be welcome by the current residents and would ruin a beautiful area of open space and countryside. So we can protect the area for future generations of our children and their children and wildlife.
my children are very upset about this prospect, don't ruin this lovely area,

see letter

see attached letter

see letter from agent on behalf of landowner

see attached letter from agent

see response

original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter

see letter

see attached response

see attached and online submission

see additional documents to support online submission

see attached letter