04 Dickens Heath - West of Dickens Heath

Please find attached

Kind regards

I am secretary to the Solihull tree wardens. We are a voluntary group who give up our time to care for trees. We have ongoing projects all over the borough and we are passionate about preserving trees and the local natural environment
We are very concerned about the new proposed housing developments proposed in Dog Kennel lane, Dickens Heath, and Baxters Green.
We do realise there is a need for affordable housing but the horrors of the intense building already in Dickens heath comes to mind.. When building new developments there needs to be plenty of green space for children and adults to enjoy and of course we need to preserve as many of the existing trees as trees are essential to our well being. Trees absorb carbon monoxide and potentially
harmful gasses from the air and release oxygen. In fact a mature canopy tree
releases enough oxygen to sustain two human beings. Please with thoughtful planning we could provide a healthy environment where people can live

proposed allocations 4/11/12/13
see letter

I would like to register my objection to the proposed housing development in the area known as Allocation 13.

I have lived on the Badger's estate for just under 19 years now and in that time have witnessed the general increase in congestion on the roads in this area, particularly at school times, rush hour and weekends. The impact of a further 2,500 homes in the Shirley South and Dickens Heath areas would have a huge detrimental effect on this and put an intolerable strain on local services, schools, doctors, transport etc.

With specific relation to Allocation 13, I, along with family and friends have used this area extensively for much valued healthy walking exercise and enjoying the huge variety of wildlife including owls, foxes, bats, birds of many species and more. The area is also used extensively by dog walkers and ramblers and there is a genuine and reassuring atmosphere of friendliness and community spirit when you are out walking.

The impact of losing this is unimaginable and could not be replaced, not only in respect of the wildlife but also the health of people using and living by this area. The presence of large numbers of Xmas and other trees, as we know, enhances the air quality, absorbing greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane, so to lose this would have a significant impact on air quality and pollution and drastically increase the Carbon footprint.

Allocation 13 provides a valuable green, healthy area separating two already high density housing areas with existing strains on transport and other public services, with Badgers/Baxters Green and Woodlands to one side and the ever expanding Dickens Heath on the other. To virtually adjoin these areas with more developments would turn a well balanced Mature Suburb into a vast urban sprawl and would destroy the feeling of semi-ruralness for generations to come, in addition to the adverse environmental impacts mentioned above.

My final point is that it is totally iniquitous and disproportionate that circa 41% of Solihull's additional housing needs should be concentrated in the Shirley South area. I implore Solihull Council to examine this aspect closely and re-visit the potential of other areas in the Borough that can absorb some of this capacity. We know that more houses are needed but they need to be far more evenly allocated.

Dear Sir,

I have reviewed the draft local plan on your website and wish to comment on the planning proposals for the site West of Dickens Heath which in section 7, Providing Homes for ALL, shows an indicative number of 700 houses.

The following question on which I wish to comment is:
Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure[35] required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are they?

My concerns relate to the level of car parking at Whitlocks End Station and the additional level of traffic which will inevitably use Tile House Lane / Haslucks Green Road if this development goes ahead.

The likely infrastructure requirements listed in Appendix C does not include any expansion of the car park at the train station. This car park has already been extended once and is at capacity. The building of additional housing will inevitably result in more cars wishing to use the station car park. Whilst it might be expected that residents would walk to this car park the reality is people are lazy and, especially in bad weather, will wish to use their car. Plans should be included to extend this car park if the houses are to be built.

Inclusion of a pedestrian crossing would be necessary.

Infrastructure requirements indicate improvements to bus services but with no indication how frequently or where these will travel. There is currently one bus which services Whitlocks End Station which travels from Wythall to Hockley Heath via Solihull. This is an infrequent service and travels along Tilehouse Lane for a short section from its junction with Haslucks Green Road. This part of Tilehouse Lane is very narrow and as a frequent pedestrian I have been forced off the narrow pavement onto the scrub to avoid being caught by the bus. If more busses are expected to be a part of future plans how will the local roads cope with these types of vehicles?

If busses are expected to use Haslucks Green Road to access Shirley Train Station or the A34 junction are there plans to widen the section from Bills Lane to Drawbridge Road?

As the volume of traffic on Haslucks Green Road has increased bus lay byes should be included to reduce future congestion.

There have been recent developments to the junction with Tilehouse Lane and Haslucks Green Road and Haslucks Green Road (near the junction of Cambria Close) in an attempt to reduce the number of accidents. An increase in road traffic will increase this risk unless road improvements are made.

Please include my comments along with others for consideration by Solihull Council.

Extension to Dickens Heath
Dear Sir or madam.

As a resident in Majors Green I am totally and most strongly opposed to the new plans to extend Dickens Heath.

The traffic in the area is already bad due to the existing Dickens Heath and new houses alongside the canal near Aqueduct Road, but even without these was already stretched to the limit......I know I live with it every day.

I live on Drawbridge Road and the main routes connecting us to the rest of the Shirley/Solihull world are rural and all converge. One of the convergences is the Drawbridge which especially during the summer can be raised a high percentage of the time causing bottle necks and tail backs both sides. The spill over into Haslucks Green Road as well as it being blocked off by those waiting to turn right at the Drawbridge already gridlocks the area. To compound this in wet weather Haslucks Green Road and the junction between Peterbrook and Aqueduct all flood creating further disruption.

The house on Aqueduct were already ill conceived as it was partially a flood area and now the water due to houses and tarmac will have to run off elsewhere into the system so worse flooding in the future.

The other link road is into Trumans Heath again part of the dreaded Majors Green Triangle again which is rural open to floods and in winter steep and icy so another bottle neck.

It doesn't take a great brain to see the coming horrendous impact of more house all converging into an already over capacity area.

The key to all this is the word Rural and funnily enough means that the road infrastructure is not present not to mention facilities such as doctors dentists schools etc... Bavistock is closing so Woodrush and whoever will have to cope. The traffic near woodrush is already gridlocked during school hours which is not an overstatement if any councillors wish to try and drive through during school hours.

The shops on Haslucks green road are another bottle neck that with more through traffic will also be at a standstill. Again the link a steep hill over a railway line which has had road works on and off every other year. Without the road works the nature of the steep hill combined with sharp bend and little pavement is already a death trap. I have had two visitors on separate occasions be hit by the wing mirrors of cars even though they are in fact walking on the pavement. Also the walk down to aqueduct that my partner used to do to take my youngest to Mill Lodge was without pavement part of the way and again she had nearly been hit several times. With the increase in traffic again this will only be exasperated and it is already a death waiting to happen and I am not exaggerating!!

I haven't even mention Shirley Station and Whitlocks End which parking and surrounding vicinity was to cater for a rural community not a large urban sprawl....you cannot suddenly change that due to the demographics for the most part are fixed and impervious to enlargement, canal, railroad and encompassing houses to road side.

I am dismayed that the football clubs have been sold to make way for this coming disaster again erosion of the community and less areas for the children to get some exercise away from Xboxes and the like...disgusting in my opinion.

Please take a proper look at the area roads and infrastructure and it is plain to see it is already not coping so any more influx will be a disaster for those that will have to live with it!!!!!!!

Best Regards

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

Objections and Comments on Shirley allocation plot 13

I too agree with the objections regarding shirley allocation plot 13. I do not want houses built there at all. Traffic is already ridiculous at rush hours !!!!!!


Dear Sirs,

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.

Objections and Comments on 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.

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.

Received 17th feb


With reference to email above in addendum to my previous communication, I have been in contact with many local residents in our group of 730 people, and many would be keen to see allocation 13 set aside as a country park with a green corridor linking dickens heath and majors green. This could be managed by the local community and could be of benefit to the local community.

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.
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.

FORMAL OBJECTION TO ALLOCATION 13 - 600 houses on land adjacent to Woodlands and Baxters Estates

I would like to formally object to the provision of 600 houses on the open countryside adjacent to the Woodlands and Baxters residential estates. I have no objection to the building of homes along Dog Kennel Lane however.

The reasons for my objection to (a) the density of such proposal and (b) its proximity to the above estates are as follows:-

1. The development will result in urban sprawl - coalescence. It will mean that heading towards Shirley from B'ham City centre there will be no countryside at all.
2. Your Council's motto is "Urbs in Rure" - there will be no "rure" south of Shirley and as Cheswick Green, Tidbury Green and Dickens Heath grow in size there will be coalescence. Your motto will no longer apply.
3. Your Council's Green Space Strategy Review 2014 applauds "a sustainable network of good quality green spaces that are safe, healthy, rich in biodiversity and distinctive in character celebrating what is special about Solihull" and the executive summary of that document states that "The importance of Green space within Solihull should not be underestimated ...".
4. That document also mentions "Green corridors", "wildlife conservation", "natural and semi natural green spaces", "health and wellbeing", and areas "that allow people to access and connect with the natural environment" (PPG 17).
5. WHAT I WOULD URGE THE COUNCIL TO DO , IF YOU HAVE TO BUILD ON ANY OF THE FIELDS ADJ. WOODLOES ROAD, IS TO ENSURE YOU RETAIN A WILDLIFE CORRIDOR OF AT LEAST 2 FIELDS' WIDTH RUNNING FROM THE REAR OF PROPERTIES IN TANWORTH LANE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO BILLS LANE. THIS WOULD AFFORD NOT JUST A NATURAL HABITAT FOR FOXES, FIELD MICE, SHREWS, OWLS AND BATS (all of which live in those fields) BUT WOULD ALSO GIVE VERY REAL BENEFIT AND QUALITY OF LIFE TO THOSE OF US LIVING ON THE BAXTERS AND WOODLANDS ESTATES (and those who drive to the area to exercise their dogs) AND INDEED WOULD SIMILARLY BENEFIT ANYONE LIVING IN ANY NEW HOMES TO BE BUILT BEYOND THAT WILD LIFE CORRIDOR AS WELL AS GIVING SOME CREDIBILITY TO YOUR MOTTO "URBS IN RURE". Any hedges and mature trees should be retained thereby preserving the rural character and wildlife habitats.
6. It appears to be the case that 41% of the new house building within Solihull is scheduled to be within the Shirley area - aside from the coalescence issue and disregard for the Council's motto, increasing the density of Shirley will have a detrimental and huge impact upon infrastructure, schools, doctors' surgeries etc.

Objection - allocation 13

I am writing to voice my objection to the 2500+ new houses planned for the shirley area, in particular the plot allocation 13.
We already have severe traffic congestion daily along bills lane, the stratford rd, and haslucks green rd.
The impact of so many new houses in one small area will have a severe detrimental affect on local services such as schools, doctors, hospitals and transport.
There are several football clubs /pitches included in the overall area affected which many of the local children use. Where will our children go to play football if these are destroyed.
I believe that this is 41% of the new housing for the borough of solihull, this is a very unfair proportion for one small area of such a large borough.

see attached documents

see attached documents

I would like to register my objection to the proposed housing development in the area known as Allocation 13.

I have lived in Shirley for ten and a half years and enjoy the semi-rural location of my home and fear that with this proposed development of Allocation 13, along with Allocations 4, 11 and 12, we will be losing important green spaces which not only enhance the area but provide open space for residents to enjoy.

The proposed development of 600 houses for Allocation 13 will leave a huge detrimental effect on the local area such as follows:-

There are 4 proposed development sites that border Shirley - surely any developments should be spread across the borough rather than having 41% in one area.

The loss of vital green space - this is a benefit to the local community and provides health benefits such as green open space, ie a vital lung to the area. Allocation 13 is used for both leisure and dog walking and gives access to local countryside and nearby canal. This area is also home to our local wildlife such as owls, bats, muntjac deer and foxes.

Congestion - The A34 Stratford Road, M42 and surrounding routes are already heavily congested and the proposed 600 homes for Allocation 13 will add an unbelievable amount of extra traffic, not to mention pollution which could lead to an increase in respiratory illnesses. I live off Bills Lane and during morning rush hour I could be waiting on occasions for a minimum of 20 cars to go past before I could pull out onto the main road. With the additional traffic this will be even worse and will just lead to tail backs on all surrounding roads. As anyone who uses this road already knows there is always congestion around the junctions where Burman Road and Shakespeare Drive meet Bills Lane. Though no doubt you will probably conduct a traffic survey at a much quieter time during mid-morning and come to the conclusion there is no such problem. I would ask that any traffic survey of roads near to the proposed site take place during rush hour to see exactly how much traffic there is at present and you will see that we will end up with roads that won't be able to cope with the extra vehicles that will result from the additional homes.

Transport links - There is already an unreliable bus service to this area of Shirley and adding extra homes will just result in an increase in traffic. Although there are two railway stations nearby - Shirley and Whitlocks End - neither of them have sufficient car parking spaces for the current number of users so how will they cope with additional users.

Pedestrians - If Allocation 13 goes ahead and the access road does join Bills Lane this will be dangerous for pedestrians as there are several points along that road where there is only footpath on one side which is also very narrow in places. Additional traffic from the new homes will be dangerous for anyone trying to cross the road, especially on winter evenings which surely must be a health and safety issue.

Health and Education - Local schools, nurseries, doctors surgeries and our local hospital at Lode Lane are already unable to cope with the number of residents in the area and with this additional residential population our vital services will be at breaking point. Solihull hospital only has a Minor Injuries unit and due to downgrades in services there we have to use Heartlands hospital which is already over-stretched. We would need to see an increase in services at Solihull in order to keep up with local demand from these new homes. Additional schools and doctors surgeries will be required because existing facilities are already full.

Unfortunately, it really feels like Shirley has previously been the forgotten area of Solihull with funds preferring to be used in poorer areas such as the north of the Borough, however, we now just appear to be a dumping ground for developers to ruin our area.

Can I please ask that you seriously reconsider the proposed development areas and look at other options which have better transport links with more direct access to the motorway and the A34.

Save Allocation 13

Hi I am writing to inform you of why we strongly object to the building of 600 homes on the green belt land in Shirley. The roads in this area are already extremely busy especially at rush hour on bills lane,haslucks green Road Shakespeare drive and on burman Road where it is difficult to even get off our driveway the extra traffic these houses on allocation 13 and 4 would create would make things much worse let alone the construction traffic.The stations at whitlocks end and Shirley are already very busy too where you are lucky to even get a parking space during the day. Without building extra road networks,stations, schools, doctors it's hard to imagine how the existing infestructure could cope but the main issue for local residents is the traffic which is already a big problem in this area and will be massively affected by these developments 13 and 4 we hope you won't take local residents fears, views and concerns lightly as we will be the ones that will suffer the most thankyou

Site 13

Re the above: We live on the Badgers Estate which borders the proposed LPR Ref No 13 (between Whitlocks End Farm and Dickens Heath Road) where proposals are being made to construct some 600 homes. In addition, some 1950 homes are to be built on three neighbouring plots in the area.

My first concern is the effect that these proposed developments will have on transport infrastructure in Shirley. Since the development of Dickens Heath we can wait 2/3 minutes to access Bills Lane from Langcomb Road and with the proposals for Plot 13 we could well see a further increase of vehicles onto Bills Lane, thus making matters worse.

At peak times it is extremely difficult to access the A3400 Stratford Road and with a further possible 2500 (?) vehicles added to the mix this, too, will only exacerbate the problem.

We are constantly encouraged to leave our cars at home and use public transport. To find a parking place at either Shirley or Whitlocks End stations after 7.30 and 8.30 respectively is fair nigh impossible.

The impact on schools and health services will be seriously affected if these proposals go ahead.

This is a further loss of Green Belt land in Shirley. In our opinion, these public open spaces are vital for the area.

I would like to register my objection to the proposed housing development in the area known as Allocation 13.

I have lived on Hawkesbury road for just over 2 years and shirley for 9 years now and even in that time have witnessed the general increase in congestion on the roads in this area, particularly at school times, rush hour and weekends. The impact of a further 2,500 homes in the Shirley South and Dickens Heath areas would have a huge detrimental effect on this and put an intolerable strain on local services, schools, doctors, transport etc.

With specific relation to Allocation 13, I, along with my family and friends have used this area extensively for much valued healthy walking exercise and enjoying the huge variety of wildlife including owls, foxes, bats, birds of many species and more. The area is also used extensively by dog walkers and ramblers and there is a genuine and reassuring atmosphere of friendliness and community spirit when you are out walking.

The impact of losing this is unimaginable and could not be replaced, not only in respect of the wildlife but also the health of people using and living by this area. The presence of large numbers of Xmas and other trees, as we know, enhances the air quality, absorbing greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane, so to lose this would have a significant impact on air quality and pollution and drastically increase the Carbon footprint.

Allocation 13 provides a valuable green, healthy area separating two already high density housing areas with existing strains on transport and other public services, with Badgers/Baxters Green and Woodlands to one side and the ever expanding Dickens Heath on the other. To virtually adjoin these areas with more developments would turn a well balanced Mature Suburb into a vast urban sprawl and would destroy the feeling of semi-ruralness for generations to come, in addition to the adverse environmental impacts mentioned above.

My final point is that it is totally iniquitous and disproportionate that circa 41% of Solihull's additional housing needs should be concentrated in the Shirley South area. I implore Solihull Council to examine this aspect closely and re-visit the potential of other areas in the Borough that can absorb some of this capacity. We know that more houses are needed but they need to be far more evenly allocated.

Objection to Allocation 13

I am contacting you wth a view to registering my objection to the loss of allocation 13 to residential housing. This piece of land represents the only direct countryside access for thousands of residents living on the badgers estate, the housing estate directly adjoining the land, and the wider community on the Shakespeare Estate.
I live in Shirley, and I know this piece of land well, my family and I are able to walk in green country side on public footpaths, through a very well used natural environment, accessed via the green corridors that link the urban environment with the countryside. On our walks we pass the time of day with dozens of people of all ages and from all walks of life, this piece of land provides a valuable community amenity and it should be protected.
We use this land at least three times a week, if not more, for dog walking and leisure walks, with allocation thirteen giving access to the wider countryside, and the canal beyond. This piece of land forms a valuable green space between the existing built up areas, and to loose this space to building would be a disaster for current residents and generations to come.
Shirley has been very accommodating in terms of housing, and other development over the years, with Dickens Heath taking acres of green belt, and infill developments eating into remaining green fields. It is fair to say that the residents of Shirley have not been anti-development, and it should be clear that the reaction to the potential loss of allocation 13 is a genuine and undeniably just refusal to accept the loss of something of such value in terms of local amenity and well being.
This land benefits from historic hedgerows, trees, wild flowers, and is directly linked with areas of wetland to at least one boundary, and I am sure is home to a diverse ecosystem of insects, mammals etc as you would expect to find in such a location. I would suggest an independent ecology survey, rather than one funded by a potential developer, would present a very clear picture of this.
I am sure my fellow Shirley residents will agree that the council's, and MPs / councillor's, reaction to our justified and rational objections to the loss of the open space will be very telling. After living in Shirley for since 1983 we have dealt with many changes, but continue to support and invest in the local area. We are not saying no to development in any form in other areas, we are however saying no to the possibility of giving up this valuable green space, the loss of which would undoubtedly detract from our quality of life, further more why is this area carrying a hefty 41% of the housing allocaton.

Objection to Allocation 13

I am contacting you wth a view to registering my objection to the loss of allocation 13 to residential housing. This piece of land represents the only direct countryside access for thousands of residents living on the badgers estate, the housing estate directly adjoining the land, and the wider community on the Shakespeare Estate.
I live in Shirley, and I know this piece of land well, my family and I are able to walk in green country side on public footpaths, through a very well used natural environment, accessed via the green corridors that link the urban environment with the countryside. On our walks we pass the time of day with dozens of people of all ages and from all walks of life, this piece of land provides a valuable community amenity and it should be protected.
We use this land at least three times a week, if not more, for dog walking and leisure walks, withallocation thirteen giving access to the wider countryside, and the canal beyond. This piece of land forms a valuable green space between the existing built up areas, and to loose this space to building would be a disaster for current residents and generations to come.
Shirley has been very accommodating in terms of housing, and other development over the years, with Dickens Heath taking acres of green belt, and infill developments eating into remaining green fields. It is fair to say that the residents of Shirley have not been anti-development, and it should be clear that the reaction to the potential loss of allocation 13 is a genuine and undeniably just refusal to accept the loss of something of such value in terms of local amenity and well being.
This land benefits from historic hedgerows, trees, wild flowers, and is directly linked with areas of wetland to at least one boundary, and I am sure is home to a diverse ecosystem of insects, mammals etc as you would expect to find in such a location. I would suggest an independent ecology survey, rather than one funded by a potential developer, would present a very clear picture of this.
I am sure my fellow Shirley residents will agree that the council's, and MPs / councillor's, reaction to our justified and rational objections to the loss of the open space will be very telling. After living in Shirley for my entire life we have dealt with many changes, but continue to support and invest in the local area. We are not saying no to development in any form in other areas, we are however saying no to the possibility of giving up this valuable green space, the loss of which would undoubtedly detract from our quality of life, further more why is this area carrying a hefty 41% of the housing allocation?

Allocation 13
We have already seen the Shirley community abused by large scale supermarket and retail park developments - it is only fair that these housing developments should be more evenly distributed across the borough. Building 41% of the total requirement in such a small concentration is clearly not in the best interests of local residents. This is before considering the social and environmental impacts.

I am most closely impacted by Allocation 13 however; taking allocations 4, 12, 11 and 13 together, it is disappointing that the future house building plans for the Borough intend to devour so much Green Belt land in close proximity to each other. Whilst understanding the national need to build houses it cannot be equitable that so much Green Belt land is lost at the same time, in the same place when other areas in the borough are totally unaffected. I regularly use the footpaths in these areas for recreational walking the loss this amenity will affect the whole community and impact on the quality of daily life.

I am concerned that building 2500+ houses in such close proximity to each other, will significantly increase the number of cars on small local roads which will be unable to cope, further impacting on the life of the community. The Stratford is already a very congested and this will exacerbate the issue. Public transport is already stretched to the limit. There is inadequate parking provision at local train stations. The train services themselves are inadequate to carry the potential increase in users. It is well known that there is a national diesel train shortage so it is highly unlikely that the services could be increased to cope with demand even if there was a willingness to do this. There is inadequate provision in respect of school places - a fact acknowledged in your own report.

I believe the present plans do not represent the best way forward. Unless the Council is prepared to improve school provision and transport links there will be major problems. If the developments continue this needs to be on staged basis, so that the impacts of developing each allocation can be measured and understoos and plans amended as the development proceeds.

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review we would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my children at St George & St Teresa RC School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed as a matter of highest priority.

To whom it may concern

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I/we would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my child/children at St George & St Teresa RC School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed.

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review we would like to highlight the need for an increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my children at St George & St Teresa RC School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand, St George & St Teresa has been ignored!! We have been forced to turn away children in the parish and with siblings in our school which causes huge problems for families that are split up as a result and unnecessary stress for children involved.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed.

I trust that you will recognise the need to expand the current offering at St George & St Teresa.

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review we would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my child Keeley-May O'Sullivan at St George & St Teresa RC School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools

in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed.

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to highlight the

need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my children at St George & St Teresa RC School

and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools

in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath

and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed.

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.
This directly impacts on the education of my children at St George & St Teresa RC School and I request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.
During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.
The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed.

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I/we would like to highlight the
need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my child/children at St George & St Teresa RC School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have
been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed

Please take note of these comments.