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

Mr Knight has received a number of emails of objection in relation to the proposed 'Allocation 13' under the draft Local Plan review consultation. Mr Knight would be grateful if constituents views can be taken into account, and in particular to ensure that any local developments are sustainable, including looking at flooding mitigation controls (perhaps balancing ponds or similar) for areas which may flood, as well as the impact on wider infrastructure such as schooling provisions, emergency service access and cover, and local road capacity

see attached written objection

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 am writing to express my concerns about proposals to develop Site 16 with 650 dwellings. I have the following reservations which I would like the Council to consider. I understand you have to address the housing shortage but I would strongly urge you to review the inclusion of this area in your plan.

1. The proposals breach your own objectives (Challenge E) namely maintaining key gaps between urban and rural areas as the development would join Solihull & Catherine de Barnes. It is also within the Meriden gap which you have identified needs protection. I would remind the Council of its motto Urbs in Rure. It seems to me we are having more urbs than rure and I would urge you to maintain the rure part as much as possible.

2. The area specified is home to both sporting and agricultural land both of which are needed to maintain the health of both children and adults given the obesity crisis we are facing and school sports facilities are in decline. This I believe contradicts Challenge J Improving Health and Wellbeing for Everyone. I get personal enjoyment from walking in the area with my grandaughter seeing animals grazing and meeting others doing the same which would be more difficult with the increased settlement and associated traffic. The loss of local agricultural land means increased transport costs to bring food from further afield at a cost to the environment.

3. I am also concerned about the increased traffic flow which could lead to even more traffic jams and subsequent delays particularly at peak times such as rush hour and shift changes at Jaguar Land Rover.
Currently a small hold up on the M42 sees long delays down Damson Parkway, Hampton Lane and Lugtrout Lane. If the plans to expand JLR go ahead this will increase traffic flow without the added pressure from
650 dwellings. It could lead to severe delays. As an example it recently took a friend half an hour just to drive off a local car park let alone get home due to severe congestion.

4. The upgrading of Field Lane and Lugtrout Lane will have the effect of completely changing the character of the rural oasis which is promoted by the Council as a desirable quality in the local area and makes it a popular area for visitors and residents alike. Along Field lane there is a listed building which could potentially be lost further eroding our heritage.

5. Do we have sufficient school, medical facilities and leisure options to support a development? The local hospital is continually losing aspects of work such as downgrading A&E, Birthing Unit etc. GP surgeries are under pressure and schools would face increasing class sizes which devalues the education process. Would new facilities be added at the same time as the housing or develop later? There is no guarantee in the plan that there would be an increased provision of these facilities.
Transport facilities are also limited at the moment so how would they cope with the additional pressure?

6. My final point is that the development would not be sensitive to or enhance the local character of the area.

Thank you for considering the above concerns.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I wish to raise the following objections to the above:

1. The volume of traffic on Sharmans Cross Road is already very high and an additional potential 150 -200 vehicles exiting from the proposed development at peak times will cause serious traffic congestion.

2. At peak times a large number of children, frequently unaccompanied, use Sharmans Cross Road to go to and from Sharmans Cross Junior Schol and various secondary schools. The additional danger these young people would face is unacceptable as cars exit the new proposed development.

3. At the present time much attention is being given to high pollution levels throughout the West Midlands. The considerable number of additional vehicles associated with this development would aggravate the situation.

4. The land upon which the development is proposed to take place has been designated by Sport England as land for recreational purposes. Too many sports facilities in the borough have been lost in the last 20 years. SMBC, the owners of the freehold, has in the last three or four years, made clear its policy that the land under discussion should only be used for sport.

5. In this area, Solihull schools have few - if any -vacancies. This being the case, children from the proposed development would have to travel some distance to find a school place, thus increasing pollution. I doubt very much that SMBC has plans to build new schools to cater for children from this or other housing developments to alter the situation. I understand that nearby doctors' lists are also full.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I object to the proposed Development Plan in respect of the development of the existing Rugby Ground adjacent to Sharmans Cross Road.

My Objections are as follows:-

1. Use of Land
SMBC stated unequivocally in 2013 that the use of the land was for sport only. This rule should be restated by SMBC and the land put back into use for sport by amateur clubs and groups wishing to use it. The facilities were well attended when used in the past.

2. School and Medical facilities.
The current overstretched School and Medical services will be further stretched by the building of 100 new properties with their additional residents. This will have a detrimental effect on the provision for existing residents.

3. Traffic and associated pollution.
Sharmans Cross road is a national cycle way, a bus route and a major road to and from the Stratford road. This road is at capacity level during peak periods already, particularly on school days where many children and parents are obliged to cross and re-cross this road. This development will add substantially to traffic pulling out from the proposed new side roads and increase the serious danger and pollution to cyclists and pedestrians including the 360 children attending Sharmans Cross school and the many others who also attend other local schools.

4. Environmental Reasons.
This land is a 'green' lung for Solihull, containing wildlife and many mature trees. The loss of this facility for local people is immense and must be taken into account in any decision.

5. Flooding.
Sharmans Cross Road is frequently blocked by local flooding and this proposed development will simply make the frequency and impact worsen. With the additional loss of ground to soak up water there is bound to be a detrimental effect on the amounts of water run-off into natural ground.

6. Loss of sporting facilities in this area.
SMBC has a statutory requirement to replace lost pitches with ones of equivalent quality and accessibility. The current rugby ground at Sharmans Cross cannot be replaced in any way with a similar local facility.

7. Misleading statements made in the Draft Local Plan Timetable document.
In the Draft Local Plan Timetable document, (http://www.cgra.org.uk/documents/draft_local_plan_timetable.pdf), the statement is made that 'Sports Ground is currently unused'; this statement is misleading as there are many amateur and local sports clubs and persons who would wish to utilise the land for sporting purposes but are prevented from doing so even though the land is designated for sports use only.

Housing allocation 13 South Shirley
I strongly object to the development on this site for the following reasons Extra traffic on already busy roads and at junctions Inadequate doctor facilities Ever decreasing green belt between Dickens Heath and Shirley South

Allocation 13

Please take this as a family objection to the proposal for allocation 13 and the build of 600 houses. As a family we moved close to this area on Hawkesbury Road and enjoy walking along this area. The local resources are already at breaking point and the traffic is beyond ridiculous at rush hour - the addition of 600 houses will push the area to breaking point. This is the only real green area and will have a major impact on local wildlife and greenery

Application 13

I am emailing you today to voice concerns over application 13. I have lived on the estate opposite all of my life and do not wish to see the countryside destroyed forever. We need these green spaces protected not built on. When my parents and Neighbours first moved on to this estate we were guaranteed by the Council that the land would never be built on so why are you going back on your word now. We do not need more houses, we need the green spaces, we need schools, we need GP surgeries and we need better roads. The site that application 13 is on is a floodplain, how is that a good idea to build on. It's also got a sewer stream running through it and I'm pretty sure nobody wants to live by that. Ferries countless wildlife over there foxes, badgers, rabbits and it endangered birds of prey, where are these are all supposed to go? You've already taken half of Shirley Park to build park gate Centre and we didn't need that! .We need the green spaces, we need the places to run and play with our children and space to walk dogs. We need to protect the green areas around South surely not build on them. We need to protect them for generations to come so they can see the beautiful greenery and wildlife not a concrete Jungle. We need to protect the wildlife that's over there. We do not want or need all these homes that will put strain on our resources on our schools, on our doctors. Homes let's say have two cars per household which would sky rocket the amount of cars in the area putting strain on the already overflowing car parks and roads. Have you ever tried to drive around this area on the school run? Or in peak traffic hours? Have you done a wildlife survey? Have you checked the land for saturation? Have you even asked the people what they want or need? There are plenty of other areas that need houses, that need the money spending on them, but the plot on which application 13 stands does not need any of this, all that needs is the people of this area to pull together and stop the building on green land, that needs to stay protected and kept so that the British countryside stays as countryside and not a lifeless concrete Jungle awash with orange bricks and coloured metal boxes. This community will not stand for the taking of our green spaces that we need and the disgusting way you went about not telling us what you were planning. Yes you put a tiny little article in the paper the size of a postage stamp that nobody saw. This was a very sneaky way of going about it it should have been a full page warning people of the disaster that The Counselor planning to put upon us. Being and of the younger generation of this area you have fully lost my votes and face that the council know how to look after this community because from my point of view the only thing that the council is willing to do for us is to make our lives a lot harder and just line their pockets with money rather than spending it on the things that we need not the things that you think we need when we don't. I hope you know just how disgusted we all are with your actions.
SAVE OUR GREEN LAND!

We would like to comment on the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review.
1. We would prefer the unique identity of Dickens Heath to be retained. If permission is granted for housing development on both land to the north of the Miller and Carter and the site to the west of the existing village, we feel that Dickens Heath would simply become part of a large urban sprawl and would lose its village character. Compared with the original plan for Dickens Heath, considerable additional housing has already been approved, but at least most of this is on the side of the village adjacent to more green belt.
2. Green belt which was confirmed in 1997 would be abandoned and the green corridors separating existing housing areas would either shrink or disappear. We would not object to development of the land north of the Miller and Carter, as there would still be some green belt protecting the village on that side. If the land west of the village centre was to be developed then there would be no effective separation of the village from the housing north of Whitlock's End Station. We do not believe that there are exceptional circumstances justifying housebuilding on the land west of the village centre. We recognise that new homes are needed; we believe that other areas of the borough should help to provide, instead of the lions share being permitted round Dickens Heath.
3. If development on the scale being considered was permitted, then the existing infrastructure is simply inadequate. There is insufficient parking in Dickens Heath centre now; 700 extra homes would exacerbate the problem. As any new homes would be further from the village centre, it is unlikely that people would walk to Dickens Heath, so parking problems would intensify. The car park at Whitlock's End Rail Station is already heavily used and unless it was extended, then would in all probability be unable to cope with the volume of traffic generated by the extra houses.
4. The road network in the area is of poor quality now, both in terms of inadequate width of roads, bad visibility at junctions e.g. both ends of Birchy Leasowes Lane, and condition of the carriageways. There are no footpaths on some roads e.g. Birchy Leasowes Lane, and the extra traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, would make these roads even more dangerous.
5. We are concerned that the service infrastructure e.g. doctors, dentists, schools, broadband provision etc. would be unable to cope with the likely number of extra houses.
6. We believe that the sports facilities are very valuable. One proposal we have seen relocates these north of Tythe Barn Lane, but on a diminished land area, which would not allow a realistic usage comparable with the current situation.
7. We would not like to see "Akamba" being forced out as it is a useful asset to the village, providing an unusual set of resources in the area.

We hope the Council will consider these points before making a decision and reject some of the requests to convert green belt into building land.

see attached letter

see letter

I wish to make the following comments in respect of the Local Plan review:

1. The proposed allocation of sites is disproportionate with over 40% of the allocations being located in the B90 Shirley postcode in the Shirley South and Blythe wards. If this is adopted in the final plan, the impact on infrastructure in the Shirley area will be profound. This has not been properly thought through. I am particularly opposed to site 13 which massively expands the urban area of Shirley into the Green Belt.

2. There are few sites in the Meriden Gap with a preference for cramming sites into the Blythe ward which will result in the urban part of the borough creeping into the Green Belt. It is notable that there are no sites put forward in the Dorridge and Hockley Heath ward. Not including sites in the Dorridge and Hockley Heath ward would be a missed opportunity in an established community , and is at odds with what has been proposed for Knowle.

3. Design standards must be required to meet the highest possible energy efficiency levels both to reduce carbon emissions and reduce costs for consumers. Issues including flooding need to be carefully considered when considering sites and appropriate engineering solutions provided in areas liable to flooding. Protecting and enhancing biodiversity should be a key thread throughout the plan.

4. Provision of new facilities, including medical practices, schools and transport infrastructure required to facilitate development on the scale proposed needs to be planned for well in advance of sites being built out. New communities need to be built sustainably, and take into account local needs such as affordable housing for first time buyers.

5. Shirley is designated as an "Urban Growth Area". It is not clear what this means and Solihull Council should not go down the route of high density development along the Stratford Road corridor. Instead, the focus, through the Shirley Economic Plan, needs to be on improving Shirley to make it more of a destination for visitors and local people.

6. Any sports pitches removed as a result of site allocations need to be replaced in other locations.

In summary, although I fully recognise the need for new housing development in the borough, and the need to secure a 5 year land supply to avoid unplanned development, we must allocate sites in a manner that safeguards Solihull's unique 'Urbs in Rure' appeal, protects health and wellbeing of our population and preserves our environment for generations to come.

see attached letter

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 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 site 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 cause delays 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) Site 3 scores 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 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 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."

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

I have recently had a leaflet put through my door explaining that Solihull council are considering a plan to allow the building of hundreds of new homes on a site around Tilehouse Lane and Tythe Barn Lane, Dickens Heath.

The road infrastructure around Dickens Heath is currently over loaded at peak times. These are essentially country lanes and simply cannot cope with the current volume of traffic. The road surfaces are in a terrible state with pot holes appearing at an alarming rate, I assume no plans are in place for road widening or resurfacing?

The current route through Dickens Heath, towards the Stratford Road, passes a primary school and is littered with residents parked cars and traffic chicanes. At 7.45am two busses collect the children, as there is no provision in Dickens Heath for secondary school pupils, this blocks the clock roundabout for 10 minutes each school day. Also, did anyone from the council attempt to drive through Dickens Heath last Halloween (2016) - because it was grid locked from all directions.

It is already difficult to get a doctors and dentist appointment, so can I ask what the plans are to support already stretched local services in this area.?

I would also like to ask - are any plans in place for improvements to the pavements which are inadequate in some areas, especially around the approach roads to Whitlocks End Train station, these are dangerous and need attention.

To be honest I cannot believe this proposal got as far as consultation. At what point will the over development of this area STOP. We have already lost a large area of green belt with the new housing development at Solihull Lodge High St and Aqueduct Lane. Now it is proposed to build over the remaining green belt between Majors Green and Dickens Heath.

Therefore I strongly protest against this plan - it will ruin our neighbourhood. We moved to Majors Green because of its green spaces and easy access to countryside walks. Solihull council must realise that this development is just too large for this area and really will spoil what is currently a very pleasant place to live.

South Shirley housing development
As a resident of Micklehill Drive I am appalled by the plans to build so many houses in a relatively small area and take away so much green belt land. I moved here seven years ago and made sure we had dog walking areas within walking distance. Site 13 which has three fields I understand was provided for local residence use is used by dog walkers and walkers for access to countryside.
The local infrastructure is already stretched : Tamworth Lane, Dog Kennel, Blackford, all struggle to deal with traffic at peak times. Schools , doctors surgeries, local hospital also struggle to cope now !
I have attended local meetings and know how strong the feeling is in our community and trust these plans will be reviewed to consider other sites available.

I wish to convey my comments, as follows, in relation to the proposed master plan development in Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath (KDBH).

The presentations I have attended at Arden School in recent months give a very clear indication that the Local Authority is not taking cognisance of the feedback informed in the Local Neighbourhood Plan. The planning officer in attendance provided a pro-development partisan view, as opposed to a balanced impartial position at this early stage in proceedings. Is this fair and reasonable? Why are the L.A. not relaying more of the negative aspects of the development master plan, instead of relying on local residents to establish and convey these views?

To support this, the local councilor's response to concerns on local infrastructure demands presented by increased development was simply to say, it's a good thing as it presents an opportunity to expand local infrastructure to support the development. He cited building new roads as an example to accommodate greater volumes of traffic? The response was basic and ill-informed to say the least, aside from flawed. We have one number high street in Knowle that cannot accommodate further expansion. Ditto, one major artery road between Knowle and Dorridge, namely, Station Road, that likewise, could not be expanded to cope with the increased traffic that would use Dorridge Station for example. A large volume of traffic commutes towards Birmingham City Centre and / or the local motorway network, whereby there are only two road bridges linking KDBH to Solihull and beyond. Any new infrastructure roads built within the new proposed developments would still filter on to these main arteries, which struggle to cope at peak traffic times as it is. If the solution is to build more major roads and bridges then the L.A. should be completely transparent and raise the possibility now instead of remaining silent.

Martin Murphy gave a speech concerning the once in a lifetime opportunity for the school to obtain a brand new state of the art £30m school / community facility for free. He also relayed that the financial cupboard was bear in relation to funds being available to refurbish or re-develop the existing Arden school site further. There are several fundamental points in regards to this statement which again illustrate an imbalance in the judgement and delivery given by an important and influential local figurehead.
Since when is a £30m school ever built for free? Has Martin Murphy never heard of the phrase "Opportunity Cost?". If not, perhaps he should stand aside or refrain from public speaking on what are essentially property development matters? If he has heard of the phrase, why did he engage with such a misleading statement? He's a head-teacher not a developer or politician! Relocating the school in some sort of pawnbroker exercise to generate funds at the expense of lost green fields forever is not "free" in the true meaning of the word. Increasing the local population by circa 20% with the consequences that come with it are not "free" in the true meaning of the word. Section 106 agreements in the context of property development are not free!

Martin Murphy failed to make any reference to the wonderful and newly acquired facilities at Arden School that have arisen over the years at the tax payers expense, namely, The Music Block, Science Block, 6th Form Centre, Smart Centre, Gym Astro-Turf, MUGA and recent new teaching block. Yes, we've all heard how this new block could be re-used but it cannot be re-used 1/2 mile down the road for free. Is it wise or acceptable that such fine facilities be simply demolished to make way for housing? Is it right that the costs incurred by the taxpayer over the past decade or so, which I would estimate to be in the region of £15m are just written off into some development appraisal. The remaining school buildings could be refurbished and modified at a fraction of the cost of a new school, with far less opportunity cost impact. The fact that the cupboard is so called bear does not give the right to sell off our countryside to pay for Whitehall's inability to manage finances appropriately.

Martin Murphy, also spoke proudly about the new school being a community facility. This is all smoke and mirrors based on current evidence. The school facilities at the Station Road site are nowhere near utilized by the local community to anything like the potential they could and should be. So why does moving a school 1/2 mile down the road give any cause to suspect anything significant will change? If it can be done at the new site, it can be done now. Likewise, relocating to a new school site will not paper over the widening cracks concerning the evident drop in standards at Arden. The school should stop using the existing site as an excuse in this regards and take a long hard look in the mirror.

Create a former pupils club and generate fund raising for a sports pavilion / clubhouse for example that would support the use of the school playing fields and facilities for wider community use. Knowle FC could train there preserving the one pitch they have for senior team match days. Feeder teams can utilize Arden. With all the facilities available to Arden and the 4 junior schools in the area, it is a joke for councilors to suggest we are devoid of sporting facilities. It's nearly as bigger joke as hearing the reason for BH School refusing to allow Knowle FC to play on the school field any longer owing to mud on the playground. Really....We're happy to ruin KDBH countryside, look and feel, rather than use a broom and elbow grease to keep perfectly acceptable facilities clean and tidy?

The suspicion of too many local residents I speak to is "what's the point" the government, L.A. and schools will stitch us up until they get what they want. Until the L.A. acts with a greater degree of impartiality and starts promoting reasons more fairly and clearly, this cynicism will only grow. Is that how they wish to be perceived? I do hope such cynicism is not proved to be true. I am not in favour of any major development in KDBH. If I was forced to compromise, I would select the Hampton Lane development as the more favourable and less intrusive to the community as a whole. I am not in favour of relocating Arden School, ST. G&T or development on the so called Arden triangle whatsoever. The fact that land values are sufficiently high to attract developers to fund Section 106 requirements and still make the margins in their development appraisals work is not a reason to destroy our local community and surrounding habitat and environment, let alone give politicians ground to proclaim they are pioneers of re-generation and growth, in order to hide their own levels of incompetency over a number of decades.

Proposed Housing Allocation 13 South of Shirley (Representation ID: 800)
I am writing to register my objection to this land being taken to more housing development. This is the only green belt land we have left in Shirley after the Council has used every other piece of greenery we have, even the football field will go. We have been the dumping ground for Solihull for too long now and it is about time that other areas in Solihull are now seriously considered. We have had more than our fair share of overdevelopment in the last 35 years and enough is enough. We have at least one of every named supermarket, we have all the car dealerships, three retail parks and of course let us not forget Park Gate which is a total 'white elephant' and a downgrade for our area despite the promise of upmarket shops which were supposed to opened in this area and what do we get Peacocks, B&M and other cheap stores which is an insult to the people who live in this area by thinking this is the standard of shopping we wanted and let's not forget the famous ASDA which we did not need alongside the other 8 supermarkets we already have in the area. Now another bottleneck is about to be created by the development of the PC world site into shop outlets, which will cause chaos as they have to come out on the Sainsbury island to get onto the Stratford Road to go back down towards the M42. It already takes between 10 and 15 mins to get off Sainsbury's car park and across the island on a Saturday and Sunday on to Stratford Road. Add to that the extra traffic from the proposed development which is based on one car per family, which we know will not be the norm so we could talking about another 1,000 cars plus. We already have new housing development planned on the old Powergen site and Woolmans garden centre and everywhere else when an unused building comes up for sale. The Stratford Road is a total nightmare 7 days a week and one needs to allow 45 mins to an hour to get from Shirley down to the M42 between 07:30 and 09:00 Monday to Friday and Dog Kennel Lane is the same. Bills Lane is also a nightmare first thing in the morning and from 5pm in the evening with traffic coming off the Stratford Road up Shakespeare Drive and Haslucks Green. Our Doctors Surgery is about a 6 min journey from our house but if you happen to have an appointment between 08:15 and 09:15 we need to allow ourselves at least 30 mins to get there due to volume of traffic on Bills Lane and trying to get across the Stratford Road from School Road, especially since the traffic lights were removed and the stupid roundabout which was put in place. When my wife and I moved into Shirley 35 years ago we were attracted by the green fields and open spaces as at that time from the M42 there was only Notcutts, Shirley Golf Club, Shirley Aquatics and the Plough when you came up the Stratford Road towards Shirley, now we have the Business park on the M42, Tesco, several car dealer showrooms, Monkspath estate, Dickens Heath, two large retail parks and all the shops on the Stratford Road plus several supermarkets, completely taking away the character of Shirley itself with the small individual shops. Leave Shirley alone now and develop elsewhere. We presently struggle to obtain a Doctors appointment, and with only one hospital to service the community we fear for the future of Solihull Hospital. Also it does not bear thinking about the road infrastructure with the imposition of another 600 plus houses.

LDP-ProposedHousingAllocation18
Objections to Prososed Housing Allocation on Sharmans Cross Road

The density of the proposal, is out of scale and character for the area available, severely affecting surrounding properties.

Traffic congestion on Sharmans Cross Road, has increased over the last 2 years. 100 households, inevitably some with 2 cars, can only make this significantly worse., adding to pollution, effecting pedestrian and highway safety.

I very much doubt there will be sufficient parking for both the Arden club and new properties, where will the overflow park? The side roads are already congested.

Our Property is opposite the site, our garden flooded after every heavy rainfall, I would expect the proposed site to provide sufficient drainage for the site itself, but my concern is that the proposed density of build will push water into surrounding areas.

Schools and medical centres are already stretched in the area, if a development of this density was to be considered, plans to increase the capacity of these services should be included.

I understand SMBC agreed the ground would be protected for sporting use, it would be a great pity, for whatever reason, if the Council were to now go back on this undertaking.

Proposed Development - LDP Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I wish to strongly object to the proposed development on the rugby/sports field area off Sharmans Cross Road as referenced above.
There are several points I wish to raise as part of my objection viz:
Flooding: My property is situated in the cul-de-sac area on Winterbourne Road. The water table in the surrounding area is very high, the gardens retain several inches of water after heavy or sustained rainfall, until the ground/trees can absorb the excess. My concern is that this will be greatly exacerbated with the laying of concrete foundations, roads and pathways that a new development will bring, without any means to drain off the excess.
Increased traffic and pollution: Building 100 new properties will greatly increase the number of vehicles in a small area - with several adults possibly occupying each property there could be up to 300/400 extra vehicles using/polluting the proposed estate and environs. The extra vehicles could have a serious affect on highway safety and increase the gridlock which already exists on Sharmans Cross Road, Streetsbrook Road and into Solihull centre - traffic creeps along these roads between 7.45am and 9.00am churning out fumes and pollutants. The safety and health of many children living in the area will be at extra risk - we encourage children to walk to school to improve their fitness and cut down on traffic but they would encounter more risk crossing roads and breathing in fumes. The proposed development is very close to Sharmans Cross Junior school and Sharmans Cross Road is used by many children going to this school and the senior schools in the area - Tudor Grange and Alderbrook.
Suitability: The development of 100 properties will destroy the character of the neighbourhood, buildings of more than two stories will increase overshadowing, leading to loss of light and privacy to surrounding properties. I am concerned by the loss of existing trees and hedgerows surrounding the field. They are a known habitat for bats, badgers and a buzzard.
Pressure on facilities: With 100 proposed properties the affect on local facilities will be detrimental. How will existing schools cope with the increase in places required? We do not want to go back to class sizes of 40+. There will be a similar strain on local doctor's surgeries with an increased localized population.
Please re-consider this proposed housing development on this site.

Proposed development on Whitlocks End Farm and Dickens Heath Road
As a local resident who would be adversely affected by the proposed developments I should like to forward my observations.

Between 7.30am and 9.00am on week days the traffic can queue back from Maxstoke Croft onto Tamworth Lane trying to merge onto Tamworth Lane. This is as a result of the heavy additional traffic from Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green developments where no additional road routes have been built to service either of these huge developments - this is before the current ongoing building developments have been finished.

Judging by the current poor state of local road repairs, potholes and congestion Solihull council is unable to afford to maintain current road provisions. Will there be any additional budget on top of that allocated for the house building to improve and increase road routes to service the additional car use that will inevitably occur BEFORE the houses are built?

Will additional doctor and hospital provisions be funded? My family have needed urgent care in past and have nothing but praise for the care we received, however, there were times when the ambulance did not know where to take the patient as no beds could be found in any of the Heartlands Trust hospital. The current hospital facilities are at breaking point now; if there are to be 6000 new homes in our borough a new hospital will have to be built BEFORE the influx of extra people. Will this be included in the plans?

All housing developments will clearly be unwanted by the local residents and so platitudes are often embraced by the developers to justify their plans, one of which is, 'we must provide more homes, particularly those who want to get on the housing ladder'. My understanding is that the current average wage is £26,500, if I suggest that a financial institution will lend 5 times the salary, (which I suspect is unrealistic as over generous) just how many of these houses will be £132,500 in price to give any young adult even a remote chance of 'getting on the housing ladder'? Building lots of lovely expensive houses (>£250k) do not help local people on average wages to buy property locally! Will the council have in-built stipulation or clauses to any prospective buyers of these new homes that they can only be purchased by people that are not property owners already?

I accept that new houses will have to be built somewhere, but on the current plans, there does appear to be a disproportionate amount of homes earmarked for the Whitlocks End Farm and Dickens Heath Road site, with, for example, no intention of building any homes in Dorridge? Which is my understanding? Therefore, can you give a guarantee that all local brownfield sites have been utilised before ploughing up our fields - which once developed can never be replaced.

Consider that, perhaps one reason that Solihull is such a desirable area is that it isn't totally over developed and congested and so building on all available open spaces will ruin its character.

There is much emphasis in the plan on housing however in this connection I am concerned about infrastructure and specifically parking.
Since the recent additional housing in Four Ashes, Hampton Road and Middlefield it has become almost impossible for shoppers to park in the village centre car parks. also St John's Close is full of cars whose drivers prefer not to pay for all day parking, thus creating a hazard.
I would ask that a substantial piece of land in the Arden Triangle be provided for all day parking to absorb the many business people who now work in Knowle, thereby freeing up the car parks in the centre for shoppers including the proposed additional numbers This issue needs addressing urgently if Knowle is not to snarl up completely. It is close now and I already refrain from just popping down to the village for fear of not being able to park. The current infrastructure in the village will not accommodate an extra 1000 houses, circa 3000 people and 2000 cars

Comment on draft local plan - proposed housing allocation 4 west of dickens Heath
As I border the proposed development I'm personally concerned about development I'm concerned about size, scope of the development and type of housing that Will be built. The proximity of new housing to my home & garden and the potential loss of privacy and my house becoming overlooked to the point of it being overbearing. Will the new housing be in keeping with size, design and type of the existing local housing. What green provision, corridors and borders be kept / crested between existing and new developments?

This development has the potential to change my local area from a rural area to an urban area this has the potential to effect the value of my own house.

I am concerned about practical matters if building occurs such as noise & disruption, dust, early morning and weekend working, construction traffic and all over a lengthy period of time to build 700 houses.

The local infrastructure also concerns me schools, doctors, dentists are struggling with the current demands, and with new housing already being built this will only be under more pressure.

The roads /parking struggle to cope with current levels of traffic, small roads and affluent multi car house holds mean that 700+ house will Add significant additional cars, and at peak times the roads are already congested.

The building will damage The local environment merging dickens Heath with Shirley, tidbury green, withal and there will be little distinction. There will be less and less green belt taking away the rural character of the area increasing the urban sprawl.

As I border one of the proposed areas I believe the wildlife of the area should be protected. The loss of habitat will damage birds, bats deer all that live in the area.

Recent and ongoing developments have already increased the size of dickens Heath way beyond what was originally planned, this proposed new development increases the pressure on all aspects of infrastructure and community.

I would question if other sites should be given increased priory over this development and if the council has truly researched other non developed area in the borough. Considering a genuinely new development rather than further extending dickens Heath.

Overall I believe the location, size and scope of this proposed development will adversely effect the community and surrounding area, it will adversely effect local residents and will become overbearing and detrimental. It will remove precious green belt, a wild life haven and a natural corridor between local communities, removing it will damage the local character of the area. In my view this is an inappropriate development that will harm residents.

Proposed Housing Allocation 13 South of Shirley
I am writing to lodge our objection to the development detailed above.

Quite simply the existing area does not have adequate infrastructure to accommodate the development. A 3.5 mile journey in rush hour along the Stratford Road currently take me almost 45 minutes. The development will add to the traffic congestion issue and the impact on the local community is not acceptable

Objection To Proposed New Housing plan For Shirley South
We moved to Bills Lane 10 years ago because of its rural position and now shocked with the planned
housing proposal .

Reasons for the objection : -

Why is 41% of the required additional housing requirement , planned for one squire mile in Shirley south .
Shirley and surrounding area already have major building ( houses ) projects .
Shirley is already grid locked with vehicles , including the Stratford Rd and all the feeder roads .
Road network is poor in the area .
Bills Lane is a lane not a road and already having problems with traffic at all times of the day .
Major impact on - schools
Doctors & surgeries .
Local hospital
Roads and lanes .
Parking in Shirley is a problem , too many vehicles .
Shirley station can not accommodate additional parking , so people park in local roads .
Impact on our environment and additional pollution .
Impact on " quality of life " .
Already lack of amenities for general public , reduced the size of our local park to build flats , including removal of a number precious trees .
Impact on the green belt for Shirley .

Objection to allocation 13
I would like to submit my objection to the planned development on allocation 13.

This is a wonderful area, full of nature. I used to play there as a child, as my children now do. We go for walks in all seasons and always see many other people also enjoying the area.

South Shirley is currently being decimated by the developers. To lose this piece of GREEN BELT land would truly be criminal. There are so many developments being built in the South Shirley area, we will fight to keep just this one small piece of it's natural beauty.

It saddens me that it does seem that residents objections are often overlooked as has happened with many other local developments and we are probably right to think the decision has already been made and that greed will win out, but where will it stop! The plans seem to keep coming and coming and soon there will be no areas of natural beauty for the wildlife that currently thrives there.

This will also have a massive impact on our local roads, not to mention schools and healthcare too

LDP- Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I would like to protest at the application for 100 dwellings to be built on the Solihull Arden tennis club and adjacent rugby pitches for the following reasons
1 Further housing would mean increased traffic in the area. At present this area, including the crossroads of Streetsbrook Rd, Sharmans Cross Rd, Stonor Park Rd and Dorchester Rd is a gridlock from approximately 8.00am to 9.15am most days. This will only get worse as Touchwood Phase 2 comes on line. If potentially another 100 to 200 cars try to join this route the situation will be horrendous and potentially dangerous.
I took photographs this morning at approximately 8.30am which demonstrates what is going on. People are having to push out into the traffic which is a dangerous situation.

LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I write to formally object to the LDP-PHA 18.
My reasons are
1 TRAFFIC
The junction between Streetsbrook Road, Sharmans Cross Road, Dorchester Rd and Stonor Park Road is already severely congested in the rush out period with traffic backing up along Streetsbrook and Sharmans Cross.
The plans to extend Touchwood can only increase traffic flow.
This junction is dangerous to drivers, pedestrians and cyclists particularly in the winter months and bad weather.
More houses and therefore car owners will worsen this situation .
Parking on Sharmans Cross at school times is already causing difficulties which would be exacerbated by more traffic
2 PLAYING FIELDS
This would be a permanent loss of sporting facilities in the borough and SMBC are already failing in this regard I understand that the council formally minuted in 2013 that the grounds would be for sporting purposes only and the freehold would not be sold. I see no reason for this view to be changed.
3 INFRASTRUCTURE
Apart from the traffic problems, there is a lack of schools and doctors to support further houses in the area.
There is already flooding on Sharmans Cross and the water table on Streetsbrook is very high in wet periods-further houses will worsen this .

Solihull Draft Local Plan
I would like to add my support to the BARRAGE Response to Solihull Draft Local Plan 2017.

In particular I would like to query why 3 Green Belt sites have been chosen above the 14 brownfield sites in and around the village.

Whilst I appreciate that more housing is required I feel that Balsall Common, which is still a village as far as its amenities are concerned, cannot accommodate the 1150 houses suggested.

Our services are already over stretched as are the schools. Traffic is a problem particularly near the two schools. Houses on Frog Lane would certainly add to the congestion at peak time on Balsall Street East and Alder Lane.
The Jaguar Land Rover site to the south of the village will also increase traffic when it is occupied.

In addition we are to have the disruption of HS2 and all the construction traffic that will entail.

I ask that you reconsider the sites and number of proposed dwellings in order to maintain our Green Belt for the benefit of all.