04 Dickens Heath - West of Dickens Heath

Proposed plans for new houses in Shirley

Whilst I agree with the building of new houses, which are very much needed, the proposed plan to build 2550 new homes in four sites so close together is not a good idea.
The schools will not cope, nor the doctors surgeries. The roads will be a nightmare, with all the extra traffic.
What will it be doing to our green belt? it will be a concrete jungle.
Please reconsider this proposal, surely there are brown sites which should be used before the green belt.
A disgruntled tax payer.

Solihull Local Draft Plan

As a resident in Majors Green I want to enter our protest against the proposed plan to fill up Thythe Barn Lane adjacent to Dickens Heath with a large amount of houses with no apparent thought given to the limited road infrastructure in the area.
Getting to and from access to the Stratford Road and the motorway system is difficult enough at busy periods, and access and parking at the Whitlocks End station car park is also a problem with the car park filling quickly at these times.

The amount of proposed building will no doubt exacerbate this congestion with the average of 2 cars per home adding to an already busy area. Also there seems no provision for an increase in medical practices or schools to support this growth explosion.

We are more than happy to agree that there is a great need for locost housing in the area, and if you had announced a plan for an increased road expansion, another Doctors surgery etc we would be happy to endorse your proposals, however this is not the case in your proposal so we will be protesting it in any way we can.

Green Belt Annihilation

This plan to build two & a half thousand new houses in an area already suffering from the Dickens Heath development in terms of loss of green belt land and extra road congestion in this area is preposterous. The 700 site adjoining Dickens Heath village looks as if it will mean losing several football pitches , including Highgate United and Leafield Athletic.

All this at a time when we are hearing daily about the harm to our health caused by pollution from the increasing numbers of vehicles on the roads of this country and the number of children who are suffering from obesity caused partly by not taking part in physical activities such as football, rugby, cricket etc.

I have lived in Bills Lane for over 30 years and the traffic here has got worse and worse, especially in the last 10 years. How this road and all the others in this vicinity are going to cope I dread to think.

Just a few miles from here in Earlswood there are several big building sites on green fields already being developed. The infrastructure is not there for the extra traffic to join the huge numbers already heading to Shirley , Solihull and Birmingham.

Surely there must be brown field and green sites elsewhere in the Borough that could be used for building a share of these 2,500 new dwellings.

Green belt devastation Whitlock's end, Shirley Heath Light Hall Farm

Although I recognise that it is pointless to complain I am nevertheless
doing so about the destruction of green belt land around Shirley.

An alternative plan would be to fill in the space between Solihull and
Coventry along the A45 corridor, in and around the NEC and beyond.

Why is it pointless? Planners ignore the views of residents (though they
call it 'taking residents' views into account'} as they have done with
respect to Parkgate, the Powergen site the relocation of the library, the
Sainsbury site and KFC all of which contribute to making Shirley a less
pleasant place in which to live.

Already the roads are crowded, Tanworth Lane Bill's Lane, Shakespeare Drive
and the Stratford Road but planners are never there early in the morning or
at school/work going home times - the traffic surveys they carry out are
mostly done in work time hours where the problem issues are not evident.

Proposed development of South Solihull

The 'Shirley area' has already has a massive amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction, Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural and subsidence issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. Building hundreds of new homes will cause the area to become grid locked.

With regard to public transport; the local train stations are are very small and not large enough to serve the additional demands of these large scale developments. There is already insufficient parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations. The existing infrastructure won't allow for hundreds of additional homes and families, for example; the lack of school places would mean building new ones or massively extending existing schools. The same applies for doctors surgeries.

Building on the above mentioned areas will see the destruction of many local amenities and recreational areas (including several sports fields), wildlife will also be destroyed. Many local people use the 'green areas' for different leisure activities, including walking, bird spotting, exercising, sport, dog walking etc.
I believe there are numerous more suitable alternative sites (including brown sites), for example to the east and north of Solihull closer to the HS2 interchange.

Proposed Green Belt Housing Allocation - Shirley, Solihull

I am contacting you to express my concern and strongly object to the proposed level of new Green Belt housing allocation in Shirley. Namely, Allocation 4, 11, 12 and 13 - rear of Woods Christmas Tree Farm and surrounding area.

As a Shirley resident for many years, and having watched Dickens Heath spread far beyond the original plan, it is shocking that Solihull Council are now proposing large areas of Green Belt land in this immediate area for housing. I appreciate that we need more housing in the Country - however, it is extremely unfair that Solihull MBC should expect Shirley to take 41% of the total Borough requirements. Local Doctors surgeries and schools are already at breaking point, and we have already seen several new developments in the vicinity to the proposed allocated sites.

My concerns are :

Loss of Green Belt
Loss of green spaces for Local residents (this is the only green open area in Shirley which can be accessed without having to use a car)
Negative impact on our community - putting more pressure on the local infrastructure
Transport issues on surrounding roads - we already have major problems during peak times on Tanworth Lane, Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Haslucks Green Road and Dickens Heath Road

Allocation 13 is of particular concern - this area is used every day (by myself included) to walk dogs, jog and generally walk and enjoy open fields. I know of several elderly residents who would not be able to access open spaces if this particular development of allocation 13 should take place. On a daily basis, there are groups of our older residents walking their dogs and chatting with other local residents, this is often the only contact they have with other people.

I would urge that a review of these allocations take place.

The proposed building on Green belt around Shirley

As a resident of Hurdis Road in Shirley, I would like to express my concern over the proposed building on green belt around the Whitlocks end and Shirley Heath areas of Shirley.

I believe that the proposed increase in over 2,500 houses is unfair as 41% are in sites that neighbour our local community. This will have a negative impact upon the local community as follows:

* Loss of precious green belt
* Increased traffic on all local roads
* The car park at Shirley station is not big enough for purpose today let alone for a potentially huge increase in train travellers.
* Residents such as myself in Hurdis road will suffer increased noise and pollution as more people use this road as a 'rat run' from one end of Shirley to the other.
* Construction traffic will be intrusive and unwelcome.
* I doubt whether local schools will have the capacity for a considerable potential increase in pupils on roll.
* The above point applies to doctors surgeries and local hospitals.

Housing Plans for Shirley and nearby areas.

As a Shirley resident for more than 30 years I am shocked , horrified and angry that further housing development is planned on our ever decreasing green belt.
The developments on Allocations 4 , 11 , 12 ,13 will not only deplete our green belt with its intrisic benefits but will cause major problems with traffic on the existing roads ,overload medical services and drastically affect local schools.
In particular Allocations 12and 13 are totally unacceptable. Allocation 11 may be feasible and a reduced Allocation4 may also be acceptable.
We know Solihull has to build new houses but we already have more than or fair share in the area and if some is to facilitate the increase of population anticiopated by HS2 then this side of the borough is not where to build.
Roads are a particular problem! Is it acceptable to wait 10minutes to exit ones road onto Bills Lane? That has happened recently on a few occasions imagine what it would be like if these housing developments take place.
Yours Faithfully

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

Proposed planning for Shirley
SAY GOODBYE TO THE CUCKOO

I am writing to state my opposition to the 'proposed' building development in Shirley and the surrounding area.
To my heading: 'Say Goodbye to the Cuckoo'. Every year it is a complete and utter joy to hear the cuckoo when walking the fields. Many people come for miles to spot and listen to the cuckoo. This bird is on the official site for the most endangered species of bird and on the RED LIST, their numbers have decreased by 37% and we should be protecting these birds, not destroying their habitat.
Having attended the recent consultation meetings at various venues, not once have the council officers been able to give any information regarding the access to these developments, extra schools places, doctors surgeries, transport e.g. bus or train. I congratulate Solihull Council in their training of these officers in subterfuge.
For the past forty years, Shirley has been 'dumped' on by Solihull Council. We have seen our green open spaces eroded away on a systematic scale with Monkspath, Hillfield and Dickens Heath. Solihull Retail park was built in SHIRLEY. From the M42 the A3400 is one road of car dealerships leading into Shirley itself. Powergen was left derelict for more than twenty years when this could have been utilised in that time. Blythe Valley is now a Business Park. Now you proposed to fill in the remaining spaces, depriving the population of Shirley of many beautiful green open spaces full of wildlife, ancient oaks which will be chopped down and no doubt buildings will be demolished to make way for these homes.
It is a disgrace that you intend to build on football fields that our young people use, and what about the allotments that are within the area, will they be protected? I doubt it. I love to be able to say when walking the fields that I can go out in the summer months and see cows, sheep, goats, ducks and even reindeer. What about all the foxes, badgers, Muntjac dear, plus the numerous species of birds and the wonderful site of flocks of starlings swooping over the fields and hedge rows at dusk. We need these places for families to be able to take their children to learn to enjoy and protect their countryside, to know where their roast beef dinner comes from, not just a piece of meat on a plastic tray in the supermarket.
Where is the traffic supposed to go, what about the roads. It is a well known fact that people in Dickens Heath cannot get out of the village at certain times of the day, the traffic tailing back from as far as the Miller and Carter island because all of the traffic is heading towards the A3400 and on to Solihull. Commuters from Yardley Wood in Birmingham already make the journey to Whitlocks End Station to commute into Birmingham, because they are unable to park at Yardley Wood. Trains from Whitlocks End are very often only three carriages long and people are standing all the way to Birmingham having paid for a seat! It is obvious that more trains will be needed, more buses will be needed. Traffic from Tythe Barn Lane will have to come through Dickens Heath Village or along Haslucks Green Road and on to Bills Lane which is already congested in the mornings and evenings.
We build the smallest homes in Europe, to squeeze in as many homes as possible, It is well known that you would not be able to get a Fire Engine to homes in Dickens Heath because of traffic parked on the roads.
If the building development should go ahead, I can agree with the TWR site being utilised and reluctantly the Lighthall Farm site at least they would have a chance at travelling to the Stratford Road, being adjacent to it but I am opposed to all of this development. Solihull needs to look at the areas east of Shirley, Hampton in Arden, Knowle, Dorridge even the Green Burial Site has been given the go-ahead at Temple Balsall, was Shirley not considered for this? This would have been far more acceptable to the Shirley residents than the 6,150 homes. There is ample land on Widney Manor Road behind Solihull Sixth Form with direct access to Solihull and the M42. 'Urbs in Rure' Not for much longer.

Green Belt

I wish to express my concerns about recent plans to develop green belt fields around the Solihull borough for housing.

With plans to build an extra 2250 houses on four sites with potential an extra 4500+ people will have a detrimental impact on Transport promlems, Doctors, Schools and Hospitals. With regard to hospitals, instead of the goverment spending 65 billion pounds on HS2 and Britains defence sytem, surely they can spend some on the NHS to build more hospitals.

I digress, I have lived in Shirley all my life and been living in Hurdis Road for the past 42 years the volume of traffic has increased to a frightening level. As it runs parallel with the A34 Stratford Road, Hurdis Road and local roads are used as a cut through to the Stratford Road. It is more like living on the main road than a side road and the speed bumps do not have any effect for slowing the traffic down. A lot of traffic do well in excess of 30 mph. On all roads around estates the speed limit should be reduced to 20mph.

Solihull Doctors and Hospital are stretched now, don't know about schools. The impact of an additional 4500+ people to the area will be very detrimental.

Building on the GreenBelt

I object to your plans for several reasons.
Green belt land should only be used when brown belt land is not available. Has lucks Green Road is far too busy to take extra traffic.There are no footpaths in many places.New developments on this scale are ridiculous. Please reconsider

see attached documents

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

We are contacting you in response to the proposed housing allocation 13, for South Shirley.

The plans contain the potential for a very large amount of houses for a fairly small area in size.

Our main concerns are:

Impact to the environment:

All of the surrounding houses benefit from the bridle path and the escape to the countryside to which it gives.

This enhances health and quality of life whilst offering a safe place to exercise or walk dogs.

It also brings people together and gives a community feel.

The wildlife here would be affected by any development, which would be such a shame as we get a good variety of species over on these fields some of which are quite rare to spot in this part of the UK.

Also, many of the trees located here have been in place for many years - after destroying old trees in Shirley Park for the Parkgate development how can the council advocate this?

Large amount of houses within a small space:

Sites 4, 11, 12, 13 are all in very close proximity, with the potential of an extra 2,550 the area as it stands will not cope with that increase of people.

41% of the proposed houses are planned for Shirley. This seems an inordinate amount considering there are parts of the borough which are not having to take up this burden, but have sites that could provide adequate space for these houses without the need to destroy green field sites.

Impact on the local roads:

The roads around this area simply are not big enough to cope with extra traffic. The roads cannot cope with the traffic that currently uses them as it stands. Bills Lane connection with the Stratford Road (Staples Island) is extremely busy at peak times. I work by the airport and it can take me over 30 minutes to get into Solihull centre during these times.

Impact on school places:

Extra houses will mean extra demand for local schools, how will the council counter balance this? Local schools are struggling to offer places now. What will be done for the extra demand?

Impact on local train services:

Extra houses will place higher demand on local rail services going to Birmingham or Stratford. What would be done to counter balance this?

John catches the train from Shirley to Birmingham every day, from 0730 onwards it is very difficult to get at seat from Shirley, and the same in reverse from 1700 onwards.

The services are crowded to the point of overcrowding on a regular basis, and this is without the extra burden of more commuters moving into the area.

Will Centro be putting on extra trains, and extra carriages to cope with this extra demand?

Also the parking at Shirley and Whitlocks End stations is always full and it is nigh on impossible to get a space at either of these unless you travel very early in the morning.

Floodplain:

We often get quite a large amount of water at the bottom of our garden during winter months. Water is absorbed by the trees on the Christmas Tree Farm. Once this is removed we are going to have a lot more water coming into the garden. What will be done to prevent or asssit with this?

Disruption whilst working is being carried out:

Obviously we will be very close to the development area. Extra traffic, noise and general disruption is inevitable and it looks like it could be for quite a lengthy period of time.

Has any consideration been given to when this work would take place, ie to ensure that as little nuisance is caused to the residents of the area during 'non work' hours such as evenings and weekends as possible.

Youth activities:

There are 9 proposed sports clubs all within the same area that will have to close down as a result of these developments. This compounded with the loss of public open fields will mean a distinct lack of outside spaces to occupy young people. This will mean all the existing people who used these facilities will have nowhere available to them, let alone for the influx of new people who would be moving into the area.

This surely brings about the conditions where young people can become alienated through lack of healthy outside activities and as a knock on result this would no doubt bring on an increase in crime rates and anti social behaviour.


We feel generally that Solihull as a whole and especially the town of Shirley will lose a lot of the charm that first brought people into the area. Such an extreme project of development such as this will cause movement of people out of the area and further degrade the area that all the residents currently love.

We hope that all objections to the plans are taken into account and considered carefully towards any decisions that are ultimately made on this matter

Solihull Local Plan Review - Sport England consultation response
Sport England would like to make the following comments:

Borough wide Challenges
Sport England support the identification of Challenges H, J and K. These Challenges are consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and are consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.

Policy P15: Securing Design Quality
Sport England, in conjunction with Public Health England, has produced 'Active Design' (October 2015), a guide to planning new developments that create the right environment to help people get more active, more often in the interests of health and wellbeing. The guidance sets out ten key principles for ensuring new developments incorporate opportunities for people to take part in sport and physical activity. The Active Design principles are aimed at contributing towards the Government's desire for the planning system to promote healthy communities through good urban design. Sport England would commend the use of the guidance in the master planning process for new residential developments. The document can be downloaded via the following link:
http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/active-design/

Through our statutory role, non-statutory role (major housing schemes) and our involvement with strategy development (evidence base Para 73 of NPPF) and our involvement through the local plan process we seek to ensure that Active design is utilised in the determination of planning applications and is embedded in Planning Policy P15 in order to influence the design and promote healthy communities and active lifestyles.

Policy P18: Health and Well Being
Support is offered for the principle that provides support for proposals which encourage healthy and active lifestyles. This is consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.

The use of Health Impact Assessments for larger developments is welcomed as these can help ensure that developments give appropriate consideration to how environments can be created which allow healthy and active lifestyles to take place.

Policy P20: Provision for Open Space, Childrens Play, Sport, Recreation and Leisure
The protection and provision of sports facilities is supported. However it is not clear whether or not the reference to the protection of existing facilities in Part A of the policy includes playing fields. It would be useful to provide clarity in this regard.

Sport England considers that Part A of the policy should be more specific as to the clear evidence required to demonstrate that sports facilities (particularly if these include playing fields) are surplus to requirements. Sport England would only accept a robust and up-to-date strategic assessment (e.g. a Playing Pitch Strategy or Built Facilities Strategy).

Sport England object to the section of Part A of the policy which allows the loss of playing fields and other sporting facilities where there is a substantial community benefit. This approach does not accord with the relevant national planning policy contained within para 74 of the NPPF and it is not clear what 'substantial community benefit' would involve. The NPPF requires that the proposed development is for alternative sports provision, the need for which clearly outweighs the loss.

Part B should also reference the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy as the evidence base to demonstrate the need for playing pitches associated with the additional demand created by new housing developments. The occupiers of new development, especially residential, will generate demand for sporting provision. The existing provision within an area may not be able to accommodate this increased demand without exacerbating existing and/or predicted future deficiencies. Therefore, Sport England considers that new developments should contribute towards meeting the demand that they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. The level and nature of any provision should be informed by Solihull's forthcoming Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) and any future Built Facilities Strategy (BFS). It is anticipated that the Solihull PPS will be completed before the publication of the revised Solihull Local Plan.

If this demand is not adequately met then it may place additional pressure on existing sports facilities, thereby creating deficiencies in facility provision. In accordance with the NPPF, Sport England seeks to ensure that the development meets any new sports facility needs arising as a result of the development. Solihull Local Plan should reflect this need in its local policies.

Site Allocations
Sport England would object to the allocation of any sites which would result in the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities unless evidenced by a robust and up-to-date evidence, as required by paragraph 73 NPPF.

Sport England are aware that work is currently underway on the completion of an up-to-date Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS). The PPS should be used to determine whether or not the playing field proposed for allocation is surplus to sporting requirements by demonstrating that there is an excess of playing fields in the catchment. If this cannot be demonstrated then the playing field or formal recreation land would need to be replaced with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality.

In the absence of an up-to-date PPS to justify the loss of playing field (and other sporting facilities) or confirmation of replacement with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality Sport England object to site allocations 4, 8, 15, 16 and 18; these site allocations would result in the loss of playing field land and other sporting facilities. Sport England will also object to any other site allocations which involve the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities without the necessary evidence or replacement facilities.

save allocation 13 and 4

To whom this may concern,

Please can I make my objections clear to the planned build of houses on allocation 13 and allocation 4...I strongly object!!
My family, the dogs and I quite often use these areas of natural beauty for recreational walks where we are lucky enough to walk for miles, in fact, a Sunday afternoon is not complete without a good walk along some of these areas. We have fun spotting wildlife and feel really sad that you would consider using such areas of beauty to develop on!!! Let alone destroying the habitat of hundreds possibly thousands of animals! If the build goes ahead we will lose children's football pitches right at the time the government are trialling within schools to get children more active and a 'need to move' scheme!!
Then there is the matter of extra traffic on the surrounding roads, they can barely cope as it is!You should try and get off my drive of a morning and evening as it stands now!
There are also the schools which are full.
Then the doctors, you are lucky if you can get an appointment now!! So we can ill afford to put any of these under any extra stress or strain!
I understand redevelopments of old factories or dis-used offices and understand people need to live somewhere but please, not areas of beauty and wildlife.
I moved to Hall Green in 1984 with my parents trying to better themselves and to escape an area that had become really unsafe for families to grow up in, this was Alum Rock and whenever I go back now I could cry as it is so built up and heavily populated that it is now ruined...I now live in Shirley with my young family and love the fact that I don't have far to go before I am treated with some lovely views. I also know from experience that I can see the same thing happening all over again. Crime is up, children are bored and if you take away football and recreation areas and just add more people to this area you will further increase the problems.
Sorry to go on but I do feel very strong about this...

Save Allocation 13 And Allocation 4

I am a 12 year old boy from Shirley. I just wanted to make my objections about the plan to build houses on OUR GREEN BELT! Me and my family love taking the dogs for walks and getting some fresh air on a Sunday afternoon. I also play football for a team and I am worried that my teams training ground will be affected. There is also the fact of the wonderful birds, squirrels and other animals that live there. I think that you should be aware that you are destroying there habitat. I don't think you would be very happy if I came and built over your house I'm sure you would be very cross with me. Another thing you should be aware of is the amount of traffic that will be created by the extra people living in the houses, I can see Shirley becoming one of those areas that is overcrowded. Also if we keep building on these lovely green areas they will all disappear. I hope you take my objection into consideration as although I am young I feel very strongly about this as our lovely walks will be gone!

I am writing to place my objection to part of the Draft Local Plan proposed.

I fully accept the requirement for housing and the quicker an adopted plan can be bought in the better for all concerned.

My 1st objection stems around the proposed numbers allocated in the draft centering around the outskirts of Shirley (Areas 4, 11, 12, 13 - totalling 2550 in an area in very close proximity to each other), I have included Dickens Heath in the figures above as the traffic flow and population currently has major effects on the area and especially highway junctions around Tamworth Lane, Dog Kennel Lane at peak times.

My particular concern is area 13 allocated for circa 600no. units to the South of Shirley. This area of green belt is considerably well used and an asset to the local area. At present from my property there is a limited amount of open space accessible to the public within walking distance. We use this area regularly and other government initiatives of new schemes centre around accessibility to open space for all - I do not feel existing stock should suffer when not necessary. If this was to remain in the plan and subsequently developed where would the accessible open space be, sustainability of getting in car all the time to travel for a walk is not in anyway in the good for anyone. Shirley Park is too far for my children to walk to and from although a good facility it is not within walking distance to many hundreds of properties around the Shirley South area.

I would not object to the other sites identified in the Shirley area if area 13 was removed from the plan. I agree the TRW site, Blythe Valley and possibly the Dog Kennel Lane site as these have more infrastructure in place already. Could the new HS2 hub area be identified to take a little more.

To implement the Shirley schemes the highways infrastructure requirements would need reviewing along with the current medical allocation, Doctors surgeries have week waiting lists and Solihull hospital has had many cutbacks over the last few
years- would Solihull not warrant an A&E / Full maternity ward?

The 2nd objection follows on from and centres around the allocation around the borough which seems slightly biased towards certain areas - in particular the Shirley is of concern to myself which is where we currently live. Reviewing the allocated numbers my understanding is Solihull is taking circa 900, Meriden 50 units and Dorridge is not mentioned (this may be because Knowle and Balsall Common appear to be taking a generous amount) (but Shirley 2550).

I have been looking at the draft plan for my local area and can't believe the proposal of so many houses in one area, as highlighted the area is mainly green belt land that is proposed to be built on as it was when Dickens Heath was built.

The infer-structure in that area can not be fit to take all the extra vehicle this will bring to the area a number of the roads are country lanes and already breaking up with banks falling in.

Whitlocks end station is bedlam at rush hour and the need for the brights sign in the world to go up due to a number of accidents happening in the last year on the corner of Haslucks green road.

Many people ride their horses around this area and with the volume of traffic this will no longer be safe.

I would be interested to know the risk analysis increase to walkers/cyclist/horse riders for these proposed plans compared to before Dickens Heath and Since Dickens Heath.

My Opinion on Dickens Heath.
1. The roads are not wide enough - Common sense would dictate this.
2. The apartments are built with 1.5 spaces per 2 bed apartment.... This will obviously cause an overflow of cars badly parked.... To which your answer is to put down double yellow lines to enforce people parking. E.G If there are 10000 cars and 7500 spaces it is not that hard to work out what is going to happen.
3. Despite the above 2 issues you continue to build more apartments/house's which are only going to make things worse - plus I imagine there will be more parking wardons as it is like a gold mine for them and for the council.
4. Who the hell approved 40% social housing allowance on the new build estate's yet in rundown area's such as Rowley Regis they have new build plots with just 5% social housing on.
5. The infrastructure does not support the village and yet you allow more building to take place without improving this first - you are clearly just milking the area for as much cash as possible with little or no thought given about the residents.

Development of Green Belt for housing - Shirley

My husband and I, long term residents of Shirley are most concerned to see the possible sites for housing in the Draft Local Development Plan.
It would be such a retrograde step to build houses on the fields in this area.
Dickens Heath and Shirley would merge into one huge suburb, which wasn't the vision for Dickens Heath 'village.' There is considerable development there already threatening the gaps between Dickens Heath, Wythall and Earlswood.
The Dickens Heath development has greatly increased traffic on Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive and Haslucks Green road. The roads would not be able to cope with the increased traffic these developments would bring.
The green spaces are so important for everyones wellbeing, we need to keep them and look for brown field sites.
We hope that there better sites that can be used that won't have such an impact on our lives.

see written response attached

I wish to formally register my objections to the latest draft version of the local plan.

Whilst recognising the urgent need for additional housing due to the failure of successive central governments to ensure sufficient housing was built to meet the needs of a growing population and the ever changing demographic make up of the population and the additional demands this places on the national housing stock, your latest draft plan appears to be ill thought through in respect of local infrastructure and the ability to develop roads, hospitals etc which would be required to support a greatly increased local population. The plan is also widely biased in respect of building on green belt land. This potential "over development" of the green belt also appears to be contrary to the latest indicators being given by central government.

The proposed support to Birmingham City Council does not to me appear to be justified based on the vast swathes of derelict and undeveloped land within the City of Birmingham which could be regenerated to provide a modern living environment within the inner city and other ex industrial areas.

The focus on building on the Solihull green belt appears to be the "soft option" for both planners and developers.

My key objections are as follows:

1. The plan appears to be disproportionate across the borough with approximately 41% of the proposed new builds being in the Shirley/Dickens Heath locality

2. The plan does not align itself to the latest guidance from Central Government as reported in the national press. Solihull has a lot of large properties occupied by older residents who could be encouraged to down size releasing large properties free to be converted to multiple dwellings. Solihull as a whole offers numerous opportunities for "infilling". Whilst each development is possibly considered small a challenging overall target could be adopted. My perception is as a council you have resisted such developments in the past. Such developments also offer a more balanced impact on the local infrastructure and facilities.

3. Whilst I acknowledge your detailed plan for infrastructure improvements are not yet developed it is obvious to the "layman" that the local roads and other facilities are already at peak capacity at certain times and the availability of parking at local railway stations is already insufficient before several thousand new houses are built.

4. Logically the 2000+ houses proposed for the Shirley/Dickens Heath area are likely to equate to at least 3000 additional cars using the local roads (I acknowledge the potentially improved roads) which will all result in a reduction of our air quality. Great emphasis is placed by the medical profession on the need for fresh unpolluted air, recreational space and the participation in sport and leisure activities. Your proposals will severely impact the lives of many local residents by reducing recreational and public amenity space, the destruction of many popular countryside walks, the loss of up to nine sports pitches used by all age groups and the destruction of the local Christmas tree farm which presently benefits the local area by naturally absorbing carbon dioxide and purifying the air we breathe.

5. All of the existing open green belt land also supports a variety of wildlife some of which I believe to be protected species (bats and voles to my knowledge). Your plan does not address this issue. Your plan also includes land where there are numerous well established oak trees, which also form part of the hedgerow, and offer homes to other wildlife species. I cannot find any detailed reference to this in your proposals and surely as planners you have duties in this respect.

6. Your plan, and observations from meetings I have attended, appears to make great play of HS2 and the benefits this will bring to both the region and the locality. It has been stated that we need to seize the opportunities and the additional housing forms part of this strategy. However, your plan does not reflect on the practicalities regarding the limitations of the existing local infrastructure and any potential improvements you can make. The journey to the HS2 terminal area is already a "nightmare" and can only get worse with further development. The M42 between junctions 4 and 6 is already at capacity for large parts of the day and I believe one of the busiest stretches of motorway on the national network which is unlikely to be further widened. Additional housing feeding this stretch of motorway can only result in further gridlock and will adversely impact on the image of Solihull as a place to come and do business.

To sum up my objections in a few words your proposals will have a significant adverse impact on the quality of my, my families and all other residents lives in terms of:

- our health and well being both physical and mental due to reduced air quality and increased noise pollution
- loss of amenity space
- extreme impact upon the local environment
-making Solihull, and in particular Shirley, a less attractive place to live, visit and promote due to the plan disproportionately focusing on Shirley/Dickens Heath

I would also like to make the following observations:

1. The land which it is proposed to build on in allocations 4, 11 and 13 is generally of poor "agricultural" quality. However, that in allocation 12 is of a better quality and is presently used to grow crops. How can this change of use be justified?

2. Most of the land in allocation 13 is presently used by the local Christmas tree farm. Whilst this is a relatively recent development as a resident of Langcomb Road, backing onto this site, the growth of the trees has significantly improved the historic flooding situation we used to have in our back gardens. The building of houses on this site will undoubtedly impact us and result in the flooding returning.

3. South Solihull is at the higher end of the housing costs range. Many local young adults wishing to get a place on the property ladder have to move away being unable to afford the local prices. I note that a number of other councils make provisions in their plans and planning approvals process that a significant proportion of new build houses must be both affordable and allocated to those presently on the councils electoral roll (at least one of the buyers). I can not see reference to this in your plan ( I believe it may bring you more support). Is this something you intend to address?

I strongly recommend your proposals are revisited focusing on:

-A more balanced allocation of development across all areas of Solihull
- Recognise that Birmingham Council has the ability, admittedly through hard work and the investment of more time, to address their own issues without Solihull being called upon to "bail them out".
- More focus on the impact the size of the proposed developments will have on existing inhabitants in particular their physical and mental health
- Recognising that some times the more difficult options (brownfield and infilling) should be tackled rather that the soft green belt
- Recognition of the recent well publisised guidance from key central government figures about building on green belt

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on your proposals.

Draft Local Development Plan- South Shirley

As residents of Blackford Road we are concerned about the draft consultation proposals in this and surrounding areas.

In recent years this area has already seen the development of Dickens Heath and at present the two phases at Cheswick Place. During the morning & evening rush hours, Blackford Road has become very busy with Tamworth Lane and Dog Kennel Lane all now regularly having tailbacks of traffic. Stratford Road is also almost at a standstill in the morning, from Cranmore Road to Monkspath Hall Road.

The proposed further development of 2550 houses will only serve to increase the strain on the infrastructure causing other problems including air and sound pollution.

This area should not loose anymore green space which benefits the community and our health. The green corridor with access to the canal and countryside beyond should be retained.There should also be green belt between South Shirley and the built area of Dickens Heath.

It would be preferable to see a fairer distribution across the Borough rather than 2550 houses, in addition to those already in the process of construction, being built in such close proximity to Shirley South.

I write regarding the planned development from the current edge of Dickens Heath to Whitlocks End and express my concern about the potential increase in traffic on the surrounding roads.

Over the past 14 years of living in Major's Green, we seen a significant increase in the volume of traffic and a change in the behaviour of drivers who use the roads of Major's Green in a way they were not designed for. In our end of Peterbrook Road, both our opposite neighbours and ourselves have had drivers lose control of their vehicles and enter our gardens. I know there are several others in adjoining roads who have experienced the same. Crossing our own road is not something we feel safe in doing and in the next few years, our children will need to walk themselves to school, which is quite terrifying.

Expanding the Dickens Heath development can only make things worse as people commute out of the area to work in Birmingham and elsewhere - the roads as they are just cannot sustain a significant further increase in the amount of traffic that is using it.

I am also completely dismayed by the plan to build on the football pitches at the end of Tythe Barn Lane. Our children have few enough opportunities to get sufficient physical exercise and the football clubs provide an ideal way for both boys and girls to play together and learn to work as a team. Even if alternative pitches are provided further afield, it will be more difficult for people to get there.

We love living in our area and really don't want to take that opportunity away from others, but I hope you will think very carefully about the surrounding roads and other infrastructure before approving so many more homes to be built on this green space.

see attached letter re: Dickens Heath

Objection to allocation 4 and 13

I am registering my objection to the proposed housing development. The loss of 9 football pitches and 2 rugby pitches is disgusting. The loss of our only direct access to countryside. We may as well live in Birmingham City Centre, what will be the difference? We chose to live in Shirley for a reason. where will our children play? where will the numerous football clubs re-allocate sensibly to? Where will our children ride their bikes? Where will we walk our dogs? Where will the wildlife go?

Having lived in Shirley for over 30 years I have witnessed many areas of greenbelt swallowed up - this is our only bit left!

The impact of these proposed houses will have a huge detrimental effect on Shirley and Dickens Heath and our intolerable strain on local services, Schools, Doctors and increase the already congested reads in the area.

Please re-visit the potential other areas in the borough that 'can' absorb some of this capacity. Surely Shirley cannot be the only area possible for 41% of the new housing that the borough has to build? Why lump it all in one small place that is already bursting at the seams?

If approved this will devastate a tranquil area and will bring misery to many families, and not just local families as for many years this area and Bridle Pathway has become recognised as a tranquil place of Beauty and a nature walk. Not to mention the cyclists, dog walkers, horse riders, etc...

Finally - and very worryingly - the many football clubs and rugby clubs that will simply be demolished leaving our children without clubs or open spaces or fitness. I believe they are all to be moved to the nearby 'Shirley Town' - which is laughable, considering we already struggle to fit in training and matches with the already overstretched population of children in Shirley. I cannot see a way in which you can extend Shirley Town and with the proposed amount of extra housing coming to the area, it will only bring with it more children. It will NOT work. Our children will definitely suffer if this goes ahead. The future of Shirley will change If this goes ahead, and certainly not for the better.

Yours sincerely

written response site 4 Dickens Heath

I wish to express my very strong objection to the proposed plans of 700 dwellings on a 41 hectare site to the West of Dickens Heath. Allocation 4.

The area concerned is green belt land which will be completely eroded to the Bromsgrove District border. This will result in there being no green belt buffer between the two council areas creating an urban sprawl. Building on the green belt should only be allowed 'in exceptional circumstances'. Under the government white paper it states " Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements" I do not believe the further expansion of Dickens Heath to be 'exceptional circumstances' as there are numerous options yet to be explored. I also understand that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses overspill from the Birmingham allocation. This seems unreasonable as there are numerous brownfield sites as well as public spaces and unused public buildings that should be considered first.

There will be a loss of ancient woodland, historic hedgerows, wildlife habitat and diverse ecosystems that can normally be found in such an area of green space. The loss of trees having a significant impact on air quality. Leisure facilities used by the community are also under threat.
The distance of the planned build from Dickens Heath village centre will encourage residents to use nearer facilities in neighbouring council areas and of course utilise their roads and infrastructure.

Majors Green has already taken a significant amount of additional traffic from the extension of Whitlocks End railway station car park. Those who cannot get in the car park are currently parking in our small roads and pavements in Majors Green. The planned further expansion of the car park is based on current useage, and this will encourage more cars to use the car park and subsequently more traffic through our 'village'.
We are currently struggling with the amount of traffic coming along Haslucks Green Road. The dangerous bend in Majors Green has seen over 30 accidents in 18 months. The recent addition of coloured tarmac is already buckling under the amount of cars using the road. Haslucks Green Road and surrounding roads are country lanes, they were not designed as a race through/cut through for fast cars from major urban developments. An additional 700 houses could mean an extra 1400 cars looking for a quick route out of Dickens Heath along roads across the boundary in Bromsgrove. There seems to be an encouragement by Solihull Council to direct traffic away from Dickens Heath village and on to surrounding country lanes, the majority of which travel down Tilehouse Lane and then Haslucks Green Road.
Surely encouragement should be given for people to walk to the station, provide proper wide footpaths and adequate safe street lighting instead of further polluting our countryside on a short journey to the station
Further building in Dickens Heath West will be detrimental to the area and put an intolerable strain on the already struggling doctors surgeries and schools.

Flooding will be an issue. Majors Green is regularly 'cut off' when we have heavy rain with flooding in Tilehouse Lane, Haslucks Green Road & Aqueduct Road. Further building will only exacerbate this situation

In summary, whilst we understand there is a need for more housing please give serious consideration to alternative sites such as those on the list of 'call for sites' submissions and Blythe Valley/M42 corridor. The plan appears disproportionate with 41% of the housing planned for 4 sites which neighbour our community. Having lived in Majors Green for 31 years we have seen and embraced many changes. We have invested in the local community and use the facilities that are currently under threat. Please do not take away the green space we enjoy regularly as walkers and for leisure. This will significantly impact on our quality of life. Please protect our green belt and the semi rural aspect of our area. To quote Bill Bryson , previous President of Campaign to Protect Rural England, "our countryside is the world's largest park .. all we have to do is look after it"...