04 Dickens Heath - West of Dickens Heath

Objection to Site 4 Land west of Dickens Heath

To Whom it May Concern

Please acknowledge NOT just receipt BUT that you have read and understood my concerns about this development.


I understand that The Solihull Metropolitan BoroughCouncil need to allocate sufficient land for at least 6,522 net additional homes to ensure sufficient housing land supply to deliver 15,029 additional homes in the period 2014-2033 but I would like someone with authority, some degree of responsibility and a feeling of duty to the residents of Tibbury Green & Dickens Heath to read and consider the objections such as those listed in my letter.

Site 4 Land west of Dickens Heath

See link below:-
http://www.solihull.gov.uk/Portals/0/Planning/LPR/Draft_Local_Plan_05.12.16.pdf

As a resident of Tidbury Green and a ratepayer of Dickens Heath, I object this proposal in the Green Belt for the following reasons:-

1. Green Belt - Residents wish to preserve the green belt as much as possible to prevent merging with neighbouring settlements including Tidbury Green, Wythall, Chiswick Green, Tamworth In Arden, Blythe Valley.
2. Loss of woodland and trees, how do you feel about the adverse effect on the Local Wildlife Sites and loss of playing fields for your family & their children?
3. Traffic and congestion -everyone, be they a pedestrian, cyclist or just pulling your car out of a driveway knows how dangerous things are getting, must have a concern with traffic and congestion, which will only get significantly worse as a result of any further development. Generally, the entire road network around Dickens Heath, Tidbury Green, Chiswick Green, Hockley Heath & Tamworth in Arden is in a very poor state, both in terms of road surface and road safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Tidbury Green residents use Dickens Heath shops and facilities and the parking there is already inadequate without further development. More importantly, there doesn't appear to be any way to improve the parking situation in the village, making the new development proposals unsustainable because they are too far away for walking to the facilities in the village centre and would therefore increase car usage, resulting in further pressure on parking and further gridlock. This is the thin edge of the wedge before these roads become an arterial road! Can you imagine the noise? Goodbye tranquility. I personally have had to give up a my lifetime passion of cycling because of several near misses / accidents through speeding commuting traffic and HGVs!
4. There are also concerns about school places and the ability of the current medical services to cope. Tidbury Green School would have to be extended further.
5. The impact of the development would mean certain businesses closing down - you may not have enjoyed the fun of eating or visiting Akamba, but they have played an important role as an important local employer and facility.
6. We need the Site selection to distribute new housing fairly across the Borough to include extending existing urban areas to defendable boundaries while avoiding coalescence between rural villages. A case in points the concern over a disproportionate number of homes being proposed in the Blythe area.
7. The density of housing conflicts with the nature and characteristics of Tidbury Green. The closing gap between Wythall, Tidbury Green and Dickens Heath is contributing to the loss of identity of these historic communities.



In summary there are no exceptional circumstances for changing the boundary to allow 700 new houses on the land proposed on Site 4 west of Dickens Heath.


Finally, why is it yet again this part of the Borough which is being blighted by so much building, we have had more than our fair share over the past 20 years, with Dickens Heath, the addition to Cheswick Green , plus the two new developments in Tidbury Green. This whole area is changing so fast, all the smaller villages are loosing their identities, and being enveloped into one huge concrete jungle, where does it stop!

Could you at least do me the honour of acknowledging that you have read and understood these issues from a residents point of view, and not as a Council who just needs to fulfil its building quota.

Yours faithfully,

see letter

I have received a leaflet asking me to comment upon the proposed housing on 'green belt' land around Shirley/Whitlocks End.

I am aware that Solihull Council have targets set by central government which you have to meet but as realistic as I am I cannot help thinking that 41% of your target being proposed adjacent to existing conurbations is rather too many. You can have no understanding of the increased traffic we have experienced since the last tranche of houses were built in Dicken's Heath and where I live, on Haslucks Green Road (514) which seems to be the centre of road closures, we have experienced months of disruption at the Green Lane Junction. With the next total road closure to start Monday 20th February to 28th April we will experience the kind of horror that your proposal will virtually make a permanent feature. It would have been interesting had you had some alternatives or indeed considered spreading the load out across the borough. Brueton Park perhaps?

Objections to Draft Local Plan for 6150 new homes in Solihull district.

I would like to raise the following concerns and objections that relate to the 41% of new homes being built in the South Shirley area, in particular Allocation 13. The building of what will be 2550 new homes in the south Shirley area will have serious implications for the local community.

1. I object strongly to the fact that Solihull MBC will take 2000 homes from Birmingham's housing requirements when no such deal has been struck by BCC with its other neighbour Bromsgrove Council. Solihull has already paid the price for its autonomy when it was forced to take Chelsmley Wood under its jurisdiction when it wanted independence.
2. The 2550 homes in South Shirley, allocations 4,11, 12 and 13 will have a serious impact on what are already congested roads: Stratford Rd and M42, Bills Lane, Tamworth Lane, Dog Kennel Lane, Haslucks Green Rd and Blackford Rd. Other roads such as Shakespeare Drive will become even more congested "Rat Runs."
3. The loss of green belt between Badgers Estate and Woodlands Estate and the proposed Allocation 13 will impact on the health and wellbeing of the community, as this area is used by so many for exercise, recreation and dog walking.
4. The plan will also remove six sports fields from the area at a time when the Government is trying to promote healthy living through exercise. Will these local sports facilities be replaced? Unlikely!
5. Local services will be effected, schools and GP surgeries the most. Solihull Hospital will be affected with longer waiting lists or patients moved to Heartlands Hospital which effects patients and relatives alike.
6. High density housing is not in keeping with the rest of the homes built in Shirley and Solihull and will be detrimental to the borough.



I feel the people of South Shirley and Dickens Heath are being treated very unfairly by bearing the brunt of this proposed development when there are other sites that could be used around the borough which the council has already identified. They may not be so attractive to developers, but aren't we the people who already live in the area more important. We all chose to live in the Solihull borough because it is a great place to live with well laid out estates with space to live with good community spirit and sense of pride in where we live.



Whilst I understand the position Solihull MBC is now in due to this government directive, you our council also have a huge responsibility to the people who live in the borough. Your major concern should be for the communities that already live here, you should concentrate on reducing as much as possible the impact on the lives of people of South Shirley and Dickens Heath this proposed plan will have.

I would like to raise our objections to the Local planning proposal that effects us directly as we back on to area of Woods Farm Christmas trees where plans for circa 600 new houses are being considered.

The surrounding roads near to the proposed area are already heavily congested and we are convinced that this will grind Shirley to a gridlock with the additional cars that the proposed new houses will bring to the area.

The trains that commute from Whitlocks End to Snow Hill Station are already full to capacity (seats are a premuim at times - Mainly Standing Room Only) during peak times as are the car parks at each station
so again this is another valid reason for lodging our objection as the rail network will not cope with the additional rail passengers the proposed new houses will bring to the area.

Not only are you considering buiding houses on Green belt land which will effect a vast number of people who use the land for recreational and social purposes, the additional plans to build more houses on land near to Whitlocks End Station which will see the closure of 4 Football Clubs and 1 Rugby club will be a recipe for disaster.

It goes without saying that anti social behaviour and crime rates will definitely increase as the expanded youth community that the new houses will bring look to entertain themselves with existing youth community who have seen their opportunities to play sport disappear.

Whilst we appreciate the increasing population will require new houses we strongly believe that for the reasons detailed above other sites especially brownfield sites need to be exhausted before you consider building on the beautiful green belt land to the back of our house.

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 must express my concerns over the proposed developments - Allocation 13, 12, 11 and 4.

I understand the need for housing, but this proposal for 2550 houses in such a small, already congested area is really far too excessive.

Has any thought been given to the roads around this area? I live in Tyberry Close, and my 2.5 - 3 mile commute to work (depending on which congested road I decide to take) takes me anywhere between 20 to 30 minutes in the morning. I know it's not a huge commute, but when I crawl along at a pace averaging 6-8 miles an hour, along with hundreds of other commuters, I wonder what this is doing for the environment. With the addition of all these houses, the pollution and number of vehicles will only get worse.

Its so sad to see such a loss of green space. I grew up before Dickens Heath was built, I kept my pony on Dickens Heath Road and rode around those lanes when they were all fields. It was bad enough when all that green space was lost. We've already lost part of Shirley Park, there's more houses going up in Tidbury Green and the loss of countryside to this huge urban sprawl can only be detrimental to the community. We live in a world of obesity, kids growing up overweight, the NHS is have a crisis, the loss of green space and clean air does not encourage people to get out and exercise.

We love to walk though the Christmas Tree Farm and down by the canals, it's just so sad that there will be 600 houses there.

It wasn't too long ago that a mosque was refused on Dog Kennel Lane due to possible transport issues - How can 1250 homes be any better?

I see that HS2 has been made an excuse for all this too - I struggle to get to work locally, how on earth could this be a good commuting area for the HS2 Interchange?

I am massively disappointed and saddened to see this plan. I do understand the need for additional housing and that this has been agreed, but maybe a reduction in the number of houses could be considered? I really hope that the concerns of the local community are taken into account.

Urbs in Rure = Town in County - not for much longer I fear....

Kind regards

Objections and Comments on Shirley allocation plot 13

I 100% agree with what Shirley Heath has put. We won the battle years ago when they wanted to build a football stadium and will most certainly try our best to win this battle too. If there wasn't many people coming into this small country we would not have this housing crisis. I mean how many people per square mile in this country compared to other much larger countries than ours.
We can't just keep taking away our green belts. What's going to happen once they are all gone????


I am writing to register my objection to the development of Shirley South. Particularly Allocation number 13 which is designated green belt land.

Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of the new housing in the borough. This is disproportionate and unfair. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
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 believe that there are numerous options yet to be explored and have yet to see the exhausted list of alternatives that have been investigated.

The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In this case HS2, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to the proposed developments.
The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter is like a racetrack. As are some of the local rat runs such as Stretton Road which constranly has drivers coming along the road at ridiculous speeds, in an area with two schools and a large elderly community.
The addition of thousands on new homes will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.

I drove down Marshall Lake Road today into the centre of Solihull and it took 35 minutes to travel just over a mile, the new traffic lights have made the situation worst the routes into the town centre are already creaking.

In terms of other public transport, the local rail stations are not fit for purpose, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations.

In addition to the problem of infrastructure, the area is not set up to facilitate a large number of potential new families. It is already veirtually impossible to get your child into the secondary school of your choice. What will happen to the catchment area of schools in the borough. In my particular area, residents have been bounced back from Alderbrook and Tudor Grange over the years by the Monkspath and Hillfield developments and latterly Dickens Heath. If this development were to go ahead, there would need to be provision for either school extensions or new schools. This again would require more space to be taken up.

Solihull hospital has been downgraded over the years and no longer has a paediatric department, the closest hospital being Heartlands. The trip to Heartlands is an absolute nightmare in traffic and can take over an hour.

In terms of Allocation 13. This is an area that has over the years has become a is a very popular recreation and amenity area, popular with families, dog walkers, ramblers etc.

The area has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land and even evergreen forest. There is a network of drainage ditches and well-established farm ponds and also a sink area which is effectively bog land. The area is very wet and for the most part of the winter is very boggy and forms a flood plain due to the very high water table and the constituent soil composition.
This results in heavy flooding across most of this low lying area. Many of the houses that back onto the fields in Langcomb Road experience flooding in their back gardens on a regular basis. A phenomenon that has reduced to an extent following the intensive planting of Christmas trees in the field adjacent to the gardens.
The network of ditches and ponds provides a varied eco system and I have seen frogs, toads and newts, along with Muntjac Deer, Cuckoo, Woodpecker and birds of prey. In addition in the meadowland and the marshy areas there are numerous wild flowers, I am not qualified to identify them but I feel you should carry out an in-depth wildlife and ecosystem survey at the correct time of year before a decision is made

In addition part of the area was granted to the stewardship of the Laker Centre on the completion of the Woodlands Estate. I am led to believe that the Layca Committee purchased the fencing around this area and also contribute to its upkeep. I would argue that the whole of area 13, by custom and practice over the last 40 years is by default a very important amenity area. On only has to look at the well-worn footpaths. This is indeed the lung of Shirley, the place to which people from many surrounding areas come to breath. Also, I am led to believe that any developments that affect a local communities quality of life should be offset. I feel that Allocation 13 should become a recognised conservation and public amenity area serving Shirley South. Shirley Park is woefully small and dog owners now are restricted to a tiny fenced in dog area.

I am also concerned about the nature of housing in this area. It is a well-known fact that houses in the South of the Borough command extremely high prices. I do not believe that the houses build will be affordable by the young people. They will be 3, 4, 5 bed houses with a small contingent of affordable houses that will probably be bought up by wealth buy to let landlords and exacerbate the issues with high rents etc.

The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses.

Slightly further south of allocation 13 the loss of a number of sports fields will deprive the local community of the opportunity of recreational activities and again reduce open space, this gives further argument to Allocation 13 being designated a conservation and amenity area.
In addition, the government states that the housing contracts should go to smaller companies using innovative methods, and promote self build and housing associations. Is this in the plan.

Alternatives to developing green belt sites are numerous and I am not convinced that all possibilities have been exhausted, both in smarter use of land and also locations

Thinking outside the box, flat areas of car park such as NEC and airport could be converted to multistory and the land save could be developed right on the door step of HS2 and also to compliment the recent resort World Complex.

This would alleviate pressure on south to north traffic flow. In addition, this would be the use of brownfield sites.
In addition to this, the proposed JLR site on Damson Lane, is purely a financial gain for the company to reduce freight costs. Why not build houses in that area instead. That would mean that the houses were in the right area. That is north of the town centre on the main arterial route of the A45, which has been developed to handle a large amount of traffic. The cost of JLR distribution is not the taxpayers concern. Or alternatively, why not build on the Land Rover Sports field as a trade off with the company, very few employees actually use the sports field.

There is also the possibility of buying larger houses in Solihull which have huge gardens and developing small estates with mews or flats as opposed to the exclusive developments that are cropping up along Blossomfield Road

Along with these ideas I have come up with a number of alternative areas which are more suitably located and are smaller pocket developments as per the governments' requirements. They are for the most part also in more affordable areas of the borough, see below

Land Pockets between
A452 / A45 / M42
A452 / Coleshill Heath Road / M42
Bickenhill Lane / B4438 / Westerly direction
B4438 / M42 / A45
Hampton Lane / A41 / M42

Finally, I am led to believe that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses from the Birmingham Allocation. This is regardless of the fact that there are many brownfield sites and public open spaces that should be used before greenbelt as per the previously mentioned government document. I would urge you to push back to Birmingham City Council on this matter.

As an example I walked along Fazeley Street last week, I saw a number of brownfield sites being used as cheap car parking and also overgrown areas with rubble etc and a large grassy area devoid of natural life Public space). Can you please ensure that Birmingham City Council fully research and address all of their brownfield sites before Solihull rolls over and gives away our green belt.

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

Solihull Local Plan review - particular interest in Shirley and Allocation 13
Please find my own thoughts on some of the proposals put forward for the new local plan. I am a resident of Shirley and live on Blackford Road (B4102) so these proposals do raise some concerns.

* I believe that the density of proposals affecting Shirley South is too high. Allocations 4, 11, 12, 13 will all have a very large impact on the area with respect to transport, schooling and healthcare facilities such as GPs in what is an already congested and high density of dwellings area.
* As a resident of Blackford Road my main concern is the huge increase in traffic that this will bring. Without clear proposals regarding road infrastructure and transport it is difficult to see the positives going forward of any development. Although I am not against the building of new homes completely.
* Blackford Road has a history of structural problems and has been repaired 4 times since I have lived here (2010), once closed for 6 weeks. I don't believe this route is viable if traffic is going to increase.
* If the road infrastructure was reviewed BEFORE building, more effort could be made to modify the roundabout system at the end of Dickens Heath Road to promote the use of Dog Kennel Lane which would then disperse traffic across a number of routes into Solihull and beyond. Any development could be built meaning new residents are not fronting straight onto the road and negative impact to them would be minimised too
* Allocation 13 reduces the buffer between Shirley and Dickens Heath too much. This is not seen elsewhere in the borough.
* Allocation 12 and 13 are not currently well served by public transport - in fact they are quite far away from the local train stations (Shirley and Whitlocks End), too far for most people to walk. Shirley and Whitlocks End both have carparks that cannot meet existing demand and it is currently not safe to cycle due to the poor road layout in the area (particularly leaving Dickens Heath towards Whitlocks End).
* All Shirley sites would not obviously benefit from HS2 - should there be a greater effort to place housing within reach of this valuable new route?
* I am very against Allocation 13 being adopted in this plan. It currently is accessible to all, offers a near "rural" experience within walking distance of most Shirley residents and is not currently served well by the existing road network. Too much habitat for wildlife will be lost and the infrastructure changes needed would be great and disruptive.
* Allocation 13 is a valuable habitat and maintains a healthy buffer and green corridor to de-lineate Shirley from Dickens Heath so the two areas can maintain their distinct community identity.
* Allocation 13 would remove accessible amenity land from some of the most affordable homes in the area and seems to work against the promotion of healthy lifestyles for all. Please look again at this as a proposal.
* I would like to see a reduction in the allocation burden on the Shirley area overall and particularly want Allocation 13 dropped.
* I would like to see a more even spread across the borough - perhaps in the form of smaller developments to include houses that are affordable in the more affluent/expensive areas.
* I would like a reassurance that the council will protect as many green spaces as possible including hedges and trees on existing roads to maintain the motto of Solihull Urbs in Rure. These enhance the experience of living in the borough and can aid the pollution problem caused by congested roads if maintained and planted well.



I thought I would try to put forward some positives.

* The council look like they are going to use the B4102 as a main route into Solihull. The road network using the Monkspath Hall route is already in a much better state to take additional traffic and delivers the road user to an area of parking with close links into the centre of town (and possibly to the new train station if it moves). The properties built in this area tend to have been built away from the main road and this could mean detrimental impact is minimised to residents (unlike around Blackford Road and Tanworth Lane which both have a range of aged properties that front directly onto the road with small front gardens.) The Monkspath Hall route support enhanced bus routes into Solihull. In fact if the station were there a new transport hub could be created and the land made available at the existing station given over to home building.
* Monkspath Hall Carparks take up a very large area of land - if the carpark was made multi- could land be released to build affordable flats? If affordable these homes could potentially serve the workers of the service industries in the town centre and might be an attractive proposition to the young of the borough. They would not need public transport or cars to access all that Solihull has to offer re. work and recreation but would have the benefit of great connectivity to Birmingham and London .
* Don't expand Touchwood for retail but put homes there instead. Touchwood is expensive for businesses to rent and increasing numbers of shops are leaving to set up elsewhere (for example Sports Direct which is moving to Shirley). If there are already empty retail units why make it bigger? Provide flats.
* Make any infrastructure changes before building commences. Don't leave it to the developers - they will do what is affordable to them not what is needed by the communities affected.
* The council needs to stop paying lip service to cycling and make it viable to those who are too fearful of the dangers. A dedicated cycle route into Solihull from the areas affected by the proposed sites e.g off the Stratford road, through Hillfield park. It is not enough to just paint some lines on an existing road.
* The council need to incentivise people to leave their cars at home/lift share.
* Parking permits should be introduced in the most congested areas eg Dickens Heath and the centre of Solihull - it might make people think twice about having a car and parking it on the roads if this were in place.
* Make Blythe Valley the new Dickens Heath by placing Allocation 13 houses there in addition to those already granted.
* Use the NEC carparks for housing and make multi storeys instead - this puts the new homes within reach of HS2.
* Enhance Shirley by placing more homes above the retail units on the Stratford Road for the benefit of the workers in the shops and businesses. This will enhance the feel of Shirley.
* Make protecting green spaces however small a priority. Even a hedge can enhance a road that might otherwise experience busy traffic.


I've tried not to make it too longwinded!

I write with reference to your published draft local plan review.

I agree that more houses are required in the Solihull area and that a Green Belt review is required due to a lack of brownfield sites.

My only concern with the current proposals is in relation to the loss of sports pitches to the west of Dickens Heath. I currently manage an under 10 team at Leafield where we are fortunate to have 5 teams at this age group and numerous other teams through from under 7 up to under 16 and there is a lot of current demand for the current sporting facilities. You also have to bear in mind that Wychall FC and Highgate United also have numerous teams currently using these facilities.

Clearly the pitches are extremely busy, and it strikes me as perverse that you are seeking to add to the local population yet are aiming to achieve this by removing well utilised sporting facilities which will be in greater demand in the future.

I would ask that the current football pitches are kept and upgraded if necessary and that greenbelt is released elsewhere.

Yours faithfully

Comments and representations of SMBC's draft Local Plan
This representation is made on behalf of Earlswood and Forshaw Heath Residents' Association which covers the northern area of the parish of Tanworth-in-Arden. There are approximately 1,600 residents in this area.

We wish to make representations as follows:

1. A significant number of the proposed developments are being built on Green Belt land. This is in direct contravention to the Conservative Election Manifesto of 2015. In particular:

P 53/84 Our commitment to you:
* give more people the chance to own their home by extending the Right to Buy to tenants of Housing Associations and create a Brownfield Fund to unlock homes on brownfield land;
* ensure local people have more control over planning and protect the Green Belt.

P 54/84 We will protect the Green Belt We have safeguarded national Green Belt protection and increased protection of important green spaces. We have abolished the Labour Government's top-down Regional Strategies which sought to delete the Green Belt in and around 30 towns and cities and introduced a new Local Green Space planning designation which allows councils and neighbourhood plans to give added protection to valuable local green spaces.

P 56/84 For Conservatives, Britain's 'green and pleasant land' is not some relic from a bygone era, to be mourned and missed: it's the living, breathing backdrop to our national life. Our moors and meadows, wildlife and nature, air and water are a crucial part of our national identity and make our country what it is. So we care about them deeply, want to protect them for everyone and pass them onto future generations.
Labour never understood this. Our rural communities fell further behind urban areas; biodiversity suffered, with important species and habitats declining under their watch; and they failed to protect the Green Belt.
Over the last five years, we have committed billions of pounds to reduce emissions from transport and clean up our rivers and seas. We have done more to protect our seas, safeguarded our Green Belt and planted 11 million trees. And we set out a comprehensive, long-term vision to protect our natural heritage in this country's first White Paper on the Natural Environment for 20 years.

We will protect the Green Belt, and maintain national protections for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and other environmental designations.

It is not clear to us how these proposed developments can be effected and still comply with the Government's commitment to protect the Green Belt when the Government hasn't announced any material changes to its Green Belt policies and would therefore oppose these developments as a consequence;

2. Again, for a number of SMBC's proposed development schemes outlined in the draft Local Plan that is out for review, there doesn't appear to have been any cross-boundary consultation or discussion. We cannot find any evidence of consultation or co-operation with Stratford upon Avon District Council. We understand that the duty to cooperate was created in the Localism Act 2011. It amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils in England and public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local and Marine Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters. As a number of these proposed developments have a heavy impact on the infrastructure and quality of life on the residents in our area, we would have expected some form of consultation. We refer in particular to proposed developments 4, 11, 12, 13 and the proposed alterations to Blythe Valley Business Park to substitute around 600 houses for business units, a purpose for which the development land designated as Blythe Valley Business Park was never granted.

As SMBC has not complied with the current planning legislation, we would reject your proposed developments on this ground too;

3. As a consequence of developments already undertaken by SMBC, the quality of life in our rural parish has changed dramatically over the past 20 years and none of it has been for the better. SMBC's developments have really increased the use of the infrastructure in our area and don't seem prepared to ever recompense SDC for this. We have been told that SMBC has deliberately designed its larger developments over the past number of years so that the traffic flows are diverted away from the centre of Solihull. This may or may not be true but it certainly seems that there are larger volumes of traffic coming from the north and east through our B road infrastructure as each development matures. We are therefore opposed in principle to SMBC pushing more traffic towards us without entering into some compensation scheme to recompense SDC for fair wear and tear of our infrastructure. Such recompense could be actioned under the Section 106 legislation or, simply, agreed between SMBC and SDC along the same lines.

We therefore see two legal challenges to your proposed future developments and one challenge, assuming that the two legal challenges fail, on the grounds of equity and decency.

I wish to register myself and my wife's complete opposition to the latest housing plan for the Solihull area.
We live on Haslucks Green Road in Majors Green and the amount of traffic that passes our home from Dickens Heath and the extended Whitlocks End station car park is a major hazard
To even contemplate huge numbers of additional housing in this area effectively joining Majors Green , Dickens Heath, Tilbury Green and Shirley beggars belief.
What happened to the protection of the green belt.?
This area is becoming one giant housing estate.
Two very angry residents.

We would like to register our objections to the above plan - we have been told that Solihull is planning to extend Dickens Heath to the Bromsgrove border - the railway line - eroding the Green Belt completely.
We object very strongly to this plan due to the congestion on the roads in the surrounding areas. We live on Drawbridge road which is a short cut from Wythall/Tidbury Green and Dickens Heath to Shirley - the traffic is enormous at peak times already. My daughter uses either Shirley or Whitlock's End station but sometimes has to park on our drive as the car parks are completely full at 8 am. Have you got any plans to extend these railway station car parks because it is already impossible to get a parking space during the week? Also trying to access the stations, especially Whitlock's End, at peak times is impossible with the amount of traffic in both directions. There is enough extra traffic already from Dickens Heath which causes major problems in the area.
We hope you will seriously reconsider this plan to extend Dickens Heath.

Firstly can I please say how difficult the process of forwarding a response on the above plan has proved to be. I am certain that most people will have given up trying to use the online portal and the complexity of all the items which have been included in the draft, far too many items for us all to digest and give appropriate responses to.

However, in my case I would like to address the possibility of the release of green belt land to the west of Dickens Heath, Site No 4, but would also add that some of my comments apply to the whole of the proposed developments within Blythe ward.

Whilst I am aware that Solihull Council are looking for sites for some 15,000+ houses, it would appear that a great deal of this housing is being 'patched' onto existing settlements, what I do not understand is why when roads throughout Solihull are full to bursting with traffic, do we not look to create a new village with all the infrastructure, close to or with good roads to access motorway. If this was built somewhere along the M42 - whilst I appreciate it would most likely have to come from greenbelt, at least there would not be such significant impact on existing roads and factilities. Also with sufficient space for extending this new village should the future require even further housing. When you look at how much countryside/greenbelt in large swathes we have within this borough, surely a stand alone village is the way to move forward. I am sure most people would rather a new village than continual erosion of the greenbelt that protects our villages and their character.

If this is option is not viable then surely any further housing should have direct access to Motorway or main/major arterial roads, in order to eliminate further congestion on our minor roads.

The site which has my most concern is No 4, west of Dickens Heath - Birchy Leasowes, Tileshouse Lane, Tythebarn Lane with the possibility of 700+ houses. Firstly this site which has scored a high 7-8 in greenbelt analysis, does not fall into the exceptional circumstances as directed by the government for releasing from greenbelt, you have had many other sites offered for development of which do not have 7-8 greenbelt rating. This site protects the urban sprawl from Whitlocks End, Tidbury Green and Shirley and is the natural boundary for Dickens Heath, it should be protected. Any development of this site would mean further strain on the existing gridlock around Dickens Heath, and also would not provide easy access to the Dickens Heath amenities, so residents would have to drive to the library, school, shops etc. Although I appreciate there is some assumption that most of the residents would use the train????????? most homes now have 2 cars and not everyone works in Birmingham, infact most people I know actually head for the M42, which is the other way.

Dickens Heath as a village cannot sustain any further development, our facilities cannot cope at present, so a further 700 houses is unbeleivable, particularly this site as it does not have any direct access to major arterial roads, and the roads surrounding the site cannot cope at present.

Dickens Heath will completely lose its identity and become an urban sprawl, which is against the guidelines which the government states.

Notwithstanding the fact that Blythe ward is being made to take a disproportionate amount of housing.

Lastly, as a resident of Dickens Heath, site No 4 was given greenbelt status in order to protect the 'new village' how can you therefore substantiate releasing it for development?

I wish to put forward my objection to your proposed development plans in South Shirley, specifically allocation 13, although I would also object to Allocations 4, 11 and 12.
I believe it is ludicrous to be contemplating development on this scale in Shirley, the road's in the area of these allocations struggle to cope with the amount of traffic daily as it is, Shirley and Whitlocks End stations are both packed daily, with the overflow vehicles from Shirley Station parking on nearby estates and causing chaos for residents, Schools are oversubscribed and there is already pressure on our health services and the addition of over 2500 new home's will push all these resources to breaking point.
My primary objection with Allocation 13 is that this area is much loved, well used public greenbelt and is home to a whole host of wildlife. I grew up in a tiny village in the middle of the Warwickshire Greenbelt which I loved, so was delighted to discover the open land a short walk from our home when I moved here. We, along with lot's of other locals, walk our dogs here, my children enjoy running round the fields and spotting the various creatures that live there, to lose all this would be a devastating loss to our community's wellbeing.
Aside from the effect on road's, public transport, schools, doctors and wildlife, there is also the fact that by building on this scale in Shirley is simply unfair, 41% of the entire boroughs allocation is here in Shirley, have we not done enough already, with the development of Dickens Heath and the Parkgate development (which lost us a fair bit of Shirley Park), not to mention the long awaited Powergen site.
In your proposals you talk about the benefits for the borough from the HS2 interchange, but Shirley will be one of the worst place's in the borough in regards to access to the new station.
I would ask you to reconsider your plans and leave our green area's as they are, a place for residents to enjoy and creatures to flourish.
Thankyou in advance for hopefully listening to the residents of Shirley

objection allocation 13

I am writing to register my objection to the development of Shirley South. Particularly Allocation number 13 which is designated green belt land.

Myself and my husband use allocation 13 ourselves come spring and summer with family members who live in the fercinty of the affected area.
The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller carter baxters road, baxters green, and sandfield close. is like a racetrack. As are some of the local rat runs such as Stretton Road, which constranly has drivers coming along the road at ridiculous speeds, in an area with two schools and a large elderly community. using short cuts round the local community of baxters road and baxters green as short cuts.
The green belt land is used for recreational use. dog walkers and families. spring and summertime these fields are used by families with children for playing and investigating wildlife. There is wildlife over the fields ie cuckoo's, woodpeckers, owls, newts and the list could just go on.
The addition of thousands on new homes will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.
In addition to the problem of infrastructure, the area is not set up to facilitate a large number of potential new families. It is already veirtually impossible to get your child into the secondary school of your choice. What will happen to the catchment area of schools in the borough. In my particular area, residents have been bounced back from Alderbrook and Tudor Grange over the years by the Monkspath and Hillfield developments and latterly Dickens Heath.
Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of the new housing in the borough. This is disproportionate and unfair. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
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 believe that there are numerous options yet to be explored and have yet to see the exhausted list of alternatives that have been investigated.

I am writing to register my objection to the development of Shirley South. Particularly Allocation number 13 which is designated green belt land.

Myself and my wife use allocation 13 ourselves come spring and summer with family members who live in the fercinty of the affected area.
The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller carter baxters road, baxters green, and sandfield close. is like a racetrack. As are some of the local rat runs such as Stretton Road, which constranly has drivers coming along the road at ridiculous speeds, in an area with two schools and a large elderly community. using short cuts round the local community of baxters road and baxters green as short cuts.
The green belt land is used for recreational use. dog walkers and families. spring and summertime these fields are used by families with children for playing and investigating wildlife. There is wildlife over the fields ie cuckoo's, woodpeckers, owls, newts and the list could just go on.
The addition of thousands on new homes will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.
In addition to the problem of infrastructure, the area is not set up to facilitate a large number of potential new families. It is already veirtually impossible to get your child into the secondary school of your choice. What will happen to the catchment area of schools in the borough. In my particular area, residents have been bounced back from Alderbrook and Tudor Grange over the years by the Monkspath and Hillfield developments and latterly Dickens Heath.
Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of the new housing in the borough. This is disproportionate and unfair. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
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 believe that there are numerous options yet to be explored and have yet to see the exhausted list of alternatives that have been investigated.

Without prejudice, Objection to the Solihull Local Plan.

Specifically the proposed developments at Allocations 11, 13, 12 & 4.

South Shirley has been allocated a potential 2500+ houses, some 41% of the entire borough allocation.
This is massively disproportionate and completely unsustainable.

It is also inconsistent with the spatial strategy and the draft local plan policies.

The scale of the proposed developments fails to take into account the catastrophic impact on local services, infrastructure and local community.

The proposed scale of the development in south Shirley/Dickens Heath would lead to the total and unacceptable loss of the identity and character of the area as a whole.

The fact that the council has failed to provide credible evidence it has explored suitable alternative Brownfield sites to accommodate the developments and instead has opted to near eradicate the greenbelt south of Shirley.

Aside from the loss of green space around our homes and the benefits to the community health and wellbeing that brings, the proposed housing would create further transport problems along the A34 corridor, Haslucks Green Road, Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Tamworth Lane, Blackford Road, Tilehouse Lane and many of the roads that run between. It will also have a detrimental impact on already oversubscribed Schools Hospitals and GP's.

The road and rail network in this area is already at, or near capacity and cannot sustain this scale of development even with investment, in some cases it is near impossible to widen routes to cope with the extra volume. Add to that the fact that both Shirley and Whitlocks End Stations cannot accommodate the volume of vehicles already attempting to use both with commuters already blocking local residential roads to park, a development on this scale is ill conceived folly at best.

Allocation 13 serves, and has served the local community as a valuable amenity area. The fact that is also greenbelt seems to have been entirely overlooked, we, the residents of Shirley are devastated at news of this potential development, and the loss of our beautiful open space, which is home to a wonderful array of wildlife. A large proportion of the local community regularly use this space for recreation, dog walking, children's play area. It is also home to a wide variety of wildlife, access to all of which will be lost should the development go ahead. To lose the green belt space at Allocation 13 in addition to the numerous recreation/sports facilities that will also be bulldozed by Allocation 4 is wholly and completely unacceptable.

The draft local plan review makes a lot of reference to the benefits to the borough from the HS2 interchange at the airport, but Shirley will be one of the worst places in the borough to access the new station. Areas to the east and North of the borough are more natural access points. Access from Shirley would need to contend with the already over congested A34 and M42 and all roads in between, which after completion of the proposed developments will be unusable due to the increased volumes of traffic forced onto them.

If both Allocations 11 and 12 are adopted in addition to Allocation 13 the community of south Shirley will be hard pressed to actually get to the A34/M42 because of the increased gridlock it will create, the volume of traffic already suffered since the conception of the Dickens Heath development makes accessing the Tanworth Lane, Blackford Road, Dog Kennel Lane area nigh on impossible during commute hours.

Allocation 11 is muted for an area already occupied by local businesses I would question the wisdom of sacrificing local jobs in favour of housing. Is not part of the building strategy to provide homes for the local community? Residents out of work are unlikely to be financially able to make use of the new homes created.

Should the Local Authority choose to disregard the plethora of valid reasons why the proposed developments at Allocations 4, 11, 12 and 13 are wholly unsuitable and unsustainable for this area of the borough then they have no right to continue the use of the "Urbs in Rure" moto for Solihull as it will no longer be applicable, Solihull will become simply "Urbs".
I look forward to your reply at your earliest attention.

I am writing to object to the proposed housing at allocation 4 and 13

I am a resident of Haslucks Croft and have been subject to the vast increase in traffic due to the Asda site
At the enquiry for the ASDA application their counsel conceded that in rush hour there was ALREADY 7000 cars /hour moving along Haslucks Green Rd
Now eg on Saturdays it is grid lock back to the Cole brook public house due queuing into asda car park In effect it results in us having extreme difficulty turning out of haslucks croft in any direction

The intended development at the Powergen site and proposed petrol station will only render the problem more accute

It is apparent that the proposed development at 4 and 13 = 1300 houses will exacerbate the problem as it is quite clear that the new owners would use Asda
the nearest supermarket to shop and use in any event Haslucks Green rRd to access to Solihull and Birmingham , in essence the infra structure is not there to support this level of building density

Solihull motto is "town in the country " not town near a green belt the other side of the M42 ?>

I would wish to attend any subsequent enquiry to elaborate on this email

Re: Objection to the draft local development plan for Shirley (in particular the allocation 13 and west of Dickens Heath).

We are both residents in Neville Road Shirley. I have lived here all my life (age 66) and my wife (age 57) for over 30 years.
I have used the footpaths from Whitlock's End farm all the way through to where Dickens Heath is now. This footpath is now only a right of way between houses.
What is left in this area is a small amount of footpaths in a semi rural setting which if developed upon will be lost forever and only become again a right of way between houses.
We do not understand why there is a need to build up against the remaining reduced footpaths. My wife and I use the footpaths daily for keeping fit (we are not dog owners)
and we meet plenty of other people, who like us, are keen to maintain their well being as they get older on the last remaining green footpaths.
We see many younger people and families who also are out taking exercise.

We are against the proposed development as there is nothing else in this part of the area to encourage simple activities such as walking for health purposes.
Shirley Park is small and hardly healthy near to the Stratford Road traffic. Increased housing in this area will bring with it increased air pollution levels, litter
and only bridge the gap between Shirley and Dickens Heath therefore reducing the area for enjoyment of the environment. Wildlife will be affected ie. we have seen deer and mink
to name a couple which will be lost forever.

The proposal does not explain how it will manage the increased numbers of people living there and their needs.
Currently my perception is that the Doctor surgeries and Schools are at capacity levels. Care in the community? Has this been considered for the increased number of residents.
Driving, traffic, traffic fumes and road surfaces in the area are poor.
We appreciate the need for houses and in particular the need for houses for 1st time buyers ( we are parents of Adult children struggling to get on the housing ladder).
Our experience of recent new builds in the area appears to be that a small percentage of the houses built are for young people which is actually not meeting the needs of young local people
or encouraging them to remain in the area.

Long term the health and wellbeing of local people, old and young, will be jeopardised.

I would like to register my objection to the proposed building of houses on allocation 4 and 13, Dickens Heath.

The extensive building that has already taken place in creating the semi rural village of Dickens Heath has already eroded the green belt to such an extent.

To continue to build in theses areas, the semi rural villages of Dickens Heath, Cheswick Green, Tidbury Green and Majors Green will be no more, there will just be a huge housing estate, making a less enjoyable area to reside.

There will be a massive impact on resources within the area. For example, school places, in particular Secondary schools are in high demand. There is not enough adequate schooling to support future generations. Local Doctors surgeries are already stretched to the limit as are other health services; dentists and the local hospital.

Traffic though Majors Green has increased since the development of Dickens Heath and the expansion of Whitlock End train station to the point that Haslucks Green road is very dangerous. There has been an obscene amount of accidents within a short period of time, many cars leaving the road. . Bromsgrove council has taken action to make Haslucks Green Road safer by the way of an anti slip surface and further road signs. However, where the Haslucks Green Road crosses into Solihull Borough, no action has been taken. The junction with Bills Lane is incredibly dangerous and can not take further traffic. Within the last few weeks two cars have left the road, gone across pavements and ended up in hedges. It is only a matter of time before a pedestrian is killed. Adding further traffic and pedestrians to an already very dangerous road is irresponsible.

There is a huge impact on an environmental issue, to an area that has already suffered massively. The proposed building site are a haven for wildlife providing homes for many species of wild flower and animals. We are all too aware of the impact of taking away their environment. Recent reports have highlighted the importance of the honey bee within our farming business and the massive loss of their habitat has already had a detrimental effect on their survival and our future farming production.

There area is also prone to flooding due to the massive development that has already taken place.

The proposed sites provide invaluable space the future generations who already have a lack of open space. The younger generations needed such areas as these to experience fresh air, the countryside and learn to appreciate nature and wildlife. These spaces are essentenial for health and well being of all within the area, providing an area to escape to from everyday stresses and areas exercise.

I appreciated additional housing is required, but ask you to resconsider the the use of allocation 4 and 13 for this purpose. The impact of the health and welling of residents, the already strechted to the limit health providers, lack of schooling available for future generations, the dangerous roads that will become condsiderabkt worse and the impact on the environment and wildlife will be massive.

There are brown field sites within Solihull borough that can be redeveloped. There are landscaped sites that are surely a better prospect for development . There is no need to develop common meadow/ fields and green belt land.

Please seriously reconsider the proposed development of the natural beauty allocation 4 and 13 and look to develop /improve already developed/ landscaped sites of which I'm sure there are many within Solihull borough , for instance, NEC

I am writing to object to the proposed housing at allocation 4 and 13

I am a resident of Haslucks Croft and have been subject to the vast increase in traffic due to the Asda site
At the enquiry for the ASDA application their counsel conceded that in rush hour there was ALREADY 7000 cars /hour moving along Haslucks Green Rd
Now eg on Saturdays it is grid lock back to the Cole brook public house due queuing into asda car park In effect it results in us having extreme difficulty turning out of haslucks croft in any direction

The intended development at the Powergen site and proposed petrol station will only render the problem more accute

It is apparent that the proposed development at 4 and 13 = 1300 houses will exacerbate the problem as it is quite clear that the new owners would use Asda
the nearest supermarket to shop and use in any event Haslucks Green rRd to access to Solihull and Birmingham , in essence the infra structure is not there to support this level of building density

Solihull motto is "town in the country " not town near a green belt the other side of the M42 ?>

My Wife and I are residents of Majors Green we live on Haslucks Green Road in between Cambria Close and Rushleigh Road. we have lived there for over 40 years and have noticed the traffic volume has increased considerably since Dickens Heath Estate has been built. we are very concerned at what levels the traffic volume will increase with the proposed extra housing. At certain times of the day we have to wait some considerable time to get off our drive because of the amount of vehicles coming from Dickens Heath direction, so it is only going to get more intolerable for the residents of Majors Green. Do Councils and Planning departments never consider residents of other established areas, could you not divert traffic through a less populated area to ease the situation.

Proposed New Housing Plan to build 1,300 new homes in Dickens Heath
1.Increase traffic on the roads already overcrowded and dangerous for children and pedestrians crossing the roads around Whitlocks End Station and Haslucks Green Road it is already very dangerous and will only be made much worse.

2.losing the green belt land which is along the canal which is home to lots of different wildlife, once we lose this land it will never be replaced.

3.Schools and medical centres these amenities are already oversubscribed and this development will further increase demand leading to degradation of services for local residents.

4. Loss of football pitches will impact on sport facilities for children that schools and clubs that use these pitches.

New Housing Developments in Shirley

We write to express my concern at the plans to build new homes on four sites in Shirley. As residents of Shirley we are concerned at the negative impact the huge scale of these developments will have on our community. Aside from the loss of green space we are concerned at the impact of the four new housing estates will have on the local roads and detrimental impact on local schools and doctors.

Whilst we appreciate that Solihull Council has targets for house building, Shirley cannot cope with the huge scale of the proposed developments. We have never before written to object to any new developments, but we feel very strongly about this issue. We hope you will give serious consideration to our concerns and those of many other local residents before making decision that will have such a detrimental impact on our lives.

To whom it may concern,

(Our home Hasluck's Green Road, Majors Green, B90 1DS)

I would like you to acknowledge our households objection to the proposition for housing development in the Majors Green area and those close by.

(Allocation 4 - 700 houses Whitlock's End/Majors Green)
(Allocation 13 - 600 houses South West Shirley Heath)
(Allocation 12 - 850 houses Dog Kennel Lane)
(Allocation 11 - 400 houses Dog Kennel Lane)

The report makes a lot of references to the benefits to the borough from HS2 interchange at the airport but Shirley will be one of the worst places to get to the new station, areas more appropriate and are more of a natural access point are to the east and north of the borough, these will not need to contend with the already congested A34 and M42.

We feel if building new houses on this proposed sites went ahead it would have a significant negative impact on not only our lives but other local residents as well as the damage to the local wildlife, trees, greenery etc. and our way of life.

Having grown up in from Wythall and moving to Majors Green 2.5years ago - we have seen a significant erosion to our countryside and rural feel of the area. With Dickens Heath having a huge impact, then other smaller developments followed, Shirley redevelopment being most recent.

The building of these houses as noted above would only cause a further increase on the issues we are current dealing with locally. Issues include;

- Volume Traffic along Haslucks Green Road, Majors Green end

- Speed of traffic on Haslucks Green Road Majors Green end. No active monitoring, average speed check areas (like some areas of Solihull have) - we are in a no-mans land here as we do not come under Solihull council?! we pay council tax to Bromsgrove (historical boundary change in the 1970's hence we retain the B90 postcode and not B47 etc.))

- Car mounting pavements and accidents. Hasluck's Green Road, Majors Green End. Notorious bad bends. (Resurfacing only finally conducted after a lady was struck on the pavement) I have witnessed over 30 cars mount the pavement. and numerous bumps. Road rage incidents and horns at locals driving on and off driveways are a regular occurrence. New signage too bright and dazzling can't read at night - so not slowing people down) waiting for a fatal accident. I think police when attending one of the accidents here said that you need three deaths before major work would be done?! more traffic would increase this danger. Resident property, fences, walls, cars have been damaged.

- Poor pavements. Have you tried to push a pram or walk a dog to Whitlocks end station from Haslucks green road?! crossing the road, narrow broken pavements, speeding cars dangerous. We have an older community here aswell and many i would think rely on transport links etc. but it wouldn't be safe for them to walk to the station around here. By building more houses this would increase traffic which would be disastrous and potentially fatal. As we live on the border will our pathways and safety be thought of. As our bend is dangerous now.

- Traffic noise has got worse following the Shirley development and increased free parking area at Whitlocks end station. The council don't want you to walk there but drive!! maybe thats why they didn't make the paths safe? beats the object of getting people to get fitter and less fat and save the environment by leaving your car at home. Again increasing houses and population in the local areas would impact this.

- Countryside and rural way of life being slowly eroded. Countryside walks are just a thing of the past as walking down the lanes isn't really safe anymore. The wildlife and greenery will disappear, build on this land now and then run out and need more in the future? - is there no houses or already built on areas that need regeneration rather than use green space.

- Doctors surgery and local schools. The local doctors surgery are so stretched from talking to other locals and receptionists. In some cases i have known people be sent to walk in centres? as the local surgery can't cope. More people will make this more an issue.

- Will this impact our house prices? as we were first time buyers and have saved so hard to buy our home, and to live in this area can be so expensive - are we now going to suffer? and not be able to sell our house if this houses are built? as i will want to move for the safety of my family, but will i be priced out of the area?
Will our concerns be noted as we don't actually live in a Solihull council postcode or not taken into account? even though all this is happening on our doorstep?

Please take our concerns into account.

Many thanks for reading our email - apologies for the rant, we have only found out about this from a flyer in the mail!

I have made an observation on the Draft Local Plan and sharing with you my objections to these plans as follows;

 The proposals are to build on flood plain/sports fields/and the roads are all country lanes, why?
 The traffic congestion is very heavy at present, what will happen if you build more homes? As there been an impact analysis on traffic congestion?
 Where is the proposal for new schools/GP practises if your proposal is successful?
 Where are the walk ways/pavements in these proposals?
 The extension to Whitlock's End Station for a further 261 cars is being implemented in 2017 so there will be further cars using the roads around the station. Plus, the plans include a new road structure with islands/traffic lights. It is a matter of urgency the Council view these new plans as they will impact on the `total area`.
 Also, are you in communication with Bromsgrove Council who have plans for an island at Tilehouse Lane/Haslucks Green Road junction?
 All the roads in this area are country lanes that are in need of urgent repair, so why are you not repairing the present road infrastructure first?
 My suggestion is build on brown field sites first, there are plenty to choose from without building on green field sites.

I would welcome your reply.

Please confirm receipt of this communication.

Thank you in anticipation.

Kind regards

Response to Solihull Draft Local Plan!
We moved to Majors Green in January 2017 from the busy residential area of Sheldon to hopefully experience a more idyllic lifestyle with views of the countryside. Our property does in fact look over open fields a natural wildlife habitat and where Site A is proposed. The properties are priced accordingly because of this privilege and the development will no doubt have an impact on local property prices. There has already been a lot of building development in the Dickens Heath area and Shirley Park Gate so this proposal as come as quite a shock to all the local residents what happened to the 'leafy suburbs of Solihull' I have detailed the issues with traffic in my objection below which is my main concern but there is also the risk of increased pollution from this extent of housing and the health implications this can bring on. There are three local football clubs which stand to be affected by the proposed building what will happen to them? There are regular matches played there by younger leagues are we not being encouraged to keep children more active. More and more parkland and recreational areas are being taken away. Although new sporting facilities have been mentioned in the proposal will this be open field areas or in the form of a purpose built building to which we already have Tudor Grange Sports Centre, Virgin Active and David Lloyd!
My initial impressions on moving to the Majors Green area was how the Roads did not seem adequate to cope with the volume of traffic going through the area with the already overcrowded and very built up Dickens Heath plus the traffic from the surrounding Shirley areas. Our property is situated on a particularly bad bend of Haslucks Green Road our neighbours have told us of the many accidents that have occurred over the years and since moving here we been unfortunate to witness a number of RTAs which have resulted in the erection of Bollards, sharp bend warning signs and the recent introduction of an anti skid surface. Making the Road look like a black spot danger zone! All of which are yet to make a difference to the number of accidents still happening from Haslucks Green Road to the proposed new housing area. We can often hear the speeding traffic and sometimes wait with baited breathe expecting to hear a crash the roads are dark and narrow and the speeding signs are not adhered to! This will only be heightened with the increased volume of traffic should the proposal go ahead 600 + 700 = 1300 x an average of 2 cars per household = 2600 extra cars adding to the daily traffic plus visitors to the area. The car park is already full daily at Whitlocks End station and the public transport is inadequate in Dickens Heath to get commuters to Solihull the residents will have to use their vehicles or go on foot which brings it own risks with the darkened roads and narrow footpaths, only last year a car mounted the pavement and knocked a lady over breaking both her legs it is only a matter of time before tragically somebody is killed. By allowing this proposal to go ahead you are putting the safety of all the local residents in more jeopardy!

Dear Solihull planning,
After reviewing the proposed planning for building new houses in our area I can't believe your are considering building more by Majors Green after the massive development of Dickens Heath. There are currently several major building projects in the immediate area with Dickens Heath expanding massively and another large housing estate being built on green belt land in Tidbury Green. Its totally wrong for our area to have to put up with any more. There are lots of other sites that need redevelopment rather than destroying the green belt that is vital for wildlife and our health. This is totally unfair and must be stopped.

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.