04 Dickens Heath - West of Dickens Heath

Please find enclosed a response to the recently consulted Solihull Local Plan review from Worcestershire County Council's Children Families and Communities Provision Planning Team.

SOLIHULL LOCAL PLAN REVIEW DECEMBER 2016

Worcestershire County Council's Children Families and Communities Department note the comments in the recently submitted Solihull Local Plan Review December 2016 with regard to the provision of school places, particularly paragraph 407 and 408.

Dickens Heath Primary School is a named feeder primary school to The Woodrush High School. Included in the Local Plan is particular reference to planned housing development of circa 700 dwellings for the Dickens Heath Area that may impact on the neighbouring high school. Worcestershire would wish to be included in consultations at the appropriate time with regard to this or any other particular development, which may come forward during the lifetime of the plan, that may impact on education provision in the neighbouring authority of Worcestershire.

As Chairman of Old Yardleians Rugby Football Club, an organisation which is 90 years old this year and which has been located at fields next to Betteridges Farm for the last 50 years, I would like to be kept informed as to how the council plans to ensure that the loss to the borough of the four full size rugby pitches that will be built over as part of Area 4 development does not lead to a drastic decline in rugby participation in the area. Our fields, club-house, changing rooms and car-parking facilities currently provide regular rugby training and match play for 3 adult rugby teams and 10 mini and junior age group rugby teams. We also host an archery club and a veterans football team.

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

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

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached response

rejection for green belt allocation
A quick note to support the leaflet I received on "paws off our green belt"

I can confirm that I totally oppose the building of any houses, it is not right to have so many houses built on green belt so I am opposed to all allocation 11,12 4 and especially 3

Did you know at 3 the green there are a large number of SMBC employees which occupy the ground floor of one of the office spaces I wonder if they are aware of this project as it will have an effect on them getting into work? In an already heavily congested area

see letter

see letter

see letter

see attachments

see letter

Firstly, I have tried to voice my objections via the online portal but I have found this to be very difficult, hence this email I will detail my objections. Additionally, my house backs on to the site known as Site 13 (back of Langcomb Road and the Baxters estate). I understand that I have the right to formally respond, but the documents sent to me prior to Christmas was so poorly written that it has been thrown away as it was seen as having no importance. I am therefore also formally responding to the letter sent to me asking for my response.

PLEASE NOTE, THESE VIEWS ARE WRITTEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH MARK BRUCKSHAW, ALSO RESIDENT OF 70 LANGCOMB ROAD.

Section 5 Question 3

I do not understand why 41% of the new build has been proposed for such a small area in South Shirley and so far away from HS2. Surely, 'spreading the load' and locating more in reach of HS2 would be sensible. I am hopeful that HS2 will bring opportunities to Solihull, but by building the homes at the furthest corner of the borough away from HS2, will reduce the opportunities it can bring. Additionally, I believe it will damage the opportunities it can bring:

1. Residents of South Shirley will not catch the train into Birmingham and then out again to link up with HS2, and so will drive. Regardless of what road improvements are made, by making residents travel across the borough to get to HS2 from South Shirley, will increase congestion to all areas in between. Also this will affect the environment at a time where we should be aiming to reduce the use of the car.

2. Businesses will suffer and move out of the area if they can not drive around the borough

3. The well being of all Solihull residents between South Shirley and HS2, will be negatively affected.

4. Policy P8 seeks to reduce congestion but the proposals will quite clearly increase congestion.

5. Policy P9 seeks to mitigate climate change, but the proposals of increasing car use will quite clearly contribute to climate change.

I strongly believe that the interests of all residents of Solihull should be considered. By 'spreading the load' around all of Solihull, the impact will be minimised.

Alternatives should be considered, brownfield sites can be utilised with creative thinking, such as the car park at Monkspath Hall Road, a multi storey car park could be built on part of the land therefore maintaining or increasing the existing number of spaces, and the rest of the land could be used for housing. The principle of 'top hats' could be used for existing block of flats and other buildings (additional floors are added to existing buildings). Commercial buildings can be converted to residential. Smaller pockets of green belt, spread around the borough could be used, therefore reducing the impact on infrastructure and therefore reducing costs to the local authority.

Section 7 Question 15

I object to the locations of the new housing in South Shirley, in particular site 13 (behind Langcomb Road and the Baxters Estate) and site 4 (Tithe Barn Lane, Dickens Heath). I do not have as strong objections to Site 12 (Light Hall Farm), although a beautiful area and a terrible loss if built on, it is better placed than Site 4 & 13 if Shirley is to have it's fair share of housing. Site 11 (TRW) I have no objections with.

Below is the justifications for my objects. I will state that my objects are based on my 25 years professional experience of managing residential estates and working with developers. I am a surveyor and a member of the Royal Institutions of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). I am also a volunteer and campaigner for homeless people and those without secure accommodation. I regularly go into Birmingham to feed and cloth people sleeping on the streets. I say this to stress that I am not a 'not in my back yard' person. My husband, Mark Bruckshaw, has over 30 years experience of managing estates and also volunteers, so between us, we have a vast amount of real and practical knowledge of the impact of housing developments.

1. Flooding.
Our back garden regularly floods from half way to the back of the garden. At some places it can be 5 inches deep. Bills Lane regularly floods and at times, the flood water gathers under the railway bridge. On Haslucks Green Road, at the junction with Bills Lane, the roadway regularly floods and is at times in-passable. Given that the water table is rising, the problem will increase.

Point 313 of the draft plan states 'New development sites must be resistant and resilient to flooding, to accord with the NPPF.' The trees in the Christmas tree farm at the back of Langcomb Road, currently assist to reduce the level of flooding. I am aware of the flood measures that can be taken for new developments, but the increased risk of flooding by removing the trees and the impact on the surrounding land would also need to be considered. This work would be very expensive and developers would 'overlook' the impact on the surrounding areas.

2. Roads/Congestion.

I believe that the road system in Shirley (and the wider impact on Solihull) would not cope with the amount of homes proposed in such a small area. Although road improvements can be made, there is a physical limit to the improvements. I have detailed above the negative impact of congestion.

As a society would should be looking to reduce travel by car. Building on green belt increased the need for the use of a car. Site 4 and 13, have no real bus services and Whitlocks End and Shirley train stations are overcrowded. It is impossible to park as either station past 9 am. The proposed increase number of residents, will not be able to use the trains. Both points add to the need to use a car.

With regards site 4 & 13, the proposed Affordable housing - should include those on lower incomes or disabilities, some of which would not be able to afford a car. How is it proposed for these disadvantaged people to access society if they can not travel?

With the additional planned build on the old CEGB site, the land by San Souci, the building planned by Bromsgrove Council near to site 4 & site 13 and the various other pockets of developments in Shirley which will already have an impact on the roads, for even more developments in a such a small area, the impact on the roads will be immense.

3. Increased Anti Social Behaviour(ASB) and Crime

Statistics show and in my experience, the building of new highly populated homes in small areas such as proposed for South Shirley increases ASB and crime. This increases the cost on the police service and support services. Residents health and well being is affected. We have a duty as a society to reduce risks not increase them. I would urge Solihull Council to learn from mistakes made by others and not make the same mistakes.

There is a public bridle way at the back of my house, if the development goes ahead, this should be removed. Various local authorities, including Birmingham and Redditch are spending £millions on removing alleyway. If the bridle way remains and a new development is built, it will be rife with ASB and crime. I can say this with authority from managing housing estates.

4. Loss of Green Belt and nature

From experience of living by site 13, it is rich with nature including, bats, woodpeckers, owls, field mice and many more. I am aware of the measures developers can take to reduce the impact such as building bat boxes, but in real terms, the bats do not stay long in the bat boxes they find alternative places to live. I strongly feel that the human race should protect wildlife and not be happy destroying their habitat, particularly when there are alternative areas for building.

5. Health and well being.

Many people use site 13 and site 4. I regularly walk with my children in site 13. We are all being encouraged to consider our health and well being to enrich our lives and also to reduce the financial strains on the NHS and other support services. To build on the sites, will have a negative impact and is clearly against the objectives in policy 14, policy 17 & policy 18.

6. Create more problems than it solves.

The problem of a 2 million housing shortage is a real problem and one that has been highlighted to government over many years. I am very glad to see that finally, some steps are being taken to address the problem. I would urge Solihull Council not to solve one problem by creating many more problems as I have highlighted above.

I do hope my views as a resident and as a professional are taken into consideration. Given my professional experience, I would be happy to volunteer my time to work with yourselves to help to problem solve, should you wish.

see attached letter

Further housing Dickens heath

Would like to raise our concerns about further housing proposals
1.Infra structure of roads ,drainage ,land etc will not be able to cope with further traffic, houses.
2.not enough shops doctors, schools solihull hospital not big enough a& e closing at times & not open to children.
3. What's happened to our green belt.?
4. Why can't you build where nobody is living i.e. blythe valley? Or is it if you build there council will not make as much profit as in our highly desirable area
4.DICKENS HEATH HAD VILLAGE STATUS what happens to that ? Do you care
5.where do you live ?
6.Where are our green spaces going to be . Our small back gardens is that it.?

see letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

I want to make my concerns and objections to allocation 4, 11, 12and 13 for housing development to be known.

As part of the community I feel any development will achieve nothing positive to our community. The attraction to living in this area is the fact that we can travel in one direction and get into town but go the other and find yourself in the middle of the countryside. What little could remains is precious and is an integral part to living in this community. If hosting development goes ahead onto these sites we will inevitably lose that reality we are so lucky to have currently.

Crime rate has massively increased in the dickens heath area coinciding with the new development that has recently being finished. Coincidental maybe or the social housing that has to be included with any new development may have a role to play?

This should absolutely no way go ahead. Hs2 is already destroying other parts of our local countryside why add is ultimately of injury with adding more destruction to our local awarebspputly and??

As a council you would object to any extensions or new development to current housing especially if breaching onto green belt which may I add I support. So why on earth is this anything different?instead of one house the treat is and Total exceeding 2000 houses???

Please accept this communication as my objection to the planning allocations 4, 11, 12 & 13. as referred to in the housing allocation scheme. My objections are as follows:

a. the proposed allocations are grossly over allocated as it represents a around 40%+ of the whole scheme in one small area of the Borough.

b. The four sites represent over 2500 houses in a small part of the Borough, proposed on mainly on precious green space.

c. There is insufficient infrastructure to cope with this extra demand to the local area. 2500 houses will result on average in an increase of approximately 5000 additional vehicles and 7,500+ people needing to use existing community services such as Doctor's, schools and roads not designed to cope with the extra traffic.

Travelling around the Borough at peak times, such as school drop off / pick up times and weekends already result in major delays with the excessive traffic that already comes from Dickens Heath. This will be exasperated beyond breaking point if this scale of house building goes ahead. Equally, it will add further pollution to the environment and affect the health and well being of those that have to walk amidst the traffic especially around the A34, Tanworth Lane areas.

This scheme adds little value to the HS2 access plans and will make the M42 unbearable and more akin to scenes from London's M25.

I profusely object to these plans and ask that they be considerably scaled back to a sensible build programme.

South Shirley Housing development

It is rare for me to make a compliant but I have to express my extreme concern about the scale of the proposed Housing developments in the South Shirley area (your ref: Allocations 11,12,13 and 4).

We already have a massive problem with traffic congestion in the Marshall Lake, Stratford Road, Blackford Road, Tanworth Lane area. Indeed at peak traffic times, the congestion is an effective deterrent to leaving home at all. If you add a further concern about the capacity of the local NHS system and the underfunding of schools in the area, then the proposal to build over two and a half thousand new homes, which will probably bring another five thousand cars to our roads, seems to be totally absurd.

Whilst I appreciate the national requirement for new homes, surely it is wrong to blindly pursue the delivery of numbers and ignore the quality of life of existing and new residents.

I do hope that a more moderate approach can be found which will avoid turning Shirley into a new town on the edge of Solihull.

Paws Off Our Green Belt

I recently received your flyer in regard to the housing plans for Shirley. Below is a draft of correspondence I was about to send to Solihull Council expressing my concerns. However, I think on reflection, it would be more appropriate to forward this to yourselves. I sincerely hope you can make voices heard at the appropriate level.

I would like to raise the issue of the proposed additional 1900 homes to be built on the greenfield sites at the Badgers Estate and by Whitlocks End Station (Allocation 13 and 4 respectively). I understand the commitment Solihull Council has to provide additional housing and in principle I have no firm objections.

However, I do not believe the current road system is ready for this. What sort of properties are going to be built at the Badgers location? I suspect they will not be 1 bedroom flats. More likely we will see developers building 3, 4 and 5 bedroom properties. This will inevitably attract families and affluent individuals/couples who are likely to have 2 cars.

How is the current road system going to cope?

Tanworth Lane is already difficult due to the Dickens Heath development and another 600 homes in this location is going to make Stretton Road and the roads that feed to it, as I see it, busier still. I am sure Solihull Council has not been as short sighted to not have not considered this.

The development at Whitlocks End Station is only going to exacerbate the situation. The likely roads the residents will use are Haslucks Green Road and subsequently Bills Lane and Shakespeare Drive. If you are not familiar with these routes then I will assure you that they not fit for purpose with the current traffic volume, let alone with additional cars needing to use them.

However, let's assume all the new residents work in Birmingham and will walk to the stations at Shirley and Whitlocks End. The current train network is really not geared up for this additional footfall. If you haven't travelled to Birmingham at peak time via train recently, I suggest you do just that.

The transport links are not my only concern. What about the schools? Woodlands is already fully subscribed and as a longstanding resident of the area I sincerely hope my daughter will secure place in September 2019. Can Burman Road, Tidbury Green and Dickens Heath cope?

As stated previously, I understand and appreciate the need to build additional houses. However, does Shirley have to accommodate everything? Are there no other acceptable development sites?

see attached letter

Solihull Draft Local Plan

I wish to record my objections to the proposed sites for housing at Tythe Barn Lane and Shirley South identified as Site A and Site B.

Solihull's development at Dickens Heath has had a massive effect on the traffic using the narrow roads through Majors Green and any development on Site A will add to the traffic on these already overcrowded roads. Site A would mean that Solihull was developing right up the boundary with Worcestershire and the green belt. I would have thought a more logical difrection for development for Dickens Heath would be to take in the land on the other side of the Stratford on Avon Canal bound by Tanworth Lane, Braggs Farm Lane, Lady Lane and Dickens Heath Road, and then continue over the other side of Tanworth Lane to the land bound by Tanworth Lane, Blackford Road, Creynolds Lane and Stratford Road. This would make access to the considerable better roads and the motorway network much easier and would give a much better traffic flow.

As said my main concern is the effect the proposed development will have to the roads and infrastructure or Worcestershire and particularly Majors Green. Solihull seem to be proposing these developments for their own benefit and with a complete disregard for the effect on and cost to their neighbours.

Solihull's motto is said to be Town in the Country but this proposed development, right up to the Worcestershire boundary, is in complete contradiction to that.

see attached response

As a resident of the Shakespeare Manor Estate I wish to voice my strong objections to your proposals to build new homes on sites designated as Allocation 11; 12; 13 and 4, which amount to 41% of the total Borough Council's proposed building plans in the Draft Local Plan.
I am not a NIMBY, merely a concerned resident who recognises the threat to the current infrastructure of roads, transport, schools and medical services in this area.
I am also aware that these proposals come on top of current developments taking place in Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green, not to mention planned Blythe Valley developments!!
I am particularly concerned about the impact on current residential roads which were not designed and cannot sustain significant increases in commuter traffic. Many are already 'rat-runs' for Dickens Heath and beyond.
I hope that due consideration will also be given to the need for an increase in local services including public transport, educational and medical services provision? With some 2,550 houses planned for South Shirley the logistics are mind-blowing! Let's assume that in 2,550 houses there will be an estimated a minimum of 850 school-age children.
It would appear that the sites in Shirley are a convenient 'cop-out' when it comes to arguing the demands from HS2 developments to the north-east of the Borough. The proposals are disproportionate and should be re-evaluated.
yours faithfully,

Ref: Letter in The Solihull News 10/02/17 "Housing plans are a cause for concern" & information generally circulating in area.

Based on this information being correct.

My wife and I are deeply concerned that you are considering development Shirley and green belt around us, with more than 6,000 homes over the next 20 years.

Recognising that the council has to meet government targets, all we are asking is that the developments are spread fairly over the Solihull Area.

The 41% in the plan, in just 4 x new developments near us being advised, seems hardly fair.

No doubt this list of concerns have already been logged with you:

* Added congestion to already busy roads, also resulting in higher levels of pollution and suggested links with related chronic conditions such as Parkinson's Disease, which my father who lived in Shirley died of
* Pressure on local doctors & dentists, never mind the pressure on struggling Hospitals
* The need for more schools and the knock on effect it will have on catchment area's
* Refuge: As it is we are at the extreme end of the Borough in relation to the refuse site at Bickenhill, resulting in a 1.5hr return journey down the M42 with all the congestion that it causes: Compounded with the fact that the Bickenhill site offers limited out of hours access and Shirley Residents cannot use Birmingham sites just a few miles away in Kings Norton and Tyseley
Would not it be beneficial anyway, for the environment, if a reciprocal arrangement was made with Birmingham Council for either residents to use each other sites
* The effect's on the natural wildlife, and flooding with large area's covered with buildings and tarmac
* Would Shirley be a desirable place to live in the future, with the increase in pollution, traffic and pressure on local services, with no green fields for general well being - We think not.
We are under the impression that based on the number of developments that have already taken place in the Shirley Area over the last few years and the proposed future developments, that Solihull Council have already decided that the Health and Welfare of the residents of Shirley is expendable.

Would not it be logistically sound, to have several smaller sites evenly spread over the Borough, as area's like Knowle, Dorridge, Bentley Heath, Bickenhill, are equally located conveniently to get onto the motorway system.

This would prove that Solihull Council do care about the people of Shirley and the future generations to come.

We would welcome your response.

To date I have not received any official information outlining the councils plans or reasons for new house building to meet central governments demands. However, I understand the figures quoted are 2,550 houses on 4 sites in four principle locations.
Having been a local resident for many years I can just about remember the village of Shirley, with its main street, a single road used only by horse and cart. Look at the whole area now, when shall we be applying for City status, " The Shirley and Solihull City".
I view the proposed building expansion programme to be horrendous, certainly not to the benefit of existing residents.
The first thing that comes to mind is the build up of traffic on existing roads, I'm still trying to come to terms with the existing overload of traffic from Dickens Heath village. The local infrastructure, shops, doctors, schools, parking will be inadequate to service an additional 8000 new residents, unless they all go to work during the day and return like a flock of starlings to roost at night. The only advantages that I see is extra employment for labour in the short term and some £4,000,000 extra in rate income (I wonder if we might get a rate reduction for all the trouble?)

We must not lose sight of the fact that life is for living. People have a need for a little open space, a walk in the country, a breath of fresh air and not be faced with continual traffic and noise.

No I would not adopt a selfish attitude and stand in the way of progress but, this is not progress but a means to an end until the next crises. Our local council have every right to tell central government enough is enough and go back to the drawing board and find other more suitable areas to house a growing population.

I wish to formally object to the four proposed construction sites in South Solihull.

Whist I understand Solihull Council has an obligation to build new homes in the Borough, I genuinely believe the the four sites are unsuitable.

The proposed sites will undoubtedly have a massive negative impact on our local community, not only will it destroy the beautiful green space space we all enjoy, it will add pressure to the already congested roads with the local area. Furthermore schools and doctors surgeries would not be able to cope with the increase in population.

FAO: Policy and Spatial Planning. Solihull SMC.

The reasons why we oppose the plans to build new houses on local green belt land are as follows:

1. We lose this green belt land forever. It changes the semi rural aspect of the area. We need all our green spaces!

2. They're unfair - 41% f houses in Solihull's plan are in 4 sites that neighbour our community.

3. They will have a negative impact on our community: aside from the loss of green space around and near our homes (and the benefit to community well-being that that brings), the propsed housing would create transport problems along an already busy and overcroded Haslucks Green Road, Bills lane, Tamworth Lane, Blackford Road and many of the roads that run between them. It could also have a detrimental affect on schools and doctors.

4. It won't help HS2: the draft Local Plan Review makes a lot of reference to the benefits to the borough from the HS2 interchange at the airport. However, Shirley will be one of the worst places in the borough to get to the new station. Areas to the east and North of the borough are more easy and natural access points that won't need to contend with the congested A43 and M42.

We would like our views as local people taken into consideration to cancel or at the very least severely scale back this all of this local plan. Allocation 13 should be in particular scrapped.