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

Solihull Local Plan Review: Shirley South Site 13
I wish to register my strong objection to the plans to build a large number of houses in Shirley South and in particular on the land close to the Woodlands and Badgers Estate.
I have lived in Woodlands Lane for forty years and, together with many other residents, have used the footpaths and fields for walking to get fresh air and exercise. It is an important area of open countryside providing for the health and well being of the local community. The extensive old hedgerows, trees and wetland areas are important habitats for wildlife. This area provides a green buffer between us and Dicken's Heath and should not be used for excessive development. It is quality green belt that should be preserved.
The Dicken's Heath development has badly impacted on the traffic in the area because of insufficient development of the road infrastructure. In the morning there is a continuous stream of traffic heading from there, up Dog Kennel Lane to junction 4 of the M42. This makes it so difficult for us to get out of Tanworth Lane that it creates the frustrating situation whereby, if using the car, we do not leave the house between 7:45 and 9:00! More development in the area will merely add to the already congested stretch of the Stratford Road and M42. Why not build closer to the M6, M40, Birmingham International and the proposed HS2 stations. Worcester shire and Warwickshire do not have any interest in improving the roads up to the Solihull boundary and access to junction 3 of the M42 is still via poor country lanes. Some "joined up " thinking about road infrastructure would really help to ease a poor situation for road users in Shirley South.

I have had the opportunity to see the response made by the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum to the Solihull Draft Local Plan, which proposes the siting of over 1000 new houses in Knowle and would endorse and support all the points they make, in particular:-
* The siting of over 1000 (in reality nearer 1400) new houses in Knowle is wholly disproportionate especially considering the new houses already built in the area over the last 4 years;
* The scale of development fails to take into account the impact on local services and infrastructure;
* There does not appear to have been adequate consideration of alternative locations;
* The proposed allocations do not accord with the Council's own policies;
* The proposed Housing Allocation 8 constitutes an unacceptable encroachment into highly performing Green Belt land.
In relation to the Hampton Road proposals (Proposed Housing Allocation 8) I would wish to make the following points:-
Whilst I appreciate that the boundaries of the proposed Allocation 8 are indicative only, the northern boundary of the hatched area to the north of Hampton Road includes an area which comprises the Wychwood Avenue Local Wildlife Site (LWS), which I imagine is an error and needs to be corrected. Any development in this area must take into account any possible impact on the LWS and include appropriate buffer zones and remedial measures in order to ensure that the development does not adversely impact in any way upon the LWS and the Purnells Brook.
Firstly, as I understand it, the existing football club premises to the south of Hampton Road would be available for housing only if an alternative ground can be found and the proposal is for this to be sited further east on the north side of Hampton Road, adjoining the Grand Union Canal (a site also in Green Belt). The reasons cited by the football club for requiring new premises are that the existing pitches are inadequate and the facilities are in poor condition.
Taking the latter issue first, the reason the club premises are in such poor condition is primarily because there has been a deliberate and consistent policy by the club over recent years not to invest any money at the existing ground because they could see a potential opportunity to relocate and to sell their existing ground for housing. This policy has become even more apparent since the inclusion of the adjoining land at Arden Gate in the 2013 SHLAA and its subsequent development for housing. The football club has no interest in maintain or improving its current site as it regards any investment there as being wasted. Its sole aim for many years has been to move to an alternate site, funded by the sale of its existing premises for housing, and the current dilapidated condition of the club premises has arisen as a direct result of this policy.
With regard to the football pitch itself, the club asserts this is in poor condition due to overuse. I inspected the pitch on Wednesday 1st February and found it to be in excellent condition with a good covering of thick grass even in the goalmouth where additional wear would normally be expected. A notice at the entrance to the ground indicated that a match had been played on 28th January 2017 with the next fixture being due to be played on 11th February 2016. One match every two weeks does not appear to me to be overuse, and the current condition of the pitch in no way indicates the intensive use suggested by the club.
Secondly, with regard to the issue of requiring additional pitch capacity, in its response to the Council's 2016 call for sites, the club stated that it has nearly 300 people "involved" in the club, however it does not state how many are actually members. In addition, closer inspection of the figures reveals that only 60 of these involved persons are adults, with over half of the number being children under 12 years of age. Out of a total of 23 teams, only 3 are adult teams, with 15 out of the total number of teams being comprised of under 12's who presumably do not require extensive pitch facilities. The club's response also fails to indicate how many of those associated with the club actually live in Knowle and it would appear that the village is being asked to accommodate significant numbers of new houses in order to finance a facility which may not be providing any great benefit to the inhabitants of Knowle at all.
The club's proposed alternative site set out in its submission to the Council in January 2016, showed a facility comprising "at least 4 full size pitches" which is completely excessive for the needs of the club of this size and proposes to provide the opportunity for an "enhanced sports hub" for the rest of Solihull. The siting of both the football facilities and this proposed sports hub is wholly inappropriate since they will be over 1km from the nearest access to public transport and will result in everyone using these facilities accessing them by private car. This is contrary to the Council's policies on sustainability and accessibility and the additional traffic generated will add to the already difficult junction of Hampton Road with the Warwick Road (A4141) which is in a Conservation Area. In addition, any new facility in this location will require a footpath (possible cycleway), and street lighting from the end of the existing footway on the north side of Hampton Road all the way to the Grand Union Canal. Some, at least of the proposed football pitches will presumably require floodlighting, and the perimeter adjoining the highway will require high level fencing, all of which will seriously detract from the current rural aspect of the eastern approach to Knowle.
The latest proposal tabled by the football club at a public meeting on 7th December 2016 showed the football club being relocated to the north eastern corner of the proposed new site, with a new cricket pitch adjoining the Hampton Road. This presumably is in anticipation of the possible move by Knowle Village cricket club from its present site to the proposed "sports hub" on the north side of Hampton Rad. Again this would be well over 1km from any public transport access, and vehicles accessing this facility (and the additional housing which would presumably be facilitated on the existing cricket ground) would simply add to the traffic congestion along Hampton Road and at the junction with the A4141. Also a cricket pitch immediately adjoining the rod would presumably require significant perimeter fencing/netting, significantly detracting from the current open aspect of this part of Hampton Road.
Any sports facility of the kind anticipated will require significant car parking provision otherwise a similar situation will arise to that which exists at the nearby Old Sills ground on the Warwick Road, where, despite having on-site parking provision for at least 40-50 vehicles, cars spill out and park in an ad hoc and haphazard fashion on the Warwick Road on a regular basis. This situation would be completely unacceptable on Hampton Road, especially given that the site is on the approach to a sharp left hand bend which has a history of fatal accidents. The provision of large areas of car parking, hard standing and potentially spectator provision is not an appropriate use of Green Belt land and will seriously detract from the openness and rural aspect of this area of Green Belt.
The current football club site has an area of poor quality woodland adjacent to it, which was included within the club's response to the 2016 call for sites (up to 3.4 hectares). If this were to be utilised by the club, it could provide at least one extra full size pitch together with further junior pitches/training areas which could easily fulfil the club's needs for additional playing surfaces. In addition, were the existing pitch to be upgraded (possibly to 3G standard) then this would easily accommodate much more regular and intensive use.
The existing club site is in a far better location and serious efforts should be made to enhance and upgrade these facilities, rather than relocating to a wholly inappropriate site, which is in Green Belt, which is much further out from the centre of the village and for all practical purposes (particularly given that 231 out of a total number of 291 people involved in the club are under 17 years of age) wholly inaccessible, other than by private car.
I am also aware that significant sporting facilities are proposed within Arden Triangle site, (Proposed Housing Allocation 9), including potentially a 4G football pitch and additional artificial surfaces. If these facilities are truly intended to be "community facilities" as is promised, then this would be a much better facility to which the club could relocate, as it is within the current built up area of Knowle and has much better access to public transport.
With regard to the proposed siting of new housing on the north side of Hampton Road, I understand a previous application for housing on this site was made some 10-15 years ago which was refused. I have made inquiries of the Council but have not been able to obtain any details relating to this, but I understand that the refusal was firstly on the grounds that the site was within Green Belt and secondly that the development would result in "skyline development" which was considered unacceptable. Given that the topography of the site has not changed, then presumably, the objection to the site on this second ground remains a valid one. Also, no evidence has been provided that 300 houses are in fact needed to finance a new football club, or how such a potentially large facility is to be maintained and supported. The club currently asserts that it has difficulty financially supporting its existing facilities so how would it support a much larger and more sophisticated one?
With regard to the site being within Green Belt, this has also not changed. The Council's recent Green Belt review resulted in Refined Parcels RP36 and RP 37 (which cover the proposed Housing Allocation 8 in the Draft Local Plan) being the two areas which scored most highly of all those parcels of Green Belt immediately surrounding Knowle and Dorridge. Indeed, with regard to Purpose 1 of Green Belt, namely to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, both RP 36 and 37 are category 3, (the highest performing), and are the best performing of any refined parcel of Green Belt immediately surrounding the KDBH are. It is therefore difficult to understand why Green Belt land within these two parcels should have been allocated for housing, in preference to any other sites. There appears to be no justification for this, based upon the Council's own review.
The siting of new housing on the north side of Hampton Road is poor in location terms, is well beyond the current built up area of Knowle and would constitute a significant and unacceptable encroachment into open countryside.
For the reasons highlighted above I would urge the Council to reconsider its proposed Housing Allocation 8 in the Draft Local Plan.

I am in general agreement with the review proposals but wish to make the following comments:
* Birmingham's Housing Need. There are considerable areas of derelict former industrial land, both within the city council area and adjacent local authority areas. Whilst some of these sites are contaminated and developers would prefer prime building land, these should be restored and used to provide housing in order to maximise provision and reduce the need to build on green field sites and protect the Green Belt. This was government policy in the mid-1990s and still makes sense.
* Green Belt. The government has signalled its intention to minimise loss of Green Belt and we should only consider encroachment on Solihull's confirmed Green Belt where development enhances the quality of the environment. For example, by allowing housing on former industrial/commercial sites that may have been in existence for many years but would not today be considered appropriate development in the Green Belt or are no longer providing a community benefit.
Where it is necessary to sacrifice any areas of Green Belt there should be clear and defensible boundaries to avoid further encroachment. In particular, where it is proposed to build on land adjacent to established villages/communities, there should be an agreed new boundary to ensure they remain as clear 'insets' and do not gradually spread. Applications for 'infilling' should only be allowed where this is a genuine plot between neighbouring dwellings, as opposed to stretches of countryside that happen to lie between scattered houses.
* Transport Corridors and Parking. Adequate public transport needs to be provided for any new major housing developments but account must also be taken of the chronic parking issues around rail stations. Further development that would increase pressure on suburban rail stations (Olton, Dorridge, Marston Green, Widney, Hampton in Arden) and consideration given to creation of Park and Ride schemes to reduce the current parking pressures.
* Health Provision. Development should take account of the increased pressure on existing Doctors' Surgeries, where residents already have to wait weeks for a routine appointment and even have difficulty in getting emergency appointments. New surgeries/health centres should be a requirement of large developments unless there is clear evidence that the local surgery had capacity to register new patients.

My view on the Proposed sites for Balsall Common is that ..... : We are totally opposed to Frog Lane being development because the loss of playing fields. If housing has to come, amenities need to be built and Oakes Farm scheme is the lesser of two evils.

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

see attachments

Solihull LPR Site 16

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

1) Building on Green field land.

2) Potential loss of prime agricultural land

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I use this land to walk my dog along with many other people doing the same thing or to get out in the country
we all meet lots of people and can talk about various things .We need this open space in which some of the land
was given by the layca community association for recreation use and must remain so.

Around this site13 there are a lot of elderly people who have this on there doorstep and enjoy the green space
and the various forms of wild life which there is a lot .Where will they all go ?
The roads around Tanworth lane dog kennel lane and more are already congested early morning late afternoon
also the A34 Stratford road to M42 is very busy early morning late afternoon.
What about schools /hospitals /doctors / emergency services they are stretch now and can not get the staff ?
I could expand this email more but am trying to keep it short as i can knowing you will have lots on this issue, but the point is
it is green belt and should remain and I object very strongly to the amount of houses being built on site13.

I also feel there should be more put in the press than has been

Solihull Local Plan Review: Shirley South Site 13
I wish to register my objection to the plans to build the large number of houses in Shirley south and in particular on the land close to the Woodlands and Badgers Estate.
I have lived in Woodlands Lane for forty years and, together with many other residents, have used the footpaths and fields for walking to get fresh air and exercise. It is an important area of open countryside providing for the health and well being of the local community. The extensive old hedgerows, trees and wetland areas are important habitats for wildlife. As this area provides a green buffer between us and Dicken's Heath please don't swallow it all up with development. I have this year worked with the 'Love Solihull' team to keep these fields and the canal tow path free from litter. It is quality green belt.
Dicken's Heath has already impacted on the traffic in the area. In the morning there is a continuous stream of traffic heading from there, up Dog Kennel Lane to junction 4 of the M42. This makes it so difficult for us to get out of Tanworth Lane that it creates the ridiculous situation whereby, if using the car, we do not leave the house between 7:45 and 9:00! More development in the area will add to the already congested stretch of the Stratford Road and M42. Why not build closer to the M6, M40, Birmingham International and the proposed HS2 stations. Most do not use other ways out of Dicken's Heath as Worcester shire and Warwickshire have not improved the roads up to the Solihull boundary. The access to junction 3 of the M42 is still country lanes.

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 would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane,Kenilworth Road), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below:

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. In light of the recent white paper on the future of house building across the country in which it is stated that Green Belt land should only be used in exceptional circumstances and when there is no alternative, surely the council must now look again at the 14 brownfield sites in and around Balsall Common that were submitted in the call for sites.

4) Solihull Councils latest transport strategy publication,Solihull Connected, acknowledges that the south of Balsall Common is the most congested part of the village. The development of site 2, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 and B4101 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres. Several of the 14 PDL sites available including site 240 (Wootton Green Lane/Kenilworth Road) are located in the less congested north of the village.

5) The development of site 2 (150 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units) and the proposed site 3 Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road (200 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452 particularly past Balsall Common Primary School on Balsall Street East. In this area at school drop off and pick up times the congestion is severe at present with traffic often in grid lock. Accidents have already occurred due to this situation and with the additional traffic caused by these sites in the south of Balsall Common the risk of accidents will only increase.

6) Site 2 being 1.5 miles from local amenities 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) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 2. Given that the area is larger than site 2, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 2.

8) 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 request

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 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.

see attached letter

Local Plan Review - South Shirley @ Dickens Heath Areas.
With reference to the Local Plan Review for South Shirley and Dickens Heath. I as a resident of Majors Green wish to draw the following concerns to your attention with respect to the draft consultation proposals in this area:-

* To retain and enhance the existing amenity fields and the green corridor to the bridle way, with access to Bills Lane, the canal and the countryside beyond.

* I object to the concentration of 2550 homes in such close proximity to the South Shirley area and seek a fairer distribution across the Borough.

* That there should be retention of a wider Greenbelt between South Shirley and the built area of Dickens Heath.

* More houses being built on an area which is part of West Midlands Greenbelt.

* Areas such as Dickens Heath have been expanded over the last 15 years and must have, by now, reached their limit. Any further expansion would reduce gaps between the new village and other settlements and therefore create urban sprawl.

* The impact of existing developments on local road systems which have had no road improvements to compensate for additional growth is significant.

* Whitlocks End railway station is on the boundary with Bromsgrove District Council and is the main public transport facility for Dickens Heath. Whitlocks End station car park is heavily used and consequently this has led to an increase in traffic on local roads, again without any improvement in infrastructure.

* The environmental impact on wild life by removal of such large amounts of Greenbelt

Local Plan Review - South Shirley and Dickens Heath Areas.
With reference to the Local Plan Review for South Shirley and Dickens Heath. I as a resident of Majors Green wish to draw the following concerns to your attention with respect to the draft consultation proposals in this area:-

* To retain and enhance the existing amenity fields and the green corridor to the bridle way, with access to Bills Lane, the canal and the countryside beyond.

* I object to the concentration of 2550 homes in such close proximity to the South Shirley area and seek a fairer distribution across the Borough.

* That there should be retention of a wider Greenbelt between South Shirley and the built area of Dickens Heath.

* More houses being built on an area which is part of West Midlands Greenbelt.

* Areas such as Dickens Heath have been expanded over the last 15 years and must have, by now, reached their limit. Any further expansion would reduce gaps between the new village and other settlements and therefore create urban sprawl.

* The impact of existing developments on local road systems which have had no road improvements to compensate for additional growth is significant.

* Whitlocks End railway station is on the boundary with Bromsgrove District Council and is the main public transport facility for Dickens Heath. Whitlocks End station car park is heavily used and consequently this has led to an increase in traffic on local roads, again without any improvement in infrastructure.

* The environmental impact on wild life by removal of such large amounts of Greenbelt.

proposed housing on green belt
I have read the latest hand-delivered letter re: possible development sites in Shirley. While I understand the need for extra housing, this area has already been developed some years ago. I moved here to one of the many bungalows in this area after being driven around the area three years ago. I chose the area because of the lovely fields and green spaces. It is lovely and quiet. Along with any more houses I am sure there would be a need for other schools so it would not stop at the extra housing. Also there would probably be a need for another doctors surgery to cope with the extra residents. We do not want a green "corridor", we want fields to walk through unrestricted by roofs etc. Then there is the wildlife to consider. Shirley park has already lost trees and some of the land to the Parkgate development.

Objection to South Shirley Site 13
Solihull Councils current consultation proposing 600 additional homes on the South Shirley Site 13 adjacent to the Woodlands & Badgers Estate
I wish to raise an objection and voice my concern to the proposed housing site.
As a child growing up in Shirley and now as a parent of two young children, this is an area that I have used regularly for recreation purposes. The walkway from Bills Lane is our access point, and from here we can access the fields behind Langcomb Road and the Woodlands estate. It is a beautiful place to walk and get away from traffic, and an opportunity to see lots of wildlife - particularly birds. The area is extensively used by local residents to walk, walk their dogs, and also to join onto the canal tow path.
The loss of this area would greatly sadden me, and many others. The loss of green belt land which would see the already narrow gap between Shirley and Dickens Heath once again diminished.
Over the years Shirley has become heavily built up, and open space areas for the public to use for recreation purposes are very limited.
As I understand, this particular area of land was actually designated as an area of public amenity and was fenced off accordingly.
I would also like to raise concerns about the current levels of traffic. At 9am there is no easy access to the Stratford Rd and onwards, Tanworth Lane is already loaded with traffic. More houses, more people - the implications for added traffic are alarming.
And what about schools, my eldest (5 years old) is fortunate to attend Woodlands School, a wonderful small community school. Where will the additional children go? Woodlands is a feeder school for Shirley Heath, as is Blossomfield which has a already had to grow into a 3 form entry to cater for all the children. Looking ahead 7 years, where will all these extra children find secondary school provision?
Another concern would be Healthcare provision, more doctors surgeries would surely be required? Solihull Hospital is slowly being made smaller and smaller, whilst the population gets bigger and bigger.
In summary, l accept (but do not agree) that Solihull council have by charged by central government with finding new housing sites. However I feel very strongly that it would be wrong to build on the area of public amenity land and its access corridor that is currently fenced off and request that this area is retained for the benefit of existing and future local residents. The large amount of development being concentrated in the countryside and loss of Green Belt in the Shirley area is unacceptable.

see attached response

Representations regarding the draft local plan for Shirley/Solihull
Please note the comments below as my own submissions:

I am concerned that the draft local plan for additional housing is centred almost entirely on Shirley - and the area of Shirley linking Bills Lane to Cheswick Green and beyond.
The plan looks to develop the existing green space near Baxter's Road/Woodloes Road as well as some of the Christmas Tree Farm.

This green space is much-used by residents as it is the only land of its type in the area, and provides much needed recreational space for children, dog walkers, walkers, cyclists and nature-lovers. The space was set aside specifically for residents when those two areas were built-on.
I am completely opposed to the destruction of this amenity.

Doctors, Schools and road systems are already heavily overloaded or over-subscribed and there can be a great deal of doubt over whether the local road systems would cope.
It can already take 30 minutes to drive from the Bills Lane area to the M42 junction because of the existing levels of traffic - and the Shirley/Cheswick Green roads would become impossible - and unsafe - if these developments were to go ahead.

Finally, Shirley residents feel that we are being "dumped-on" when there are no plans for the Catherine De Barnes, Knowle or Dorridge areas where space is more readily available. This is completely unfair seeing as there are already developments in Aqueduct Road/Solihull Lodge and the Powergen site.

Please add my voice to any opposition to the proposals in their current form.

Planning application for development - Sharmans Cross Road
I have been made aware of a development scheme on the former rugby field on Sharmans Cross Road and I wish to register my objection to this for the following reasons.
1. I thought this land is designated for the playing of sports and I would very much like this to remain so as I believe there are a number of local sports clubs looking for affordable fields.
2. I am extremely concerned about the increased level of traffic exiting onto Sharmans Cross Road and any other roads involved in the development and the resulting impact on safety, noise and pollution.
3. Our local services of schooling and medical which are already under pressure would only suffer further with such a development.
4. I feel that this high density of housing is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area.

I trust you will consider my objections and reject this development.

Proposed Housing Allocation 18 Sharmans Cross Road Solihull
We wish to raise objections to the application by the developers 'Oakmoor' for the combined Rugby Club and Solihull Arden Club grounds off Sharmans Cross Road to be approved as a potential residential development site within the Local Development Plan.

It is our understanding that the developers seek to move the Solihull Arden Club facilities onto part of the existing Rugby Club land and build approximately 100 new homes on the remaining land with access to those homes from Sharmans Cross Road. This would result in the complete loss of the rugby pitches.

Our objections are as follows:-

1) There is already a shortage of sports pitches in Solihull, being less than the national targets eg. for rugby.

2) Other than this rugby club, there is only one set of sports pitches in Solihull with changing rooms, and none with facilities for women.

3) Moving a pitch to the outskirts of the Borough makes it more difficult for young people to get to it, particularly by public transport.

4) We have been told that when Oakmoor negotiated taking a lease on the rugby club pitches some years ago (at a peppercorn rent) they pledged to SMBC that they would keep the land as a sports facility. However, they have refused to communicate with several parties interested in renting, leasing or developing this land for sports purposes, or they have put off interested parties by suggesting excessive rents. They reportedly now allege as part of their application that there is no longer sufficient demand to use it for sport when it appears that their tactics have been to suppress that demand.

5) We have been informed that Sport England did not support Oakmoor's previous application as is stated in the current application.

6) Sharmans Cross Road is already very congested throughout the school year when pupils are being taken to, and collected from, school by car. The additional traffic from the proposed 100 or so homes will all funnel out onto this road and make the situation much worse.

7) There are no places for the significant number of children that 100 homes will bring into this area, particularly if half of the houses are to be 'affordable' thereby attracting younger families. In addition, the nearest infant school is about a mile away.

8) There is little or no spare capacity in any of the local GP surgeries.

9) It appears that in order to fit 100 dwellings onto the site, and to provide 'affordable housing' the application will need to include blocks with at least 3 storeys. Such blocks would be out of keeping with a large surrounding area.

10) The 3 storey blocks will potentially overlook surrounding existing properties.

11) If Solihull Arden Tennis Club move from the freehold land that they currently occupy onto the leasehold land of the rugby club (with its restriction of use for sports purposes only) they will be giving up very valuable land in exchange for virtually no land asset. Members of the Tennis Club have said that they have not been properly consulted about such a change.

12) If the application is successful, the Tennis Club moves onto the rugby club land, and the new houses and flats are built then the Tennis Club will be closely bounded on three sides by housing. This could well lead to friction and complaints from the householders regarding noise, traffic etc as has happened at the West Warwickshire Sports Club.

objection to housing development at Sharmans Cross Road (Proposed Housing allocation 18 in the Draft Local Plan)
I understand that this proposal has been submitted before several years ago but was refused. I believe the objections that were submitted then to the plan still exist.
They Include:
1. All of the site at Sharmans Cross Road has SMBC covenants regarding its use solely for sporting purposes.
2. The developer, Oakmoor Estates confirmed in writing to SMBC in June 2008 that the land would continue to be used for sporting purposes.
3. Solihull Arden Club has objected on the basis of the major damage it would do to their very existence.
I am a member of the Solihull Arden Tennis club and have been a member for 20 years.
I believe the housing development would impact on the club in the following ways:
* There will be disruption during the development in terms of noise, access, and parking facilities
* Once built, objections may be raised by residents concerning noise from social events in the clubhouse, evening play (floodlighting), parking and access to the club through there estate.
* Shared parking facilities between the club and the housing estate could lead to conflict between residents and club members if parking spaces are limited.
in addition to these points the housing development will have a severe disruptive effect upon the local infrastructure such as:
* increased traffic within the surrounding area - it is already difficult to exit the junction of Sharmans Cross road unto Blossomfield Road.
* impact upon schools and doctors surgery within the local area - there are already lack of places in all secondary schools in the area and there are no infant schools within a mile of the site which would impact on traffic during school start/finish times
* lack of sports grounds facilities for football/rugby in the local area - there is already a shortage of these which will have an impact on the development of youngsters in the area into wider area/national squads
I also understand that the developers (Oakmoor Estates) have expressed an interesting in swapping the land with Solihull Arden Tennis Club so that we occupy the leasehold land (existing ex-rugby club land) and the houses are built on the freehold land that is currently occupied by our club. This would have a severely detrimental effect on our club's future existence in years to come especially upon the expiry of the lease and the cost implications this will have. It will also prevent the freedom of the club to expand/develop the club in the future should the members wish to do so as we will not have the freedom and choice to perhaps change or expand the club as we may wish. I would object to this proposal in the strongest terms possible.
Given all of the points raised above, I request that my objection be noted by the planning committee regarding this particular proposed housing development and ask that it considers refusing planning permission on the grounds cited above.

Allocation 13
I am writing with my objections to the building of houses on allocation 13 in Shirley, solihull.

Me and my family are regular visitors to this area and have spent hours and hours exploring this land.
Even during Xmas we were there every day with our dog.
It is absolutely beautifull on every season of the year, we not only socialise but excercise at the same time without realising. There is so much wildlife to be seen.
My children are devastated to think that the owls, birds, foxes, bats etc will now have there homes demolished.
There is a beautiful stream and a duck pond there also which we already had plans to be picnicking and cycling around this summer.

The elderly people have dogs and love to socialise too, without this field so close to home I'm sure they will be feeling depressed and confined to there homes.

Many people have bought there homes in Shirley to appreaciate these open spaces and I cannot understand how you can now be build over them.

The doctors, dentists, schools and hospitals are already so overcrowded I also cannot understand how you can be overloading these services even more.

Football pitches being taken away, this is a joke, kids need to be excercising more.

The roads round here are already a joke and you are adding to this problem also.

I have added a picture that my children have made!

You really shouldn't be taking away this natural beautiful land, please think twice before you do it!

Allocation 13 Shirley Woods Farm
I would like to strongly advise the planning department that using all our greenbelt to put houses on is not always a great idea, what about using the space we already have and making it more liveable? There are more places that can be made into homes that using our precious greenbelt.

I have lived in Shirley for 46 years and moved to the edge of Shirley mainly to be closer to nature, I live not far from Bills woods on Kingshurst Road, I use the Bills lane entrance to walk my dogs take in the views and nature. Never thought that it would ever come to having to fill a petition and send and email, in the hope that planning see sense and do not grant planning permission for houses to be build. This not only will put strain on our roads that are already full because of Asda and Aqueduct road houses on Colebrook road. putting strain on the schools which are up to maximum over subscribed!

There is the impact on Wildlife and the need to keep these places free from tarmac simply because of the impact on wildlife the animals, that have lived there for years. We all need space away from traffic, houses and people. To take our rights away is wrong, The greenbelt area is a vital community amenity and vital to the identity of local settlements.

All that planning are doing is filling in the gaps, soon there will be no beginning and no end, and no room for wildlife. We as humans have an impact on wildlife, they cannot speak for themselves. Introducing human construction is a disturbance on the environment and because of the use of green belt various animal species will be threatened and the ecological balance of nature will cause a massive impact to the environment. We need these open spaces! for many reasons.

It was with great sadness that I read of the plans to build a large number of new homes around Solihull.
I am particularly concerned about Allocation 13 which I understand is the proposed site for 600 new homes.
600 homes could potentially bring 2000+ new residents. These residents would need access to already overstretched resources. Have considerations been made for their need for Doctor's Surgeries, Dentists and school places? Our primary schools are already heavily oversubscribed. Have considerations been made for the potential extra input on the Emergency Services? How about Maternity Services in the borough? Our local hospital has already been downgraded to the point where it seems to be a glorified GP surgery. Maternity services in the borough are shameful. I am a lifelong resident and was 5 minutes away from having my son in Heartlands Hospital car park. I was the last person they allowed in and then they closed the Maternity Unit as they were over capacity. I know you have no control over the NHS but I do think you need to be responsible when adding extra pressures on to it at a time when all medical and emergency services are overstretched.
I feel that Solihull Council are being led by greed and are being short sighted about the impact of these new homes on the existing residents. Solihull is special thanks to the fact it has green spaces and woodland. It was always known as Urbs in Rure, the town in the country. If you start building on all of these green spaces then we will become another faceless town of new builds.
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns.

I am strongly Against the proposed planning by Solihull Council for the house development for the Shirley, Dickens Heath and Majors Green Area. I feel it will be very damaging for the area and the people who live and will be living there in the future . There are roads which aren't much more than lanes in some parts, some with narrow footpath and pedestrians have to step into the road to pass each other. I myself have been hit twice by vehicles wing mirrors in Haslucks Green road by vehicles moving over to avoid traffic coming the other way. The roads in peak time is very heavily used and there has been several bad accidents recently at Bills Lane, Haslucks Green Road, Rushleigh Road ,Cambria Drive and Whitlock End Station Bend, fortunately up till now not a fatal one. I feel the area is being over developed by property developers who will cram as many house as they can into the area and Solihull Council who see green fields as £ signs.
Schools, Doctors, Hospitals and other services & amenities are stretched now. Will they be able to cope with an increased the population. Are there Plans to improve these services and facilities .

Save our fields!! Allocation 13
I am very distressed about the draft local development plan between Whitlock's End Farm and Dickens Heath Road, Allocation 13.

Having a young family who thrive off outdoor life, enjoying nature and educating our young, as well as healthy living through both exercising and walking, I am deeply concerned for the large amount of development being concentrated in our local countryside and the loss of Green Belt in the Shirley area and the narrow strip of open space that will separate Shirley from Dickens Heath which is also extending towards Shirley. I am a regular dog walker and keen runner and use the local fields and bridal path for all purposes to exercise and walk the dog on a very regular basis, as well as enjoying our weekly family walks from Neville Road to the proposed allocation 13, having our very own green belt land to enjoy, was the very reason why we bought our house.

We have lived in this area for many years and are a regular user of the walkway from Bills Lane crossing into the fields behind Langcomb Road and the Woodlands Estate and know this has been extensively used by many residents in the area for recreation purposes throughout the year. We have a beautiful chocolate Labrador who we socialise on a regular basis in this area with many other dog walkers, who also do the same.

I understand that the council have to find housing sites but feel very strongly that it would be wrong to build on the area of public amenity land and its access corridor that is currently fenced off and request that this area is retained for the benefit of existing and future local residents.

Shirley is already heavily built up and has a low level of open space that is usable and convenient for public recreation and I'm very concerned about how the large number of new homes will add to existing traffic congestion, plus noise pollution that comes with it and a massive increase co2 emissions, of which as a nation we are trying to reduce, not increase. Our doctors and local schools are already filled to capacity, access to these are already tight, how on earth would they be able to cope with a massive influx of people you are proposing to bring to the area? It would only outstretch services even more than what they are currently, which would surely drop standards of care all round.

As a member of the Solihull Arden tennis club and a local resident with connections to Sharman's Cross School , I am writing to object to the proposed housing development by Oakmoor Estates on the land of the former Rugby Club in Sharmans Cross Road. (Proposed Housing allocation 18 in the Draft Local Plan)
There are many objections to the plans . Many are the same as the objections to proposal submitted before several years ago but was refused. For example
1. The tennis and sporting club has been a local sporting and Community asset which has recently been refurbished . All of the site at Sharmans Cross Road has SMBC covenants regarding its use solely for sporting purposes.
2. The developer, Oakmoor Estates confirmed in writing to SMBC in June 2008 that the land would continue to be used for sporting purposes.
3. Solihull Arden Club has objected on the basis of the major damage it would do to the club and all the groups using it . The disruption noise , dust , access and parking will be awful .
4. Housing in this area is a consideration but the social and sporting events may be the cause of conflict and disruption between residents and club and community users of the club in terms of parking , noise floodlights etc.

5. The local infrastructure such as:
* increased traffic within the surrounding area - it is already difficult to exit the junction of Sharmans Cross road unto Blossomfield Road.
* impact upon schools and doctors surgery within the local area - there are already lack of places in all secondary schools in the area and there are no infant schools within a mile of the site which would impact on traffic during school start/finish times
* lack of sports grounds facilities for football/rugby in the local area - there is already a shortage of these which will have an impact on the development of youngsters in the area into wider area/national
I understand from committee members of the club that :

* Solihull Arden Tennis Club is on freehold land and the housing development wishes we swop to the leasehold land (existing ex-rugby club land) and the houses are built on the freehold land that is currently occupied by our club. This would have a severely detrimental effect on our club's future existence in years to come especially upon the expiry of the lease and the cost implications this will have. It will also prevent the freedom of the club to expand/develop the club in the future should the members wish to do so as we will not have the freedom and choice to perhaps change or expand the club as we may wish. This has no advantage to the club members or the local community . It is only an advantage to the developers .


I object to this proposal in the strongest terms and request that the planning committee refuse planning of this development .

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

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

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

l shall firstly discuss

1. TRAFFIC

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

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

2. PRESSURE ON LOCAL SERVICES

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

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

3.WILDLIFE

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

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

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

4. MENTAL HEALTH

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

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

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

PROPOSAL:

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

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

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

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

I am a home owner at Shotteswell Road, Shirley, and I would like to voice my objection in regards to the proposed 600 homes at allocation 13. I do not believe that we have the necessary infrastructure in place to support such a huge increase in population. On top of that I do not feel that current beautiful piece of land should be used for housing. The land should continue in its present state and be open to the public.

Allocation 13
i would like to register my objection to 600 houses being considered for allocation 13 for the following reasons.
1. As you probably know the traffic is unbelievably bad coming from Dickens Heath already plus the pollution that comes with that.
2. Wildlife will be decimated as a result. The habitats of birds, bats, foxes etc will all disappear.
3. Lack of green spaces for people new and old for their health and enjoyment (Shirley Park space has already been reduced).
4. Basic infrastructure such as doctors, roads and schools will be in short supply based on past projects as all under massive pressure already.
I cant help thinking quality of life for people already here and the people possibly coming will be very poor in a town that's motto is Town in
the Country.
thank you for considering my objection

email & see attached report
Please find attached my objection to site 3 (Balsall Common) proposed for allocation in the Draft Local Plan.

This objection is in response to Q15 in the DLP and recommends the removal of site 3 from the plan and that site 240 be allocated instead.

You will note that this report is co-authored my myself, Jeanette Mcgarry and Wendy Wilson and is focused solely on site 3.

I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss this report further with yourself, Cllr Courts and the co-authors of the report.