Q15. Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think

I object to the large swathe of South Shirley that is being looked at. It is being overly targeted for development. Any resident of Blackford Rd, Tamworth Lane or Dog Kennel Lane will find their lives dramatically and negatively affected by the increase in traffic, noise, loss of rural feel and loss of value of current property prices. A development only of the TRW site would be the best possible outcome with regards to affect on the current residents lives

Hi,

I wanted to pass on my thoughts to what can only be described as the destruction of the local environment around the Dickens Heath Village area through the number of houses being built.
The village is currently poorly serviced by roads in and out, plus the lack of parking around the shop area for visitors, so much so that they often turn around and drive out, which obviously affects local businesses.
The area around the village is beautiful mix of fields, woodland and canals which are home to allsorts of wildlife...What are the Council's plans for the wildlife if they agree to further houses being built. Seeing buzzards and birds of prey within a short walk of the village is great but will all be lost to further development.
Currently the roads are unsuitable to sustaining the current levels of traffic, they are already in disrepair, with the extra houses being proposed it will be more like constant traffic jams..

The plan to add extra houses to this area is a complete farce, and the area is just being picked on because it has beautiful green belt land, that the council think is ok to turn in housing estates, just to make money..

If this all goes ahead, then there needs to be improvements to all the roads, bypasses for the smaller villages (like Dickens Heath), better train services, more shops and medical services.

But overall factor for me is that this area is a beautiful area of small villages and fields and woodland that the Council seem adamant to ruin and turn into another suburb of concrete and bricks....

I really hope that SMBC listen to their residents..


Rgd​s

I write regarding the Balsall Common sites.The two in the south are one and a half miles from the Doctors surgery and railway and not convenient for local shops. Brownfield sites should be utilised before green fields.
I would also question the points awarded to Balsall Common for local transport which is not frequent and not up to the standard of other areas. The facilities in Balsall Common of course need improvement but for instance the shops and car parking are severely restricted. I would add that eschelon parking must be preferable to the present dangerous 90 degree parking.
Congestion on the roads is recognised as severe in the Solihull Connected document. Parking along a main road during school hours for 300 yards is one example of this. The majority of traffic goes north therefore placing developments in the south of the settlement simply aggravates the situation.
Sally and David Bell
I write following a large gathering of objectors at the Balsall Common Parish Coucil Meeting last night. The largest attendance for years objecting to the Frog Lane proposal but also including the Kenilworth Road proposal as it is equally remote and unsustainable, equally badly served by public transport and also an area recognised for the traffic congestion in the Solihull Connected document.

I have always said that residents in Balsall Common will be prepared to take their fair share of the pain of new houses despite having had around 800 already in the last 20 years but it must be fair and we must have now an allocation of substantial funds maybe to the extent of taking all CIl money, if needed, to ensure this expanded village is not ruined.

Now we have the suggested three sites. Barretts Farm has merit if a linear park and a new school ,all weather pitch,and bypass come with it.
The other two sites you will have heard plenty of arguments against but basically they are too remote and move the greenbelt in the wrong direction.

We need now better parking. The 90 degree parking is a nightmare. We need now more car parking spaces. The car park for the station is always full and spills out up Hall meadow Road every day

We need a new primary school as the existing one built for 150 is now up to 700 and needs scaling back to alleviate the chaos at 8.30 and 3.00. A new two form school might be the answer.

The Kenilworth road already experiences higher volumes of traffic following JLRs acquisition of the old Honiley Air Field. There is talk of the number of employees here rising to 3000. The lorries serving them are massive. Further up the Kenilworth road is the quarry site where 1000s of tons of material come and go every day. HS2 construction starts soon to add to the congestion. New building sites in Balsall Common should be postponed either till after HS2 construction or until a relief road or bypass is in situ.

The shopping area is desperately in need of improvement. Sadly we missed in the end the opportunity to acquire the old office building that will forever now be a carbuncle.

I am worried that in the rush for house sites that the appropriate infrastructure that frankly should have been forthcoming years ago will be once again sidelined partly because there is so much else to do. As a ward councillor and resident I feel that I must shout loudly from the start to ensure this does not happen.

David Bell

In relation to site 18 Sharmans cross road, comments indicate that the pitches are no longer in use. This is due to the lease on the pitches having been acquired by a commercial developer (oakmoor) when the rugby club moved off the site. Since then a number of local teams have approached Oakmoor to bring the pitches back into use and this has been refused. I find this position terrible as is a piece of amenity land that should be brought back into use for the good of community. I feel this should be recognised in the submission.

We should not be using green belt. We should not be planning where an increase in traffic will cause current homeowners issues.

The plan to use land between Lugtrout Lane, Parkway, Field Lane should be resisted at all costs. This is green belt, the road network at that location is already stretched. JLR are being granted green belt down the road and factory already cause traffic problems when workers commute. On top of this the extended runway causes a lot of noise to existing homes. Also homes built here will be in full view of existing homes.

2 of the choices for Balsall Common do not meet your requirements. One open up a new area for development in future - Frog Lane. secondly, expanding the settlement to the south when sites closer to the centre have been offered make more sense. see longer submission at the end.

very definitely not in the case of Balsall Common. Frog Lane is a ludicrous choice. it not only does not create a defensible boundary, it opens up one. it is the furthest point of the compass from the centre as well as medical and transport services. it also fails the landscape policies. the logic is highly questionable. Kenilworth road / Windmill lane merely extends the village southwards, when better sites in the centre are available - subject to some negotiation. primary education is critical, the current school is over crowded, one east, one west would be a solution.

i am all in favour of the need to build new homes and understand that there will be a need to build in the green belt but it is essential that all potential for building on brownfield sites is exhausted first.

with increase housing, there is likely to be an influx of new families with teenagers etc. In my experience many teenagers enjoy socialising and meeting up in shopping malls. How will the Council cater for the needs of increased teenagers in Balsall Common?

How will the Council provide sufficient school places and after school activity for young people in Balsall Common?
How will the Council control traffic - i.e. parents dropping off and picking up children from school?

I am concerned as to the accessibility of certain sites that seem favoured. Relaxing the criteria does not make poor accessibity any better.

I am very concerned to learn that once again Solihull BC is exploring the possibility of developing green field space in Balsall Common to provide additional residential accommodation for the borough.
As I am sure you are aware, the National Planning Policy Framework for England provides very clear guidance on its website: "the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period."
Our Green Belt was established to maintain the division between our two great regional cities, Birmingham and Coventry. I cannot see that any "exceptional circumstances" exist that now necessitate the development of Green Belt when there remain many brown field sites within the borough which could be developed.
I am particularly disappointed that consideration is being given to the development of Frog Lane. A survey of usage would no doubt show that this provides a valuable public amenity providing all weather exercise facilities for a large number of dog owners, families and recreational cyclists. It provides ready access to the beautiful surrounding countryside that is essential for the wellbeing of the local community. Furthermore the plans propose development of Holly Lane Playing Fields, contrary to planning guidance that specifies that "local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity". These should be protected at all costs. The developments are completely inappropriate.
I would ask you to reconsider all development plans for Balsall Common in view of its position within the Green Belt.

The proposed house building in Knowle is too high as the schooling and infrastructure i.e. parking, road congestion, medical centres and primary schooling, transport, cycling paths all need improving first

At the recent Council exhibition, there was no indication/information at all about infrastructure.

The Council also admitted that they had NOT identified any brown field sites in Balsall Common despite it being on top of its list of objectives, before slapping red diagonal lines on greenfield sites.

IF building on Barretts Farm then there must be a field break before the houses in Meeting House Lane.

Government policy supports the creation of new villages so put all these houses on the disused gravel pits in Cornets End Lane

see attached letter

We have lived in Balsall Common for more than 45 years and therefore have a keen interest in the developments proposed in the Draft Plan. Following is a letter expressing our views. We have examined the Plan document, and the questions within it, and will respond to each after discussions with your officials at the Balsall Common consultation session next Saturday 7th.

However, the format of the document and the questions asked does not allow us to give our response as we would wish and therefore we have chosen to write the attached.

You will see from our address that we live on Meeting House Lane and therefore could justifiably be accused of NIMBY-ism. However, I will be 75 next birthday and my wife is not far behind. Housing development in 5 - 15 years' time is unlikely to be a long term concern for us. It will be a serious concern for the next generation and the one after that and that is why we feel strongly that changes to the plan are needed. Please take the time to read our letter and respond.


Housing Development in Balsall Common and Berkswell.

The proposed housing development in Balsall Common/Berkswell will (together with HS2) considerably affect our village for years to come. In the short term, there will be massive disruption but this is out-weighed by the loss of countryside for decades to come. Houses, once built, will not be pulled down. It is therefore hugely important that sites are selected which meet not only current needs but also do not prejudice the "vision for the future". At a strategic level the draft plan sets out to do this but fails in its detail recommendations: We are talking about Green Belt and particularly the Meriden Gap. As with houses, Green Belt once released will never be re-instated.

It is critical for the future of our village that the criteria used to redraw the Green Belt (and thus approve sites for housing) make sure that the rural nature of the Borough is retained.

If we look at issues raised in the SMBC Local Plan and the reasons given for the sites chosen, it seems that short-term considerations are winning the day.

Proximity to bus stops, rail services, local shops, the surgery, traffic may be important now, but may not be in 25 or 50 years. All of these can change - one by the stroke of a bus company manager's pen. The location of 1150 houses is permanent and can never be changed. Our residents got it absolutely right in their responses after the site exhibition last summer. Overwhelmingly they stated that protection of the Green Belt and, therefore, of the countryside and the wildlife in it was their top concern. SMBC are ignoring the residents wishes by choosing large sites in the Green Belt which may be easy to acquire and develop and where eager builders are pushing them. If Green Belt erosion is allowed now our descendants will look at a Midlands conurbation which stretches as unbroken urban sprawl from Wolverhampton to the eastern boundary of Coventry and ask us, why did we ever allow that? We had a chance to keep some fields and we blew it.

The SMBC have published the Strategic Green Belt Assessment dated July 2016. The introduction stresses "the vital strategic Meriden gap"; but the Draft Local Plan produced from it will destroy it.

This document suggests that a pseudo-scientific approach to the decision has been used and all 'Broad Areas' and 'Refined Parcels' have been carefully analysed to ensure that Green Belt which is best suited for purpose is retained. However, careful reading shows that, although the methodology may appear impartial, it all depends on the scoring given for each purpose in each area and these are essentially subjective. For example, compare the scores given to the Barrett's Lane and Grange Farm sites - sites RP 54 and RP 51 respectively.

Purpose Barrett's Grange
Lane Farm

1 To check unrestricted sprawl 1 2

2 To prevent neighbouring towns merging 2 2

3 To safeguard the countryside 2 3

4 To preserve the character of historic towns 0 0

This gives Grange Farm a total Green Belt weight of 7 and Barretts Lane 5. Therefore, in SMBC'S view, Grange Farm is a more important site to keep as Green Belt. However, anyone looking at a map can see that the gap between Balsall Common and Coventry is at its most vulnerable at Barretts Lane. With HS2, and Coventry's plans to build westwards from Burton Green, plus a proposed new road connecting the A46 via Warwick University through to the A45 (which will reduce traffic through Balsall Common and hence reduce the pressure for a bypass), the Meriden Gap will shrink to close to zero.

We are not just attempting to divert building away from Barretts Lane to Grange Farm. We have no doubt that examination of many other scores in areas away from Balsall Common would show similar anomalies. We are showing that the scoring that the methodology uses is flawed and cannot be relied upon to justify decisions which are so important to our future and that of our children.

We are fully aware of the housing crisis the country faces and that homeless people would rather have a house to live in than a beautiful piece of Green Belt countryside. However, it does not have to be one or the other. There are many sites to consider and SMBC should take another look at them.

We are asked the question: if not here; where? We suggest SMBC follow their own guidelines as defined in the Draft Local Plan. Namely;

1. Non-Green Belt land first

* The site enclosed by Wootton Green Lane and Kenilworth Road as proposed by tyler parkes at the site exhibition last summer. This is largely Brownfield.
* Lavender Hall Farm. This is also largely brownfield and easily accessed by the new roundabout on the A452 at Park lane. A site likely to be attractive to housing associations for the building of affordable housing

2. Green Belt:

Previously developed land if highly accessible or moderately accessible location

* None identified

Greenfield - if highly or moderately accessible location and is being lost as a result of committed development

* The site enclosed by Windmill Lane and Kenilworth Road which we fear is already lost as Green Belt.

3. Greenfield - other
* New Mercote Farm. This is farm land that is isolated from the rest of the Berkswell Estates land and therefore of lower agricultural value. It has defensible boundaries (roads) and good accessibility from the new roundabout which HS2 Ltd will leave at the end of the construction period at the junction of Park lane and the A452. It has no footpaths and is therefore of poor usage to the community as Green Belt compared with Barratt's Farm which is highly used by local walkers. It is less than 1 km from the primary school (Berkswell), 1/2 km from fresh food (Sainsbury) and on the north side of Balsall Common and hence close to the growing jobs area around the airport.
* These sites may not make up the full 1150 houses required. Any shortfall could be shared between that part of the Barretts Lane site which fronts onto Station Road; and that part of the Grange Farm site fronting onto Wootton Green Lane. These two sites are largely Green Belt but have less impact on the Meriden Gap than SMBC's draft proposal.

All these areas have defensible boundaries as defined in the Assessment Methodology - Roads, Rail, Watercourses, Woodland, Hedgerows, and Established field patterns. All other areas should be reconfirmed as permanent Green Belt.

This proposal has several advantages:

Most of the development is north of the village centre which we understand will ease traffic through the village.

Most of the development is away from HS2 and there should be less simultaneous disruption. Completed developments should be easier to sell.

Accessibility is better with direct access onto the Kenilworth Road for the majority, and reduced flow onto Station Road which already is severely restricted to the east by the low bridge and to the west by the village centre.

The burden, and the CIL revenue, is shared by Balsall and Berkswell parishes which should make it easier for them to agree a joint NDP.

But, by far, the major advantage is reduced erosion of Green Belt between Solihull and Coventry. We must aim to move the epicentre of the village away from Coventry, not towards it.

We ask that our three SMBC Councillors, the two JOINT parish councils and NDP committees make the case effectively to SMBC and secure a revised Local Plan for the benefit of all current and future residents.

see attached letter

I strongly disagree with the proposed locations. No green Belt land should be released until all Brown field and heavily developed existing Green Belt sites have been exhausted - as stated many times in the many documents produced to date

As to specific locations the Atkins Solihull Strategic Green Belt Assessment report on which the allocations are based states (page 4):

"The character of the Green Belt varies greatly across the borough with the eastern portion forming part of the vital strategic Meriden Gap - the area of Green Belt separating Birmingham and Solihull from Coventry in the east."

In spite of this clear direction, the site proposals are for 800 houses at Barrett's Farm in the narrowest part of this "strategic gap". At the same time HS2 will drive a major scar through the middle of it, and Coventry City Council are considering a large housing development into it. This proposal is an obvious breach of SMBC and Atkin's own guidelines.

The SSHELAA in 2016 identified 19 potential sites in Balsall Common. I am unable to determine the process whereby this was reduced to the three chosen. SSHELAA also says Barrett's farm has suitability constraints which other available sites do not.

This document suggests that a pseudo-scientific approach to the decision has been used and all 'Broad Areas' and 'Refined Parcels' have been carefully analysed to ensure that Green Belt which is best suited for purpose is retained. However, careful reading shows that, although the methodology may appear impartial, it all depends on the scoring given for each purpose in each area and these are essentially subjective. For example, compare the scores given to the Barrett's Lane and Grange Farm sites - sites RP 54 and RP 51 respectively.

Purpose 1 - To check unrestricted sprawl Barrett's Lane Grange Farm


1 2

Purpose 2 - To prevent neighbouring towns merging

2 2

Purpose 3 - To safeguard the countryside
2 3

Purpose - 4 To preserve the character of historic towns
0 0

This gives Grange Farm a total Green Belt weight of 7 and Barrett's Lane 5. Therefore, in SMBC'S view, Grange Farm is a more important site to keep as Green Belt. However, anyone looking at a map can see that the gap between Balsall Common and Coventry is at its most vulnerable at Barrett's lane. With HS2, and Coventry's plans to build westwards from Burton Green, plus a proposed new road connecting the A46 via Warwick University through to the A452 or A45 (which will reduce traffic through Balsall Common and hence reduce the pressure for a bypass), the Meriden Gap will shrink to close to zero.

We were told at the drop-in session in Balsall Common that the Draft Local Plan Topics Papers contained the reasoning for site selection. Para 399 highlights parcels 51 (Grange Farm) and 58 (Holly Lane) as moderate to high performing; parcel 57 (Windmill Lane) low performing. Parcel 54 (Barrett's farm) not mentioned at all; just "Land further from the settlement is generally high performing". Parcel 54 appears from nowhere in the list of locations chosen with no justification. This site is one the largest in the whole of SMBC and for it to be selected with no rationale is astonishing. If the Topics Papers was used as a basis for choosing locations there was a serious error here.





Accessibility to this site is unacceptable. The Draft Local Plan Topic Papers which was presumably used as the basis for selection, states for Balsall Common (para 398):

"This settlement varies in accessibility, with sites to the east being of medium to high accessibility, sites to the west of medium accessibility and sites to north and south of low accessibility." This statement is totally incorrect on almost all counts.

The only route eastwards from Station Road is either via the single carriageway traffic light controlled low bridge which is impassable to high vehicles, or via Meadowhall Road and the single carriageway bridge on Lavender Hall Lane which leads to the centre of Berkswell village. The route from the southern end if access is created onto Kelsey Lane goes via the hump-backed bridge to another single carriageway traffic light controlled narrow bridge by Nailcote Hall; or along a minor road to the dangerous T junction in Burton Green.
Accessibility westwards may be considered medium although it is along a winding B road to the centre of Knowle.
Accessibility to the north is excellent with the dual carriageway A452 running from the Stonebridge flyover almost to the centre of the village.
Accessibility to the south is poor along the winding and dangerous A452 to Kenilworth or alternatively slightly better along the A4177 past Honiley but still having to negotiate Haseley and Hatton before joining the A46 north of Warwick.

It seems that whoever wrote the accessibility statement had never visited the settlement and it cannot be used as input to any site location decision.


As to where else, there appears to be no proposal to build around Dorridge in spite of a specific reference in the Vision statement (paragraph 84):- "A mix of market and affordable housing will have been provided in Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath". Dorridge has better facilities,a central rail station and build there would not threaten the Meriden Gap.

There is also a significant Brown field site at the now closed garden centre in Barston which could surely be made available.

Hi ive had a letter through my door about planning a new housing estate.i do not think that should be here atall its a struggle as it is for shops schools drs road space ..plus there is hardly any greenery left im in a 3 bed over crowded om here as i like the peaceful area of tbis new estate ia built i will be moving as my children dont handle to much stress alotbof people or chamge i have three children 2 of which have autism i shares my room as i have no room im really not happy even about the thought of more houses around here k.moseley

More houses should be sited near the JLR and HS2 site

Balsall Common has been allocated a total of 1150 new homes, all in the Green Belt and most in the Meriden Gap where it is nearest to Coventry and Burton Green. This area be greatly affected by HS2 and it is arguable that no development should be taken in this area until construction of HS2 is complete. The number of houses is a 25% increase (27% including Ridings Hill which has already been allocated). This will require considerable infrastructure to be put in place.
These houses also are 22% of the schedule of new allocated housing in the Green Belt thus significantly reducing the Meriden Gap.
The SHELAA(2016) identifies other sites which are less intrusive but have been ignored.
When these sites were considered in the 2012 SHELAA they were thought to be unsuitable. Although Solihull has to find a larger housing allocation the reasons for rejection are still valid.
There is further concern that using your average density figures the amount of land being taken out of the Green Belt could accommodate over 2000 dwellings in the Barratts Farm proposed development.
If development is required in Balsall Common this should be to the north or north-west of the village centre to alleviate most traffic congestion. Any development should be to shift the centre of the village away from the HS2 corridor.
The LPR evidence base is flawed. Although it purports to use a pseudo-scientific method to identify sites the actual scoring is subjective and in some cases incorrect. The Draft Local Plan Topics Papers are supposed to give the reasons for site selection but close examination highlights some glaring errors especially with regard to accessibility of the Barratts Lane site in Balsall Common.
Other areas for consideration are around Dorridge which has better facilities, a regular rail service and does not threaten the Meriden Gap.
There is also a significant Brown field site at the now closed garden centre in Barston which could surely be made available.

I am very concerned about the inclusion of the Playing Fields in the Frog Lane development plan. There are several issues that I am concerned about.
1. Health related concerns: my husband (Professor Jeremy Dale) has written separately on this issue expressing concerns about the public health consequences of a loss of the playing fields. I agree with everything stated in that email, and so won't repeat the issues here except to emphasise their importance as a local resource for residents living in this part of Balsall Common.
2. I am very concerned about any development that adds to the traffic congestion around the Holly Lane, Alder Lane, Balsall St East, Gypsy Lane junction. I have previously brought to the attention of SMBC concerns about the number of accidents that occur at this junction, and that the data that the SMBC reports on its website is inaccurate. There are at least 3 or 4 accidents a year that we (and our neighbours) attend to, and while some are minor, support from the emergency services is often needed. Despite the change in speed limits and signage, it is only a matter of time before a child gets very seriously injured given the severe congestion during school drop off and collection times. Anything that increases the traffic flow at this junction is likely to increase the risk of accidents and/or serious injury and fatality.
3. I should like to know why the proposal to build on the playing fields was not included as an option at the consultation meeting in August. Please could this be explained. Furthermore, no detail has yet been provided for what the planned development on the playing fields will comprise. Without this information, how can we make an informed comment?
4. Finally, I should like to understand the justification for why SMBC is proposing the Frog Lane development, given that it scored below other local sites and other brown field sites in Solihull that are served by much better access and local amenities. Dorridge, for example, scores very highly on accessibility and other assessments and out of 32 potential sites offered had none included in the proposal.

I am writing to express my views on the proposed development in Balsall Common ( BC)I understand the need for more housing, I work with homeless teenagers. I also understand that when large developments are being proposed the infrastructure of the area needs to be considered, schools, access, health,etc. I am aware the potential building sites across Solihull have been weighted.

I am therefore confused as to why SMBC have chosen Frog Lane for development in BC given its lower scoring in relation to other sites around the borough.

Is there any awareness in SMBC as to the traffic congestion twice daily around the Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Alder Lane and Gypsy Lane junction? This junction is an accident hotspot and has been for the last 19 years. I have witnessed and helped casualties from these accidents on many occasions. I have voiced my concerns to SMBC in the past regarding this issue.

May I suggest SMBC visit this junction during school opening and closing times to witness the chaos. This area is a danger to the pedestrians and vehicle users at these times . Surely potential development sites need such matters to be considered. Please inform me of how this traffic/ accident hotspot is weighted in comparison with other sites?

Several potential sites (some partially brownfield) were identified to the north of the village, and they all scored more highly than Frog Lane in terms accessibility, so why were they excluded? As a matter of urgency, we ask you to consider them now.

Does the proposed development of Frog Lane still include the playing fields?

I am interested to hear where the children of primary school age will be accessing their schooling given that BC Primary School tends to run at full capacity most years ( I was a school governor in the past) following the proposed development in BC.

I look forward to your response.

We strongly wish to lodge our objection to the proposed plans regarding housing developments within the Shirley and Dickens Heath areas of Solihull.
The proposed plans for building houses at these locations will create major traffic problems amongst other concerns ie schools, hospitals, local amenities etc. etc.
Please keep us up to date with what is happening?
Yours faithfully
Mr and Mrs James Murtagh

see attached letter for full text . Generally supportive and the letter comments on each of the 23 questions.

Where I generally agree with most of the points highlighted in the consultation I do not agree with them all and post my concerns and suggestions.

No, the locations for Allocated Housing Sites identify the loss of too many existing Football Clubs/Pitches, contrary to Policy P18/P20, without identifying any compensatory arrangements for their replacement (i.e. Sites 4, 8, 13, 16, 20).

In Appendix C Schedule of Allocated Housing Sites Site Constraints, there is a an inconsistency in terms of the text for existing Football Clubs/Pitches, whilst some are not even referenced.

Where the allocation of Housing Sites is identified, a clearer statement is required on how existing Football Clubs/Pitches will be protected/any loss compensated.

too much green belt being used particularly around the m42/airport/nec where so many other infrastructure/building projects planned such as HS2/M42 relief road/service station

Estate plans across Solihull Borough
After viewing and studying some of the proposed housing estate builds across the Solihull borough I would like to give some helpful and constructive advice if I may
I had observed that some parts of the borough are earmarked for some very large and overwhelming estate builds while other areas and communities seem to be taking very little if any housing.
I think it would be much better and fairer if you could spread the housing developments into smaller builds across the borough fairly so that each local community can take on some housing but also retain some valuable landscaped nature reserve/ garden green space to lessen the impact on local communities and this would benefit nature and the environment.
I do think some of the past mistakes in planning and development can be avoided if you can try to avoid ramming so many houses into a one area build and ripping up mature tree's and hedgerows and retain at least some field space between existing communities and new builds, because we all benefit mentally and physically from green space and nature.
This idea of spreading the housing into smaller builds across the borough would also lessen the impact on roads and local communities infrastructure which I am sure would save money.
I hope this advice is of some help for you as I am sure you have a difficult job in hand.

The impact on Knowle of the two major developments will be massive. Each of them will lead to gridlock on roads, particularly Knowle High Street which is a Conservation Area and has a narrow twisting road. There are no sensible alternatives for the large proportion of new residents who will need to access Solihull by car.

Objection to housing estate
I would like to log an objection to the current proposal to build more houses in Shirley. This will have a massive impact on schools, facilities and congestion on local roads. Not to mention the affect on wildlife and getting rid of our green countryside.

Far too many to be built on the green belt in the Shirley and Dickens Heath area. Also taking into account Blythe Valley and the houses already being built in Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green, the house numbers account for at least half are those to be built in Solihull.They should be spread out across the borough.

I think the ratio of greenbelt to non-greenbelt development is unacceptable. The greenbelt is what makes Solihull such a nice place to live and your proposals threaten to simply make some of the commuter villages merely an extended sprawl of Birmingham. Investment, people and desirability will be impacted in the long run.
In addition, affordable homes appears to be the priority. It therefore can't be justified to build so many homes in areas like Balsall Common / Knowle, which have a notoriously higher than average housing market price. This will not solve your objective.