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

see attached letter

Looking at the proposed building for the areas in Dickens Heath, [which already has an excessive number of houses for the road accesses, width of roads, shopping area and general infrastructure.] ,Tidbury Green, Cheswick Green , Blythe Valley Park and the Dog Kennel Lane and Village Green areas. This area will no longer fulfil the description as a 'rural area'. What green belt! In excess of 2000 homes planned.

Although Town Council supports the local plan,it's concernd about the amount of housing being built in the North as all green spaces are being lost and the existing education infrastructure is being stretched. It is also concerned about the inclusions in the SHELAA Volume B of numbers 53 and 221. Bluebell recreation ground (53) includes allotments and community garden. The allotment site is held on a long term lease by Chelmsley Wood Town Council as is site 221, the Chelmsley Wood Town Council Offices. We would strongly oppose any notion of house building on either of these sites

I feel to many houses in Shirley especially around Tanworth Lane, Dog Kennel Lane and Dickens heath could causing damage to the drainage systems. several pipes in the area have had to be replaced close to allocation 13 due to poor workmanship when the developments around where built. including the use will put more pressure on areas that where not designed to take that much foul and surface water. Far from considered the long term impacts other than keeping the housing need ticked cheaply and economic short term flourish

The green belt sites are the majority of the proposals. Recent government announcements are that green belt should only be used in exceptional cases. Solihull council is using green belt in exceptional circumstances. The site on Barrett's lane in balsall common is of particular concern linked to the construction of hs2 and the volume of houses proposed (800) which is disproportionate to the area and the green belt being proposed and the lack of infrastructure to support that number of houses. The existing road network will not cope with the changes proposed.

The amount of housing in Knowle does not seem to fit with the areas where new economic activity is planned (which are in the A34 corridor, the A45 corridor and around Solihull town centre.

It is considered the location of allocated sites needs to be altered to include land at the rear of 114 - 118 Widney Manor Road. This site, which a previous appeal decision (APP/Q4625/A/10/2133554/NWF) found to be able to satisfactorily accommodate some 20 dwellings in respect of the relationship to juxtaposition of buildings, highway safety, and ecological impact does not appear as a specified site. There is documentation (page 332 of the SHELAA Appendix B) which indicates surrounding land which another promoter (Ms. Savage on behalf of Mr. Shield) submitted without agreement of my clients (the owners of 114 - 118 Widney Manor Road) which indicates that the land may have been erroneously omitted from the analysis of the chosen sites. There appears from the Sustainability Appraisal to be no systematic analysis of all potential sites to indicate whether the requirements of S39 (ii) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 have been fulfilled. (Further analysis is given in objection related to Q3 Spatial Strategy) The absence of comprehensive analysis and compliance with statute and policy indicates a need to re-run the work underlying the sustainabability appraisal accompanying the draft plan if it is to meet legal requirements.

Notwithstanding the above the Green Belt analysis for the locality of 114 - 118 Widney Manor Road is considered to be wholly inappropriate. The land between Widney Manor Road and the Railway Line is an area of developed land at very low density and for analytical purposes it is embraced by parcel RP32 which is almost all open fields. It is submitted that this coarse granularity is unreasonable in the circumstances. The site tabled in the SHELAA (Number 134) is not one which contributes in any material degree to essential objective of Green Belt policy, and it is therefore considered to be (as has been previously submitted) a suitable candidate for release from the Green Belt.

Having regard to the foregoing the Council is invited to reconsider the process by which sites have been sieved and assessed for sustainability.

Any indications of development within the greenbelt or rural exception should be included in the proposed final phases of the plan. This would afford them the maximum protection and ensure they were only developed if absolutely necessary, where there is no change in demand and insufficient windfall sites.
HHPC intend to work with the community and landowners to review the potential for including development sites within our Neighbourhood Plan. We support SMBC's decision, as evidenced in the Topic Papers paragraphs 417-422, that Hockley Heath is not suitable for growth, and would reiterate our intent to review this as part of the broader Neighbourhood Plan development process. Bringing sites back into the LP as a result of the consultation process would be wholly inappropriate, given the evidence and conclusions within the evidence base.

Knowle, Dorridge, Bentley Heath , is already at traffic gridlock at certain times of the day, with a major increase of up to 2000 vehicles, converging on to Hampton Road,Warwick Road, and Station Road whats the answer ,multiples sets of traffic lights,and demolish one side of the High Street though Knowle.

Please see uploaded attachments

wild life will be affected , traffic already a problem around the a34,tanworth lane, bills lane , all coming off dickens heath
football clubs for the youngest will be hit hard
doctors , schools, already under pressure in Shirley
will anything be put into place to help
please leave some green belt

I do not agree with the distribution of housing locations. Building 41% of the total number of houses in Shirley South is disproportionate, illogical and irrational. These proposals conflict with and are contrary to the policy statements in the draft plan. The plan is reliant upon growth at JLR, the NEC, the airport expansion and HS2. Building 41% of homes in Shirley South miles away from the employment growth areas is illogical and irrational. Homes should be built where the jobs are being created to minimise travelling, commuting, and the impact on the already overburdened road and transport infrastructure.

There are also a large number of sports grounds that will be lost. These play an important role in both health and wellbeing as well as community interaction. When you play for a sports team, you identify with the place and the people. This is an important part in people's cultural identity and with integration into a community. They also offer open space that breaks up the intensity of developments. I would like to see more information given on how these sites will be compensated for and alternative locations provided that will be of equivalent benefit to the area.

Site 4 - Dickens Heath
This site covers 3 nature reserves and 2 ancient woodlands. Whilst I understand the
benefits of developing land near to the Whitlocks End Station, as it has the
potential for reducing dependence on cars for transport, this is still likely to adversely impact traffic flows down Haslucks Green Road.

Site 11 - TRW Site
Of all the sites in and around Shirley this is the one that I consider to be a good location. It is an existing brownfield site and has good transport connectivity.

Site 12 - South of Dog Kennel Lane
This is an extensive site and whilst not used to the same extent by the community as
site 13, it still plays an important function. Light Hall Farm is a building of historic
significance to the area and should be preserved in any development.

Site 13 - South of Shirley
I do not agree with the proposals for this land. This is incredibly important to a vast
number of residents in the area. There is a significant amount of wildlife in the area and it operates as a buffer between Shirley and Dickens Heath. If this site were to be
developed then the greenbelt between the two would be little more than a belt. This is very well utilized by the community and it is land that helps to foster a community, by being land that they are able to meet one another whilst walking over. It also plays a significant role in both the health and wellbeing of a great number of residents in the area.

Building on Site 13 also is contrary to the policy of maintaining gaps between villages and communities. Building on Allocation 13 will effectively mean that Dickens Heath Village will be swallowed up by an expanding Shirley urban sprawl. This will totally alter the character of both areas losing community identity and be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of residents.

Site 16 - East of Solihull
Whilst I recognise that there will be a number of residents in the area who appreciate
this site as greenbelt, it also is located ideally for both access to the town centre, the
airport, HS2 and JLR. The density of the development means that it would be a waste of land if it were to be more comparable to the properties to the south east (Catherine-de-Barnes) than to the north west (Damson Parkway). If the density were to be increased it would likely reduce some of the pressure on land elsewhere in the borough, especially around Shirley. It may be worthwhile exploring the viability of the immediately adjacent land in the process also.

I do not agree with the distribution of housing locations. Building 41% of the total number of houses in Shirley South is disproportionate, illogical and irrational. These proposals conflict with and are contrary to the policy statements in the draft plan. The plan is reliant upon growth at JLR, the NEC, the airport expansion and HS2. Building 41% of homes in Shirley South miles away from the employment growth areas is illogical and irrational. Homes should be built where the jobs are being created to minimise travelling, commuting, and the impact on the already overburdened road and transport infrastructure.

There are also a large number of sports grounds that will be lost. These play an important role in both health and wellbeing as well as community interaction. When you play for a sports team, you identify with the place and the people. This is an important part in people's cultural identity and with integration into a community. They also offer open space that breaks up the intensity of developments. I would like to see more information given on how these sites will be compensated for and alternative locations provided that will be of equivalent benefit to the area.

Site 4 - Dickens Heath
This site covers 3 nature reserves and 2 ancient woodlands. Whilst I understand the benefits of developing land near to the Whitlocks End Station, as it has the potential for reducing dependence on cars for transport, this is still likely to adversely impact traffic flows down Haslucks Green Road.

Site 11 - TRW Site
Of all the sites in and around Shirley this is the one that I consider to be a good location. It is an existing brownfield site and has good transport connectivity.

Site 12 - South of Dog Kennel Lane
This is an extensive site and whilst not used to the same extent by the community as site 13, it still plays an important function. Light Hall Farm is a building of historic significance to the area and should be preserved in any development.

Site 13 - South of Shirley
I do not agree with the proposals for this land. This is incredibly important to a vast number of residents in the area. There is a significant amount of wildlife in the area and it operates as a buffer between Shirley and Dickens Heath.
If this site were to be
developed then the greenbelt between the two would be little more than a belt. This is very well utilized by the community and it is land that helps to foster a community, by being land that they are able to meet one another whilst walking over. It also plays a significant role in both the health and wellbeing of a great number of residents in the area.

Building on Site 13 also is contrary to the policy of maintaining gaps between villages and communities. Building on Allocation 13 will effectively mean that Dickens Heath Village will be swallowed up by an expanding Shirley urban sprawl. This will totally alter the character of both areas losing community identity and be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of residents.

Site 16 - East of Solihull
Whilst I recognise that there will be a number of residents in the area who appreciate this site as greenbelt, it also is located ideally for both access to the town centre, the airport, HS2 and JLR. The density of the development means that it would be a waste of land if it were to be more comparable to the properties to the south east (Catherine-de-Barnes) than to the north west (Damson Parkway).
If the density were to be increased it would likely reduce some of the pressure on land elsewhere in the borough, especially around Shirley. It may be worthwhile exploring the viability of the immediately adjacent land in the process also.

The expansion of Balsall Common by 1350 homes (including those already planned) plus windfall is too great without considerable investment in infrastructure, transport, facilities, environment. The impact is disproportionate and locations in other settlements eg Dorridge should be considered. I suggest a limit of acceptability should be applied to this category of settlement, maybe 25 or 30%, and perhaps to the smaller historic settlements of 5-10% during the plan period. Bearing in mind NDPs may specify more development, this could also then be contained within the percentage limit.

I agree with KDBH Forum views and oppose the proposals. 1150 new homes in Knowle is disproportionate.. Other locations have not received equal attention and should be revisited. The issue of rebuilding Arden is complex - I support this in principle (great legacy) but it appears the cost of such is 750 homes, all or nothing, and the loss of much of the MIND land.. The village cannot sustain this on top of recent/current build. Some build is appropriate and I urge consideration of more modest levels that residents feel more appropriate and consistent with proposed build profile across Solihull.

As described in my previous comments, a piecemeal approach on the edge of existing settlements will add pressure on existing transport links and infrastructure. In Shirley, some of the sites identified make an important contribution to ensuring that, absent all but one small park, there is some easy access to open space.

More housing should be built around the Chelmsley wood area where the shopping facilities and school would cope better than in a rural area. Better commuting network.

Please see attached document

Knowle village should not be included.1050 homes is 6.8% of new homes total and 17% of new site allocation. This is wholly inappropriate for a village location. The influx of 2000+ more people into the village centre conservation area with their cars would ruin the village irreversibly. Intrusion into the Green Belt is unacceptable. There are already built on areas in Solihull centre which could have change of use from commercial these should be used first. This is not sympathetic expansion of rural villages as quoted earlier in the document.

Barratt's Farm is a Green Belt site currently used extensively by Balsall Common residents for dog walking and family walks. The site includes a great network of public footpaths which makes it ideal for people wanting to lead a healthy lifestyle. We moved to BC in 2011 and the main reason for moving here was the Barratt's Farm land where we have take our children for walks many weekends and after school. Without the land there would no where to go for a walk locally. The Berkswell side of BC is due to be impacted significantly by HS2. To propose to build on the Barratt's Farm site is a step too far and would reduce our quality of life to such an extent that we would want to move away from the area.

Any indications of development within the greenbelt or rural exception should be included in the proposed final phases of the plan. This would afford them the maximum protection and ensure they were only developed if absolutely necessary, where there is no change in demand and insufficient windfall sites.
HHPC intend to work with the community and landowners to review the potential for including development sites within our Neighbourhood Plan. I support SMBC's decision, as evidenced in the Topic Papers paragraphs 417-422, that Hockley Heath is not suitable for growth, and would reiterate the villagers intent to review this as part of the broader Neighbourhood Plan development process. Bringing sites back into the LP as a result of the consultation process would be wholly inappropriate, given the evidence and conclusions within the evidence base.

No. There are too many developments, too focussed on the area south of Shirley where roads are already too busy and there is no space to widen roads or provide new infrastructure. Traffic congestion on Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane and the surrounding area is already extremely bad at rush hours, and it is increasingly difficult to turn out of Tanworth Lane near the doctor's surgery due to the large volume of traffic coming from the new development in Dickens Heath. Proposed allocations 12 and 13 will exacerbate these problems significantly by putting an extra 1,450 houses on them - potentially an extra 2,900 cars, not to mention the extra 400 houses and 800 cars on the TRW site (plus any additional commuters if there is to be additional employment on that site). Even if new roads are built to access the Stratford Road, there are already traffic jams on the Stratford Road trying to get onto the M42, so putting extra traffic onto the Stratford Road is not going to resolve traffic problems, but will make them worse.
More of these sites should be focussed around the HS2 site if that is one of the main draws for new housing in Solihull. In particular, there are a number of sites marked as lower quality green belt land nearer the HS2 development that aren't being earmarked for development such as parcels of land RP18 and RP19 just north of Hampton in Arden on the Green Belt Assessment report 2016 (both plots of land only have a grading of 4, compared to RP69 and RP65 both graded as 6 but the latter have been earmarked for building allocations 12 and 13 even though they serve a better green belt purpose).
There are also a number of poorer quality greenbelt areas around Dorridge which would be more suitable for development. These areas would be closer to HS2, and are also closer to a better quality train-line than that in Shirley or Dickens Heath. Housing in Dorridge would provide commuters with access to around 72 trains per day to Birmingham (compared to only 45 on the Shirley line), and would also provide easy access to commute to London via either the existing Chiltern service, Birmingham International or the new HS2. In particular RP34 only has a grading of 3, and other sites are graded 4 or 5 (RP33, RP41, RP39, RP40, RP48, RP47, RP45). It would be preferable if you considered these sites to proposed allocations 12 or 13.
The added benefit of building around Dorridge is that Arden School is (I believe) being rebuilt on a new site, so this would be an ideal opportunity to rebuild a new, larger, fit for purpose school to cater for significantly higher numbers instead of trying to extend existing schools on their existing grounds.
There is a triangle of land near to proposed housing allocation 4, bounded by Houndsfield Lane, Tilehouse Lane and the railway line. This does not appear to have been included in plans, even though RP72 only has a green belt grading of 4 and there is already a proposed development near there, and it is significantly more convenient to access Whitlocks End railway station than proposed allocations 12 and 13. It may be that some housing could be put on here, or it may be that there's a plan to extend station car parking here.
There is also a number of green belt sites in the north of the borough within already built up areas around Kingshurst, Fordbridge etc. These are all poorly performing green belt areas, and the green belt strategic review has even highlighted some that do not perform their green belt functions at all. It would be preferable if these areas could be used. As they are amidst built up areas anyway, it would be possible to build at a higher density here, without the development being out of character for the area. (RPs 01, 02, 03, 79, 06, 08).
An area where a lot of space that has already been removed from the green belt which could be more efficiently used and should be considered before any new green belt building, is the huge car parking areas around the NEC, airport and station. Were some of these to be turned into multi-storey car parks, then a number could be released to build housing on, and these would provide significant brown-field sites and save removing further land from the green belt. These would also provide good access to the proposed new employment site north east of Land Rover.
In addition the density of housing being proposed seems to be very low. Both proposed allocations 12 and 13 seem to only be around 20 dwellings per hectare. To reduce the impact on the green belt, build higher density developments in fewer areas (particularly if one of the drivers for new housing is single person households). This was highlighted in the Government's Planning Policy Guidance note 3 suggesting a net density of 30-50 dwellings. If your intended figure of 36 dwellings per hectare is net (which I assume it must be), then it would be in keeping with the same to reduce the space used and build higher density developments, rather than only 20 dwellings per hectare. Look at alternatives for putting parking under houses to use less space. Consider terraces rather than semi-detached, or consider low rise flats. Higher density developments can be significantly more environmentally efficient than lower density developments, and can also allow residents of the new and existing developments to enjoy green belt countryside that hasn't been destroyed.
With regard specifically to proposed allocation 13 (south of Shirley), if this site were to be used (but I would prefer it if it wasn't), it would be preferable to build higher density further away from Stretton Road to provide a full field's gap (not just the narrow strip of bridleway and amenity land) between the estates to still allow for a significant band of open space. This land provides enormous intrinsic benefit to local residents and it would be a huge blow to the area for it to be built upon. It is possible to walk for over an hour on a circular route without having to go on more than a few metres of road. This provides good health and stress-relieving benefits for local people. This would be lost by developing this area. The fresh air would be replaced by polluted air from thousands of extra cars sitting in traffic jams, and would be detrimental to all impacted.
In addition, this area of grassland is important for drainage in the area. Building more tarmac and impermeable surfaces on this area is likely to have knock-on impacts for existing and future residents.
It is also an area that provides a large open space for wildlife and significant numbers of trees.

The plan allocations should set out criteria for selecting sites with the least environmental value e.g. avoid designated sites/landscapes, BMV land, areas at risk of flooding.

The policy does not identify land where development would be inappropriate, this should be addressed and clear criteria should be set out for development allocations.

Your authority should utilise the SSSI Impact Risk Zones which has been designed to be used during the planning application validation process to help decide when to consult Natural England on developments likely to affect a SSSI. The dataset and user guidance can be accessed from the data.gov.uk website

I object to development on sites 12 / 13 / 4 for the following reasons...
I am against green belt land being taken for developmental use in this instance as not only will it ruin the character of Dickens Heath 'village' and Shirley, it will be a disaster for the local wildlife which reside there. Green belt was called as such for a reason, to distinguish between settlements and create a pleasurable environment for residents. The green belt in these areas provide a home for many wild animals, a escape for dog walkers and cross country runners, a football pitch for those wanting to be fit and more importantly an area that produces clean air for locals and plants and trees that soak up excess water. I fear without these areas if they are ALL to be built on as the council are proposing it will cause a serious flood risk.
My personal main concern is for the development which is proposed to be opposite my home - site 12 Dog Kennel Lane. This area specifically Tanworth Lane end is a farmed area which surrounds a LISTED Light Hall Georgian home. To build in this area would in my opinion spoil the characteristic rural feel of the area which separates Shirley from Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green. Not only would the view of the Hall be blighted ( I assume developers plan to keep it as it is a listed building?) But the farmland would be lost as well. With Britains recent exit of Europe I would have thought local farming were of even more importance now than before?!
The traffic into these new developments are also a concern. Currently there is heavy traffic daily along Tythe barn lane/Dickens Heath road and Tanworth Lane resulting in THREE accidents in the two weeks before Christmas to my knowledge! The traffic volume outside my house has already increased with the expansion of Cheswick Green and the tarmac roads are getting more and more damaged not to mention the noise level! I can no longer have a conversation on my drive without shouting! With no additional proposed access roads to these new expansions I only see this gridlock worsening. The bottle neck that is Tythe Barn lane actually at a number of points becomes a SINGLE lane, is this really sufficient for a development of 700 homes most of which will probably have two cars? Developers design the estates to cram in as many houses as possible (Dickens Heath Village included) without thought it seems to where people will park their vehicles, thus causing residents to park on the road side blocking the already narrow roads. With the development proposed along Dog Kennel lane (site 12) for a further 850 houses, the gap between Shirley/Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green will have diminished, loosing farmland/jobs/woodland/recreational sites & character of the area in its wake.
Tythe barn lane houses not one, not two, but THREE football teams ground where children and adults go to play and keep fit. The government are encouraging (children especially) to exercise, how can they be expected to do this if areas such as this are being built on and taken from them? The proposal I know states 'potential for provision of sporting facilities' but I fail to see how sufficient space to house the THREE sets of teams from site area 4 and another from site 13 can be made to fit, thus creating a shortfall of pitches within the area.

The proposed sites map fails to show the development of the Tidbury Green area which would also narrow the green land between settlements, could these new housing numbers not be added to the required build total set by the Government to reduced further plots having to be found?
There also is the question of schools. At present schools in Shirley and Dickens Heath are at capacity, with no room for expansion, so where do all these new additional children go to school? There are no plans to build a new one so will children have to travel to out of area schools thus making a mockery of the education policy that children need to be within a certain radius, allowing children to WALK to school! The same question applies to Doctors, I have not seen/heard any plans to build additional practices in the area so does this mean residents have to wait even longer to get appointments to meet additional demand?
My other worry is that of flooding, by removing this much farmland/green belt (a third of the councils allocated number in ONE area) and building on it, there will be less earth/trees to soak up the excess water which will inevitably cause flood damage along the way. I don't see why these new homes cannot be built creating a completely new settlement on a sustainable site nearer to where the creation of jobs is going to be nearer the airport/HS2 line. This way workers will be closer to the proposed new jobs and won't have to travel so far causing gridlock along the way. Areas near the airport I understand have to be left free from development to allow for 'accidents' but what of the residents of Marston Green who are already directly under the flight path, do they not count???
I would have thought it more sensible to put affordable housing nearer these areas as house prices are significantly lower in these areas anyway. Potential workers for the new jobs the HS2 will provide will then have lower travel costs also.
I understand we need to build more homes to house our growing numbers especially affordable ones, and I have no objection to the TRW site (site 11), what I don't agree with is the expansion concentrated in what to me it seems is nearly a third of the Governments allocation in one area (Shirley/Dickens Heath). It seems a very unfair distribution. I have lived on the edge of the Dickens Heath boundary for over five years now and have enjoyed the wonderful view of the LISTED Light Hall home of our neighbours. My only hope is that developers consider the CURRENT residents views/outlook and quality of life and attempt to screen off these new properties around boundaries before imposing them on our doorstep and devaluing what we have worked hard to achieve.

see attached letter

I am submitting my comments to the Local Plan Review.

I am unable to submit my comments by your preferred method of the portal because that does not work properly, I am unable to access that (a matter which is subject to a separate complaint).

My comments are as follows

1 Firstly, the document is very long, there is no summary and it is full of jargon. In my opinion it fails the "plain English" test. It is full of obfuscation which makes it quite difficult to understand what is being proposed. If the Council really wishes to have meaningful consultation with council tax payers then there needs to be simpler communication.

Specific and general comments on the document are :-

2 I disagree with "Challenge G" - Gypsy & Traveller issues. I fundamentally object to the massively disproportionate amount of Council time and effort and council tax payers money that is expended on this very small section of the "community". These people are not part of the community, they do not wish to be part of the community, they just want to take advantage of the community.

3 Opening up of Green Belt Land around Damson Parkway/Old Damson Lane for use by JLR and other companies associated with car manufacturing. - I object to this proposal ( and I have objected to the planning submission by JLR for their LOC). There is no need for this suggested development to be immediately adjacent to the JLR plant, anywhere reasonably close would be perfectly suitable. I am very concerned by the inference in the document that because the despatch facility which has recently been built used green belt land then it is acceptable to use more green belt land for JLR convenience. That is in my view completely wrong. Obviously there was no other practical option for the despatch facility than the one approved (which I why I commented in support - with reservations - about that application).

4 New Housing developments - by the time I got to this section of the document I had already spent about an hour trying to understand earlier sections of the report, so I was beginning to lose the will to live, therefore I am not fully clear as to what is being proposed here. However I am clear that the plans for housing development, particularly affordable homes, are completely inadequate. The country as a whole faces a massive shortage in affordable housing and much more land needs to be released to provide major developments. I would much rather see further housing development around the periphery of the town than the proposed industrial development

After attending the "Have your say" Briefing in Balsall Common on the 7th January 2017, I wish to respond to the consultation of the Council's Draft Local Plan as follows:

* I am a resident of Kerly Close, Balsall Common (No. 7) - a private development of 9 houses including a private paddock and road.
* It is noted that the respective site plan within the Council's Draft Local Plan has included the hatching of the above private paddock together with three resident's gardens and I wish the Council to note the following:

- The above private paddock is owned and maintained by the residents and therefore it should be removed from the site plan and future development within the Draft Local Plan.

- As a resident and owner of the private paddock, I wish it to remain as part of the Green Belt and not removed by the Council as per part of their future development.

- Council are advised that as an owner of the private paddock, I hold restrictive covenants in legal documents which prevents its use and future development.

- Notwithstanding my objection to the proposed development should future housing development take place on the "triangle" beyond the paddock (which shall be subject to ongoing dispute), I will require the Council to provide suitable screening and/or planting around the paddock (in areas not in ownership of paddock) in order to reduce environmental noise/disturbance and to also ensure that any access to the paddock is secure and only accessible for Kerly Close residents/owners.

- In addition to the above I am particularly concerned that you are proposing that the Triangle accommodates 50% affordable housing which raises a large concern. Notwithstanding my disapproval to this in the first instance, should this be permitted through proper process then I would propose that that the affordable housing is located central within development where new private purchasers of surrounding properties are made clearly aware prior to purchase. Otherwise I shall be extremely concerned at the loss of value to my property if affordable housing is visible from my property and will hold Solihull MBC to account on this matter.

I would also like to personally object to the proposed housing expansion within Balsall Common. Balsall Common is a village location and the proposed housing expansion plans are ridiculously too large for the village to cope with as regards infrastructure, schooling and local services. Windmill Lane and Kenilworth Road will become gridlocked with cars, not to mention all the other roads within Balsall Common, there needs to be some consideration for residents, which is something I cannot see within your plans. Residents are also facing the prospect of having to deal with the disruption of HS2 (another waste of time and money!) which will further burden village residents, yet more errosion of the little bit of countryside that we currently have left.

I am also greatly worried by the amount of destruction for local wildlife, if this carries on, they will have nowhere to go! The Council should take this into account - it's not just about what humans want, animal welfare needs to be preserved and respected too. Due to the current housing construction on the Kenilworth Road, we have already seen additional wildlife venturing onto our paddock! This needs to stop, they have rights too and the Council should consider these in the plans - I cannot currently see any evidence of this .

I will await a further version of the Revised Plan taking into account the above comments.

see attached letter received by email
original letter superseded by amended version that included tenancy address

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?

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?