Q23. Are there any other comments you wish to make on the Draft Local Plan?

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

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.

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.

see further submission by letter further to emails of 21 Feb 17

see letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached response

The plans for a huge number of additional houses in Knowle is preposterous and in no way justified. They ignore many of the Council's own policies and would cause much harm to the environment and amenity of the area, while completely altering its character. The size and concentration of the proposals, as well as the density of the proposed housing, are completely out of character for the area. I strongly support the submission of the Neighbourhood Forum, which has itself been almost completely ignored, in contravention of Government policies.

Response to Solihull MBC 23 questions extended consultation on the draft local plan
Question 1 are the right borough challenges identified?
Question 2 agreement with the Borough Vision

Only In a very small part yes, as they are clearly written from an urban Solihull centric perspective, once more bringing into disrepute the belief that Solihull successfully combines a well-balanced combined Urban and Rural vision. Looked at from a holistic position, Solihull MBC in this draft proposal will not be satisfied with following their own policies until an urban jungle is built through the most vulnerable portion of the Green Belt between Berkswell / Balsall Common Parish and Coventry City. Berkswell / Balsall Common is already a congested community with poor infrastructure and very poor public sector connectivity with the local economic centres which are primarily to the East and South ie NOT Solihull.
Adding the proposed disproportionate housing and its resulting population to Berkswell / Balsall Common will simply make the problems worse and continue the belief that SMBC will ignore its own Policy's when they do suit political goals.

Question 3 agreement with Spatial Strategy?
The approach defined for sites being appropriate for development as written looks good with the right priorities, But Unfortunately they have not been adhered to in this draft plan.
Barratt's farm land is Green field land not Brownfield land and has significant drain off issues. And as stressed above the village is virtually bereft of effective public transport The demolition of the Meriden Gap Green belt and its impact on the local ecology of the Green fields, ancient hedge rows and trees will directly effect the existing local residents and families who extensively use the area and its many crisscrossing footpaths for open air exercise and leisure activities. The additional traffic emanating from such a large increase in housing will add to the air pollution provided by poor control of the take off and landing heights from Birmingham Airport, especially the north turn over the settlement
If this land is built on the drain off problem identified above will represent a risk to local adjoining properties to the north and south.

Question 7 regarding sustainable Economic Development?
Good principles. But again not seriously considered in the draft plan with no consideration of the disproportionate building of houses on an already congested and ill planned village centre.

Question11 policy P2 providing homes for all
The total proposed housing numbers are grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing community and will have a very significant detrimental impact on the size, shape, character and environment of Berkswell / Balsall Common as a Rural Village. It is also noticed that while mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.

Question 15 appropriateness of draft proposed sites. As mentioned throughout this response mention is made of how Solihull MBC have failed to follow their own Policies in establishing the appropriateness of the chosen sites and yet proposals for a new village on a brown field site development to the north of the region have been ignored.

Question 16 completeness of required supporting infrastructure to complement the proposed draft development?
While Doctor and Schooling infrastructure is mentioned, no mention is made of shopping, banking etc Banks are withdrawing from Berkswell / Balsall Common and a lack of action on the site to the rear of the Co-op shop allowing it to be isolated from other retail outlets, preventing a cohesive village centre

Question18 sustainable Travel
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport apart from Birmingham focused rail is very, very poor in the area

Question 22 Delivery
CIL payments for local development should be focussed in the local area for locally requested and agreed infrastructure improvements.

Question 23 Any other comment
No explanation has been given to the fact that a grossly disproportionate number of houses are proposed to be built in Berkswell / Balsall Common in an important and sensitive Green Belt area compared with elsewhere in Solihull borough. Such as Dorridge, Knowle or other villages to the South.
There is a very strong perception in the Berkswell / Balsall Common region that Solihull MBC have abandoned the Greenbelt and consciously discarded their own policies and values and have lost what trust they had as a result.

I am submitting my comments to the Local Plan Review.

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

My comments are as follows

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

Specific and general comments on the document are :-

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

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

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

see letter and various appendices supporting site land - between no. 39 and 79 Earlswood Road (The Paddock) and The Orchard, 79 Earlswood Road, Dorridge

see attached response

see response from agent

see attached response by agent on behalf of Extra MSA group

see attached letter

Response to Draft Housing Plan
I have attempted to respond to Solihull Council's draft housing plan using the online portal this afternoon. However, I have found the website to be very confusing and circular in nature. I could not access the online form for responses, despite clicking on hyperlinks for 'direct access to the online form'. As a result, I am emailing the key points that I wish to make instead. However, I would be grateful if the Council would review the approach that it takes to consultations in the future and consider the accessibility and clarity of its webpages.

Question 1 - I believe that the following key challlenges should also be included:
* Improving the range and number of facilities in Balsall Common, including the town centre, without this creating further problems with traffic and car parking
* Retaining the character and attractiveness of rural and semi-rural locations in the borough
Question 2 - I believe that my responses to question 1 should also form part of the vision for the plan, namely:
* Improving the range and number of facilities in Balsall Common, including the town centre, without this creating further problems with traffic and car parking
* Retaining the character and attractiveness of rural and semi-rural locations in the borough
Question 3 - I agree that brownfield sites should be selected ahead of greenfield sites. However, the distribution of planned new homes within the plan does not seem to reflect this strategy sufficiently. For example, greenfield sites in Balsall Common seem to have been allocated a very large number of new homes, particularly relative to its current size when other more developed areas of the borough that may benefit from regeneration or be better able to absorb expansion have not. I believe that this will be damaging to the character and attractiveness of Balsall Common and that it would be better for all communities in Solihull for new homes to be built in smaller numbers per development but in more locations spread throughout the borough. The present plan seems to place the burden on a small number of locations.

The current spatial strategy does not take sufficient account of the disruption that will be caused in communities by HS2 and how building new homes in the same areas may compound the difficulties experienced. Balsall Common will I expect, for example, experience significant issues from HS2 such as construction traffic, potentially at the same time as disruption from the building of a large number of new houses and infrastructure to support them. This needs to be taken into account when making final decisions on sites so that particular parts of the borough are not shouldering the burden of multiple developments at the same time, whilst other areas remain undisturbed. All areas need to make a fair contribution to the sustainable development and success of the area.

Please see response to question 15 for further comments on considerations for the spatial strategy/choice of locations.

Question 7 - Balsall Common should be listed as a town centre requiring a masterplan. Now, even before new homes are developed, the centre suffers from significant traffic problems (speeding, congestion, parking problems) and too few facilities. If the number of homes planned for Balsall Common proceed, a master plan is vital to ensure that the area remains a pleasant, desirable and prosperous place.

Question 15 - I believe that the locations selected should include consideration of ease of access to employment. For example, it seems strange that there are not more sites in or near the Dickens Heath/Monkspath/Blythe Valley area to enable ease of access to jobs at the business park and in the area south of the airport and east of Land Rover to enable ease of access to the jobs at both of those sites. The proximity of significant numbers of employment opportunities and transport links are much better in those areas than some of the sites selected (e.g. Balsall Common, Knowle). I also believe that those areas would be better able to absorb expansion without damage to the character of the area. For example, Dickens Heath features modern housing developments already and additional similar developments would be in keeping with its current design/character.

If the number of new homes cannot or is not spread more evenly around the borough and plans for Balsall Common to have the number of homes suggested proceed, I would welcome these being in smaller numbers across more developments. I believe that this would allow the town to expand in a more managed way that is in keeping with its character, limits the amount of green space and natural habitat being lost in each part of the town and manages the additional traffic more evenly. I am quite concerned about such a large number of homes being planned for Barrett's Farm for a number of reasons, including:
* This will create a large volume of additional traffic for a small number of routes
* The nearby town centre will not be able to cope with the additional demand and has little room to expand
* The location is a beautiful natural habitat for a range of wildlife and the public footpaths are a well-used and well-enjoyed feature of the area
* Having such a large estate of new build houses is not in keeping with the unique and semi-rural character of the area
I would welcome some of these being located in other parts of the borough or, at least, other parts of the town. For example, I believe that a developer owns land near Oakes Farm Shop off Balsall Street East and that this would be a good location for some of the homes currently planned for Barrett's Farm because:
* This part of Balsall Common is less congested
* It is serviced by a main road that could take the additional capacity
* There is a farm shop/cafe and a pub within close proximity
* There is space for the development of additional facilities, unlike in the town centre which is close to Barrett's Farm
* Pressure would be taken off the town centre, which is currently very busy with traffic and people relative to its size
It also would seem to make more sense in terms of ease of access to road and rail networks, as well as the health centre, for new developments in Balsall Common/Berkswell to be nearer to Hallmeadow Road, Truggist Lane, Riddings Hill, Lavender Hall Road etc.

I am sure that there are also other locations in Balsall Common and neighbouring villages/towns (e.g. Berkswell, which appears to have not been earmarked for any expansion) where the homes could be spread out in smaller numbers to make growth more manageable and easily absorbed.

Question 16 - If the number of homes planned for Balsall Common proceeds, I believe that the following infrastructure is required is addition to new schools and GP surgeries:
* Traffic calming measures in and around the town centre, including Station Road, Kenilworth Road and Meeting House Lane to counteract the volume and speed of traffic that already exists and will be exacerbated by new developments. I live on Meeting House Lane and the speed bumps and chicane that are there already are already ineffective at discouraging people from using the road as a 'rat run' and driving at high speeds to and from the town centre (e.g. because the speed bumps are very small and very spaced out). My cat was recently killed as a result of a speeding driver on my road. I am very concerned about the number of houses that may be built on Barrett's Farm and make the noise, volume and speed of traffic on the road even worse. I would ask that the Council would consider not having a vehicle access point from Meeting House Lane to the Barrett's Farm development (or off other similar residential roads) and instead ensure that access points are from main roads designed to manage this sort of capacity. I would also welcome Meeting House Lane being made a no-through route (e.g. being blocked off half way down near the Catholic Church/Tennis Club) or at least having more chicanes/single file traffic and more frequent/higher speed bumps , pavements being built all of the way down and any other appropriate traffic calming measures.
* More green spaces e.g. nature reserves, parks, play areas, cycle tracks, walking routes/public footpaths
* Extension of the by-pass (Hallmeadow Road) so that it provides ease of access to new housing (e.g. the Barrett's Farm development) and takes pressure off other routes in the area. At the moment, this road is underused and does not provide much of a useful route to anywhere
* Extension of the Kenilworth Greenway and the ability to access this by bike from Balsall Common (at the moment, it is not possible to access the Greenway on a bike without having to lift this above stiles/gates, which is very frustrating)
* More frequent and later night rail services from Berkswell to and from Birmingham New Street and International
* Additional bus routes and more frequent services
* Supermarket on the outskirts of the town (e.g. off the by-pass)
* Additional shop, bar and restaurant premises (but not all in the current town centre)
Question 22 - I understand that there may be good reasons why the Council may want/need to divert some of the CIL payments, new homes bonus and profit on the sale of Council land to areas other than those where the new homes are built in order to support prosperity and growth across the borough. However, I think that it is important that those communities who experience the disruption of new homes being built, their local area being changed (e.g. loss of natural habitats and greenfield sites, change in area character) and the impact of additional people/traffic in the area are compensated through sufficient additional infrastructure and facilities for managed and sustainable growth before the profits relating to those developments are used elsewhere. Diverting profits to areas of the borough which have not had new developments should be in exceptional cases only and where the minimum required needs of those in the development areas to manage the impact on their community effectively have been met first. I would also say that if developments were more evenly spread across the borough, it would be easier to justify sharing the benefits across the borough, too.

I hope that this response is helpful.

see attached letter

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.

I have tried and failed to access the online response facility for responses to the Draft local Plan despite having registered for the purpose and am using this route which is indicated as a simpler method of contact to make the following
points:

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I am writing on behalf of Silhill Football Club members, most of who live in Solihull, to comment on the Draft Local Plan which has recently been the subject of consultation. We own the freehold of the club premises and two full sized football pitches at Sharmans Cross Road and have been at this location since the mid-1920s. We also lease a full-size pitch at Hockley Heath Pavilion on a seasonal basis and a small-size pitch at Bentley Heath CofE School for two younger teams. In all we have 5 adult teams and 5 youth teams. Solihull Moors Girls u15s also use one of our adult pitches for their home fixtures. We are well aware of the significant demand for better quality small-size sports pitches in Solihull, not just from our own club.

We were concerned to learn of the relaxation of the planning guidelines with regard to the protection of sports pitches within the current Local Plan and objected to that. Our concerns are heightened by the concerted, damaging proposals to identify sports pitches throughout the borough for development. In the case of the former Solihull Rugby Club pitches and associated land, adjoining Solihull Arden Club at one side and our own club at the other, we are doubly concerned. This site is in an area of residential development where the few sports pitches that remain are a key aspect of the health and well-being of all the population and once lost will be gone forever. This is an unnecessary policy move and is counter to other policies for the area which seek to promote healthy activity and personal responsibility.

Flooding already is a major concern in the area and the proposed development is likely to worsen that. The drainage for the sports fields is often inadequate and developments are very likely to cause further problems of extreme water-logging.

We have noted that no real attempt has been made to keep the rugby pitches in use or to involve other sports and that contact to the organisations involved in the land has been ignored. We understand that Sport England may not be able to lodge an objection on current use grounds given the time which has elapsed since the land was used for rugby and believe that these two factors are clearly connected.

Please find attached my response to your questionnaire which includes my personal concerns regarding my own land which appears to be included in the potential Barrett's Farm development but which has in fact never been offered by me for development.

planning objection allocation 13
I would like to raise several objections as to the planning application on allocation 13 the proposal to build 600 houses on woods Christmas tree farm
WOODS FARM HAVE ALREADY CONVERTED A NUMBER OF BARNS IN THE GREEN BELT INTO RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS CAUSING TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ON THE PRIVATE RD THAT RUNS DOWN THE BRIDAL PATH
The loss of several thousands of Christmas trees which are very good for cleaning up the air pollution is not acceptable

I am a local resident and I cannot see how you can build on green belt yet again with the poor infrastructure of roads the lack of shops to accommodate all these extra people no extra doctors surgeries.
WE struggle to get doctors appointments at the moment at Tanworth lane surgery.

The Stratford road is permanently grid locked
WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF THE EXTRA TRAFFIC FROM THIS AND SEVERAL OTHER PROPOSALS THE TRW SITE FOR ONE ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE OLD POWERGEN SITE IS GOING TO ADD TO THE CHAOS IN THE MORNING RUSH HOUR IT CAN TAKE 40 MINUTES TO TRAVEL FROM SAINSBURYS TO THE M42 CRANMORE BOULEVARD IS GRID LOCKED.
Haselocks Green Rd is a nightmare for people living on this road trying to get off there drives in rush hour I know of several people who have left the area because of the current congestion without adding to it .

Where are the additional children going to school with a proposal for in excess of 2500 homes to be built around Shirley
Solihull hospital is not capable of coping with the current population yet adding at least 10.000 extra people to their catchment is ridiculous you have to go to Heartlands a round trip of at least one half hours for the most minor of ailments.
Shirley station and Whitlocks end station have insufficient parking facilities NEVILLE RD AND SEVERAL OF THE ADJOINING RDS ARE CURRENTLY BEING USED AS OVERFLOW CAR PARKS MAKING IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO WALK DOWN THE PAVEMENT WITH A PUSHCHAIR BECAUSE OF ALL THE CARS PARKED ON THE PAVEMENT AND IF THEY DON'T PARK ON THE PAVEMENT IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DRIVE DOWN THE RD IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE ENGINE OR AMBULANCE REQUIRING ACCESS THIS WOULD BE A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN.
We no longer have a police station in Shirley or surrounding areas recently when the police were required in Neville Rd because of a fight between groups of teenagers it took 20 minutes plus for any assistance to arrive by then it is all over and they have dispersed
AS A RESIDENT IN THIS AREA FOR IN EXCESS OF 35 YEARS IT IS ABOUT TIME SOLIHULL COUNCIL STARTED LOOKING AFTER LOCAL RESIDENTS EVERY OBJECTION THAT IS EVER RAISED GETS OVER TURNED
LOOK AT PARK GATE TRAFFIC CHAOS, SHOPS HALF EMPTY
LOOK AT SHIRLEY HIGH ST CHARITY SHOPS BANKS BUILDING SOCIETIES NO LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES ALL AS A RESULT OF SOMETHING THE LOCAL RESIDENTS NEVER WANTED ASDA THE MAJORITY OF CUSTOMERS TRAVEL IN FROM OUTSIDE THE AREA THEY TRAVEL STRAIGHT BACK OUT AGAIN NEVER SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESSES.

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.

I am chair of the Burton Green Parish Council and I am sending our response to the Solihull Local Plan. I would appreciate if you confirmed that our response has been delivered. Also when the Inspector's proceedings begin, we would like to be represented there when it looks at the developments in Berkswell and Balsall Common, especially when the transport infrastructure is discussed.

see letter and supporting documents for Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Nos. 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green

see attached documents
LPR Draft - Representations IM Land Meriden - this is the overarching document
LVA & Green Belt Review Feb 2017
Access and transport Appraisal 161208
Land North of Main Road, Meriden - The Vision

see attached letter

see attached letter