Q16. Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure[35] required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are the

Insufficient thought or provision has been made to public services including dental and medical care, playgrounds and youth centres, capacity of roads bearing in mind the severe traffic jams occurring daily

Current infrastructure inadequacies cause major traffic problems in the village centre. New dwellings WILL USE THEIR CARS for work/access to the village shops.
With the proposed almost doubling in village size:
*there will be GRIDLOCK in the village centre
*parking will be impossible.
*station cars already park for 200 yards up the "bypass". This will double.
Proposed infrastructure changes WILL IN NO WAY BE SUFFICIENT TO MITIGATE AGAINST THIS.
Education - the secondary school has low relative academic standards and capacity must expand BEFORE the massive influx to correct this. This won't happen, and I despair for the children.

Proposed developments for Balsall Common leads to a substantial increase in its populous. Existing infrastructure insufficient to meet increased demand. Following improvements are needed; additional car park provision in village centre; additional rail station parking(Hall Meadow Road used as overflow(would be part of proposed bypass); improved bus service- including service centre village -medical centre; and train service; additional primary school as current schools are full; improved drainage system- current one cant cope at times of heavy downpours; community sports centre/facilities will all weather pitch and last but not least an accessible cemetry

More detail is needed in what infrastructure is suggested. You also need to explain why you are ignoring existing major infrastructure (eg a high capacity dual carraigeway north of Balsall Common), this would speed up development and dramatically reduce costs, so that "softer" development can be made (parks, woodland etc).

With the exception of the heath centre there are no future proofed infrastructure developments in Balsall Common. The issue of parking at the railway station, parking in the village, schools and transport all appear to have been paid lip service in the plan

Balsall Common already faces a wide range of infrastructure challenges resulting from previous development. The scale of the proposals can only worsen this situation and a holistic impact assessment and strategic approach to infrastructure development is required.

Village schools are at capacity and the main Kenilworth road is subject to high levels of congestion. Increasingly residential roads are being used as rat runs to avoid such congestion with consequent danger to residents.

Medical facilities are difficult to access and village shopping centre is crowded and outdated.

The absence of reliable high frequency public transport will mean that cars will still provide the main means of transportation and new housing will impose further pressure on existing road infrastructure.

Car parking provision is also a major issue within the village and will require upgrading. Many of the new houses will not be within walking distance of the station and in the absence of alternative transport options, it is likely that cars will be used to drive to the station. The station car park is already at capacity and frequently 30 to 40 overflow cars can be seen parked on Hall Meadow Road. An obvious solution for additional car park provision would seem to be the remaining site within the Riddings Hill development area. However this appears to be designated for new home development as well.

Reference is made to a potential bypass line should this be required by HS2. I understand that HS2 submissions do not envisage sufficient additional traffic to justify a bypass.

Is it an intention to build a bypass as this seems to be the main reason for arguing that Barratts Farm has a defenceable green belt boundary.

It is also flawed to build a bypass along this line as it would transfer through traffic onto the already congested Hall Meadow road, thereby merely transferring the problem of congestion rather than solving it. I would contend better options lie to the west of the village which again could form a defenceable green belt boundary and allowing more balanced village development.

Consideration should also be given to linking existing green spaces / sporting provision such as the Lant Trust grounds to maintain green access links across the village and to prevent the new build area being isolated from the rest of the community. This could be achieved by the closure of Meeting House Lane by the existing Catholic Church.

Landscaping and green space buffering will also be required to preserve the amenity for existing residents, many of whom back onto open fields at present

Infrastructure improvements will need to be delivered well in advance of any new build given the existing situation. to assist this it is critical that any council funds obtained from the development ( sale of land or new build premia) must also be retained solely for the benefit of Balsall Common given the size of the infrastructure challenge.

Meeting House Lane is a rural location with no pavements on its southern section (a route used by many school children and parents when walking to school. Speeding traffic is already a challenge and any new access from the Barratts Farm development could introduce a significant number of new car journies destroying the nature of the lane for ever.

The junction between Meeting House Lane and Kelsey Lane is already dangerous with its partly blind corner. Significant additional traffic would require significant upgrade of this junction.

Further traffic on the lane could also serve to further isolate the new community from the existing village.

With a 30% expansion in Balsall Common there is little in the proposals that address the need for a new school, present medical facilities appear to be stretched - again not considered. A452 through traffic continues to increase and building a large development on Barretts Farm could create a rat run for cars trying to avoid the congestion. A large development exiting onto Meeting House Lane, Oxhayes Close and Barretts/Sunnyside Lanes would direct unacceptable traffic flows towards the existing residential areas and village centre. Traffic should be diverted away while still retaining walking and cycle access.

Transport infrastructure, health facilities, schools etc... need to be addressed.

see attached letter received via email

As a local resident I have serious concerns about the infrastructure that exists having capacity to support such an influx of residents. Road capacity is already at break point with travel time already painfully slow, I already have to leave at 6.30am to drive to my job in Leicester to avoid the suffocatingly slow traffic conditions. Lane improvements to the M42 have not alleviated this, and the A34 is both dangerous and congested as it is let alone local roads. Both Shakespeare Drive, Bills Lane and Tanworth Lane are always grid locked in the mornings with existing traffic let alone being forced to take thousands more cars. Furthermore what considerations have been made to the environmental impact made by the proposal. By this I not only concern air pollution, but also other environmental factors. Shirley generally has problems with its water table with regular flooding to the River Cole of which I can personally vouch for as a previous resident of Wisemeadows. I regularly experienced the entire green space behind my property flooding and my entire garden lost after just a small amount of rainfall. There is also the issue of impact on the natural habit that will be lost. There are hundreds of established historic oak trees under threat that support the local wildlife and indeed play their part in quelling the flood risks.

Appointments at local NHS services take weeks to get a suitable appointment for the average working person which is often forced onto Solihull Hospital. I'm currently pregnant and can't even get a simple blood test at Tanworth Lane Surgery without having first a doctors appointment and then having to make a further appointment at the hospital. An issue that I've been told at the practice itself is down to funding. This is aside from the impossible task of making an appointment to see a doctor.

Local employment is limited, my past 3 positions have been in Aylesbury, Edinburgh and Leicester. There simple aren't any similar positions in Solihull and whilst there are rousings that these new residents will be commuting to employment outside the borough with HS2 the simple fact is that not all of them will, and the positions aren't available. The proposal for so many new residents brings concerns around a forced unemployment crisis.

The plans also involve the removal of many local amenities; playing fields, sports clubs, outdoor space enjoyed by walkers, dog owners, horse riders and families alike, allotments and general green space. In an age where we are more and more conscious of the need to be active I can't see anything in the proposals that accommodates such a huge loss to the community. Where will this be displaced to or is it to simply be accepted as sacrificed? There needs to be facilities factored in. The youth influx will need to be accommodated and not just expected to 'hang out in the streets'. If nothing is provided are we not forcing an anti-social environment.

see attached vision statement

Sites 17, 6, 11. Schools and amenities within the village are already struggling and the roads cannot cope with the traffic as it is. With 1150 homes planned, this is will put too much strain on the village. The village centre is too small and and we do not have the scope to cope with the shear number of houses planned. we do have the schools to cope and the council have ignored all the fears already put forward by residents. the village and its roads cannot cope with the building work planned

see attached letter

Objection - Solihull Draft Plan - Allocation 13
I wish to lodge my objection reference the Solihull MBC draft plan and in particular allocation 13. The scale of the land currently included will ruin the local area on many fronts. The area will not cope with an additional 600 dwellings, it barely functions now.

There are insufficient school places to date and there does not appear to be any local school that is going to be able to expand to take more pupils. Tidbury Green Primary is too far for parents to walk, no footpaths. Dickens Heath Primary is also too far and restricted for further expansion due to the current site. Woodlands Infant is also surrounded by current housing and I fail to see how that school will expand. Cheswick Green Primary already has its own housing developments to cope with. I can only see that a new build school is the answer and where is that going to go?

Local roads are already dangerous, Bills Lane is an accident black spot with cars regularly coming off the road. We have also had a local man killed on this particular road within the last 2 years, the current traffic calming does not work. I am already concerned about getting out of my road and onto Bills Lane everyday. How is more traffic from more houses going to help this. Tanworth Lane also appears no better with traffic speeding out of Dickens Heath, again roads already dangerous and overloaded with vehicles.

The site entrance and exit, I would like further details of where this is planned. there does not appear to be any safe site for this. I would like details of what the plan is and how you are going to improve an already traffic congested area.

Wildlife in the area will be decimated if this plan goes ahead. There are a number of different owls and other birds that live on this land. The hedgerows are well established and are home to many other local types of wildlife. I fail to see how this can just be allowed to be destroyed for new homes. You cannot just keep taking parts of Green belt, there will be nothing left by the time my children have families of there own.

We are already waiting for weeks to get a GP appointment at our local surgery. We do not have a fully functioning Accident & Emergency, what we have is already struggling with people volume.

This draft is not put forward with any proper planning, it is all just reaction to housing pressure. Solihull MBC should be fighting the Government on our behalf against this pressure.

Please ensure my objection is put forward in response to your draft plan.

I am responding to the letter received from you, dated 8/12/16, concerning the above - in particular the Sharmans Cross Road site. I see from the map of the proposed allocation that this includes the Solihull Arden Club and grounds as well as the old rugby club grounds and my response is relating to that. I did try to reply through the on-line portal but I confess that I was completely unable to work out how to view or make any comments.

I have 3 main objections to building on this site - road infrastructure, school places and sports facilities.

Road Infrastructure
The present roads are unable to cope with the volume of traffic at certain times of the day, especially at school starting and finishing times. To add another 100 houses could potentially mean another 200 cars trying to access the road system which the present infrastructure would be unable to sustain.

School Places
As I understand it the existing schools, both primary and secondary, are oversubscribed. As it appears that the proposed houses will include a substantial proportion of affordable housing and starter homes that would appear to suggest that many families would be acquiring the houses with the result of a considerable increase in the demand for school places which will be difficult to meet.

Sports Facilities
Rugby pitches - It is a great shame that, since Birmingham and Solihull Rugby Club ceased using the rugby pitches, no other sporting club has been able to agree a reasonable rent with the current owners of the land to enable the pitches to be used. I know that Silhill Football Club was very interested in playing on those pitches but the rent demanded by the current owners (who I understand are Oakmore) was prohibitive. It is interesting that the first comment under "Likely infrastructure requirements" is "Re-provision of sports pitches if not in surplus". I have my suspicions that the current owners of the land deliberately set the rate at an exorbitant level to ensure that no club could afford to play there and so they could say that the pitches were unused for many years and therefore in surplus. At a time when the importance of getting people to exercise more is so widely recognised surely we could use these pitches for some form of sporting facilities which would be far less costly than a re-provision of sports facilities elsewhere. Also, I understand that following the last appeal against the proposed development of this site, Sport England designated the land for use solely for sporting purposes. Surely this must be considered and acted on?

Solihull Arden Club - I am very surprised that this club and grounds are included in the map of the proposed allocation. I can only say that the club is widely used as both a sports club and a social club and the cost of compensating the members for moving to another facility - should one be found - would presumably be huge and I can't understand why this would even be considered.

I look forward to hearing the outcome of the consultation period in due course.

With school capacity already at limits and no A&E unit at Solihull, where are the support services needed to support all this development? although the area has plenty of shops, there are not the basic services required and council support is already stretched so further capacity would need to be proven within the council to ensure the success of this growth.

There ought to be more explicit references to infrastructure including schools, medical facilities, shopping and leisure facilities all being accessible from the development sites, in line with sustainable travel objectives.

Balsall Common already faces a wide range of infrastructure challenges resulting from previous development. The scale of the proposals can only worsen this situation and a holistic impact assessment and strategic approach to infrastructure development is required. Areas to be addressed include village centre, school and medical provision, car parking and local road system. Green spaces and buffer zones should be used to mitigate the impact of new build development. There should be no access onto Meeting House Lane or surrounding roads as the rural nature of the lane and the junction of MHL and Kelsey Lane cannot accommodate more

Allocation 13. The roads are very congested at peak times especially Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive and Tanworth Lane, I don't move that quickly anymore and it can take me 10 minutes some days to cross Bills Lane. The parking at Shirley and Whitlocks End railway stations, is over capacity now. These roads where not designed for this amount of traffic. Shirley has grown gently over the years, but the main feeder roads have remained unaltered except for traffic calming. Is this Solihull Councils idea of road improvements.

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:


"Do you believe we are planning to build 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 should be included?"


I wish to object to the development of site 2 (Frog Lane, Balsall Common) and site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.


The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.


1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.


3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of sites 2 and 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.


5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably causedelays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".


6) Sites 2 and 3 score poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties


7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.


8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.


9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 2 and 3. Given that the area is larger than site 2 and 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 2 and 3.



10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time asHS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to bothinfrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to"manage the growth."


Further to the above


11) Loss of public open space by removing Holly Lane Playing fields from the greenbelt and adding it onto site 2 at Frog Lane. This public space is used by the whole community. Dog walkers, families with children, joggers, walkers and the Girl Guides and Brownies from The Scout Hut on Holly Lane, Local football teams and the nearby Holly Lane Nursery.


In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:


1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport


2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2


4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development


5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 2 and 3 are removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

As far as I am aware, no plans for infrastructure have been proposed? Any new concentrated development should ensure exemplary examples of cycle paths, walkways & bus routes (note Dickens Heath is still poorly served by public transport). Don't assume exisiting 2ndary schools can be gifted more money & expect them to absorb extra students in temporary teaching environments.
New homes should have a min of 2 car parking spaces to ensure cars are kept off the roads & footpaths. Underground parking should be considered where necessary.

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build 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 should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of site 2 (Frog Lane, Balsall Common) and site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of sites 2 and 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably causedelays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Sites 2 and 3 score poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 2 and 3. Given that the area is larger than site 2 and 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 2 and 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time asHS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

Further to the above

11) Loss of public open space by removing Holly Lane Playing fields from the greenbelt and adding it onto site 2 at Frog Lane. This public space is used by the whole community. Dog walkers, families with children, joggers, walkers and the Girl Guides and Brownies from The Scout Hut on Holly Lane, Local football teams and the nearby Holly Lane Nursery.

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 2 and 3 are removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

Proposed new homes site 13 South of Shirley estates
I am contacting you to object to the new housing estate planned for site 13 South of Shirley estates.
These fields are in constant us by residents in the area and it would be a great loss.
I do appreciate that more housing is needed in Solihull but It feels that these large housing schemes seem to be concentrated on this side of Solihull. A large estate in Solihull Lodge, Parkgate , further development in Dickens Heath, new houses in Cheswick Green, new houses to be built in Tidbury Green, all within a few miles of each other.
Would it not be wise to wait until these developments have finished to see the impact on schools, health services, traffic etc. before even more houses and associated families come into the area?
The appeal of this side of Solihull is that it is semi rural and this is slowly being lost.

see attached letter

see attached letter re: site 16

It is imperative that both secondary and primary schools in Balsall Common are extended as part of the infrastructure plans. There is a definite need for a bypass to take traffic away from the centre and there must be master plan for the centre taking into account extra car parking.

see attached letter

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, communters can be queueing 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 , lmproving 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 recongise 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.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and l do sincerely hope that whoever reads this letter, can relate to the issues I have raised on a human level, not as a council employer or councillor but as a person with who can appreciate why these issues are of great importance to the residents of this local area.

my last plea PLEASE DONT BUILD ON OUR LOCAL FIELDS, PLEASE RE THINK THESE PROPOSALS

my children are very upset about this prospect, don't ruin this lovely area,

l look forward to hearing from you

I am resident on Station Road, Knowle and will be directly impacted by Proposed Housing Allocation 9
I object to the proposal and support the views submitted by the KDBH Forum

My objections are :
Disproportionately large number of houses in Knowle
No provision made for the impact on infrastructure Eg roads / primary schools / medical provision
Building on green belt should be last resort
Inadequate evaluation procedures by Solihull Council thus far.

I would like to make comment on the Solihull Borough Local Plan

My objections are on the following grounds:

1 The Road Infrastructure

To enable this development to be successful, significant road infrastructure works are required.
The levels of traffic within Dicken Heath are problematic currently, with navigation within Dickens Heath very challenging. Parking has also been a notable problem. The infrastructure of the roads, pavement and lighting in the locality of Major's Green is that of a rural community, not suitable to support a further 1,300 new homes. There are single, decaying paths, with little or no lighting (particularly near the Whitlocks End Train Station). To increase the amount of traffic will require due regard and upgrading of the pavements (to have pavements on both sides of the road and suitable for two people walking or a pushchair, not just a single individual) for the residents. Given this is in another councils boundary - what scope is there for join working?

Tythe Barn Lane has traffic calming measures - these would need reviewing in light of the new proposal.

2 Traffic Flow

Traffic from South Birmingham commute to both Solihull and the M42 junction 4 through this area.

Currently all communting traffic is routed through Dickens Heath causing major traffic congestion. I would recommend re-opening Tythe Barn Lane so that traffic can avoid the centre of Dickens Heath. This may require reinforcement or replacement of the canal bridge.
Alternatively, a new road should be developed to enable the fast and efficient movement of traffic around the periphery of the new development.

2 Combined development impact by boundary councils

With significant development already planned and implemented both in the immediate vicinity on the boundaries of Birmingham (Aqueduct Road); Bromsgrove (Gorsey Lane, Tidbury Green,) has already overwhelmed the area with traffic and put demands on other infrastructure such as Doctors, Schools etc. The full impact won't be known until all developments are occupied.

What integration and liaison across boundaries have there been given this proposed area is on the periphery of all three.

3. Loss of Amenity

The open green area and football clubs would be a great loss to the public, particularly in these days of obesity concerns and related NHS demands.

4. Loss of Green Belt, Flood Plains

What provision for soak aways will there be when the green areas are paved over? Does the existing drainage systems have capacity to cope with water channelled down from 1300 new house?
The area has been prone to both surface water and flooding. Without these areas of soak away available, what will the impact be on existing premises?

5. Combined Sewage

Can the Victorian water disposal systems accommodate the additional sewage demands from this level of development?

6. Development on Green Belt

This green belt land, was a boundary to stop the urban sprawl. If you build on it - where will the sprawl end?