04 Dickens Heath - West of Dickens Heath

To whom it may concern,

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I 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 the same has not been offered to St George & St Teresa RC School. We have been forced to exclude children in our parish and with siblings in our school; in particular my own child who does not have a place at St George and St Teresa's meaning she has to attend a different school to her siblings. This is personally damaging to us as a family as we are often forced to chose which school productions and assemblies to attend, prioritising one child over another. This has been heartbreaking and immensely difficult for us, something I wouldn't relish or wish other families now and in the future to have to put up with due to insufficient school places.

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.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email.

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 child Lucas year 1 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 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 addresse

We currently have 3 children at St George & Teresa.

Draft local planning review - catholic primary education requirement
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 child 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.

Dear solihull council,

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 my child 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. The school have been forced to exclude children in parish. My son, despite being in catchment was initially excluded from G&T.

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 would also like to note my concern at the potential removal of bus services to G&T. By doing this, the council are discriminating against my son's right to have a faith based education

Allocation 13 - objection to development plans

I'm writing in relation to the plans to seek planning consent for a number of green belt sites in the Shirley area including allocation 4, 11, 12 and the one upon which I'm am focusing allocation 13.

The plans to seek permission for a further 2550 houses of which 600 will feature in allocation 13 will have a detrimental impact on the area both in and surrounding allocation 13.

Firstly it will have a negative effect on the green area/countryside that we currently use to allow our children to enjoy the open space and countryside to view wild animals and other wildlife especially as the one of the other green areas of Shirley (Shirley Park) has been eroded via the recently built Parkgate complex and will mean that it will become a more urban area of concrete and brick and not an area which our children can enjoy or feel safe to run around and enjoy themselves without fear of vehicles being nearby.

Also to add at least the 600 houses on allocation 13 will have a significant impact on the infrastructure of the area. For example it can take over 20 minutes each morning to drive the circa 100-150 yards up Tanworth Lane onto the B4102 towards either Solihull/Monkspath and the M42 and the roads between the hours or 7.30am and 9.00am and the from circa 5.00pm to 6.00pm struggle to cope with the current traffic levels let one anything which could increase between a further 600-2550 additional houses.

Further to this as a father with two young children due to changes to school catchments areas and the overpriced housing in certain areas of Solihull there are significant challenges on school places and the Solihull Council School Report of 2016 already highlights the limitations of the current school places let alone the expected demand in the next 5 years which combined with the development plans will mean we will not have enough places for our children to grow, develop and learn and as such will add pressure to the local community and school needs via over capacity classrooms/stretched teachers and under educated children (leading to worse local social demographics and adding further pressure to the local government budgets across multiple touch points including anti-social behaviour due to less focus on supporting education and development.

Further to this there are also limited GP services in the area and also with the reduction of the Solihull Hospital A&E to minor injuries will mean our healthcare capabilities will be stretched beyond breaking point and capacity. In conjunction with the closure of the Shirley police station means we wouldn't be able to support then increased needs that come with a vastly expanded community.

I have also been informed that there are plans to build a nursing home between Active Angels nursery and tanworth lane surgery which is going to add significant chaos to the current road infrastructure immediately with more cars and a potential dangerous building area close to a nursery where children are regularly outside and will be close to the building that will take place. A nursery that my daughter goes to and I have to be honest that even now it can take 10 minutes to get out do the driveway in the morning post drop off due to inconsiderate drivers and the sheer traffic levels. God help us what this would be like with the additional 600 houses of allocation 13 let alone the short term challenged with the new nursing home.

We should preserving the green area of allocation 13 as a dedicated green area for wildlife and community area for the local residents to enjoy and preserve a space for our future generations of children to grow up safely away from the busy roads and speeding motorists that believe it's right to drive at 40 mph+ on the local roads around allocation 13.

I am writing to voice my concern about how the new development proposals will effect school provision in the Knowle and Dorridge area.

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 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.

If large housing schemes are to be approved it is vital that schools and all amenities are improved to meet need.

In addition the road through Knowle high street is already struggling to cope with the current traffi,c a plan needs to be designed to cope with access to the new proposal.

To be clear I agree some development is needed to cope with the country wide shortfall but it is essential amenities upgraded to meet the needs of the growing community.

For the attention of Members

Further to public consultation with parents, staff and our local community, the governors of St George & St Teresa RC Primary School
would like to respond formally to the Draft Local Plan Review.

We would like to highlight the urgent need for an increase in local primary education places proposed in the infrastructure requirements
for Items 4, 8 and 9 and particularly, the desperate need for more Catholic primary education places.

Our catchment area includes proposed significant developments in Knowle, Dorridge, Bentley Heath, Hockley Heath (part of Rural South)
and Balsall Common (Rural East). We have the largest primary catchment area in the Borough and the only Catholic Primary School
on the eastern side of the M42. As such, we will be directly affected by the plans proposed by Solihull Local Authority.
We would ask to be involved in the scoping of the Masterplan as and when you undertake it so that we are fully involved in the infrastructure
planning that must support this level of new housing development.

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 prevented from doing so. This, despite discussion with the Local Authority regarding proportionality.
We have seen a consistent increase in demand for places at our school but, as a single form entry school, we have not had sufficient places
available to accommodate this need. We have, therefore, had to turn away local Catholic children wanting to attend our school - excluding
those who live in the local catchment area and with siblings already in our school. This means we are denying Catholic children their right
to a Catholic education - a situation which can only get worse with the increase in new housing and subsequent increase in demand for
primary places.

On behalf of the children, teachers, parents and local community, the governors of St George & St Teresa RC Primary School formally
request that the infrastructure planning, accompanying proposed development, addresses the need to increase the number of primary
Catholic places available to meet the needs of the local Catholic community.



Respectfully yours

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 our children, and 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 two children at St George and St Teresa but our third child is educated at Hockley Heath Academy because of a lack of places. This is a horrible situation for any family to be in and we would like Catholic education to be considered properly in the planning for our area. Whilst other schools in the borough have been expanded partly to prevent families being split up, Catholic families are not protected in the same way, this is unacceptable and appears to be discriminatory.

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.
Thank you

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.

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 were forced to send our third child with siblings at the school to a different school. Eventually we got a place for him but we had a taster of how stretched school places are.

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

To Who It May Concern,

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.

Dear Sir/Madam

Please can you confirm receipt of this email, as significant research and analysis has been undertaken in writing this response and would be grateful to know that this has been taken into account. See response to consultation below.

Kind regards
Sarah Smith

Start of response

14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?
An extra 15,000 houses in an area that currently only has 86,000 houses seems an extraordinarily high number. The population of Solihull is around 207,000 people, compared to a national population of 64.1 million people. The Government's target is to build 1,000,000 new homes by 2020 (i.e. over its 5 year tenure). For the sake of argument, Solihull should be looking to build 0.32% of these houses based on its population, which is 3,229 houses over a 5 year period, which is only 9,687 over a 15 year period. Therefore, there is no justification to aim to build over 15,000 more houses at the expense of the quality of the surrounding area.

15. Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?
No. There are too many developments, too focussed on the area south of Shirley where roads are already too busy and there is no space to widen roads or provide new infrastructure. Traffic congestion on Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane and the surrounding area is already extremely bad at rush hours, and it is increasingly difficult to turn out of Tanworth Lane near the doctor's surgery due to the large volume of traffic coming from the new development in Dickens Heath. Proposed allocations 12 and 13 will exacerbate these problems significantly by putting an extra 1,450 houses on them - potentially an extra 2,900 cars, not to mention the extra 400 houses and 800 cars on the TRW site (plus any additional commuters if there is to be additional employment on that site). Even if new roads are built to access the Stratford Road, there are already traffic jams on the Stratford Road trying to get onto the M42, so putting extra traffic onto the Stratford Road is not going to resolve traffic problems, but will make them worse.
More of these sites should be focussed around the HS2 site if that is one of the main draws for new housing in Solihull. In particular, there are a number of sites marked as lower quality green belt land nearer the HS2 development that aren't being earmarked for development such as parcels of land RP18 and RP19 just north of Hampton in Arden on the Green Belt Assessment report 2016 (both plots of land only have a grading of 4, compared to RP69 and RP65 both graded as 6 but the latter have been earmarked for building allocations 12 and 13 even though they serve a better green belt purpose).
There are also a number of poorer quality greenbelt areas around Dorridge which would be more suitable for development. These areas would be closer to HS2, and are also closer to a better quality train-line than that in Shirley or Dickens Heath. Housing in Dorridge would provide commuters with access to around 72 trains per day to Birmingham (compared to only 45 on the Shirley line), and would also provide easy access to commute to London via either the existing Chiltern service, Birmingham International or the new HS2. In particular RP34 only has a grading of 3, and other sites are graded 4 or 5 (RP33, RP41, RP39, RP40, RP48, RP47, RP45). It would be preferable if you considered these sites to proposed allocations 12 or 13.
The added benefit of building around Dorridge is that Arden School is (I believe) being rebuilt on a new site, so this would be an ideal opportunity to rebuild a new, larger, fit for purpose school to cater for significantly higher numbers instead of trying to extend existing schools on their existing grounds.
There is a triangle of land near to proposed housing allocation 4, bounded by Houndsfield Lane, Tilehouse Lane and the railway line. This does not appear to have been included in plans, even though RP72 only has a green belt grading of 4 and there is already a proposed development near there, and it is significantly more convenient to access Whitlocks End railway station than proposed allocations 12 and 13. It may be that some housing could be put on here, or it may be that there's a plan to extend station car parking here.
There is also a number of green belt sites in the north of the borough within already built up areas around Kingshurst, Fordbridge etc. These are all poorly performing green belt areas, and the green belt strategic review has even highlighted some that do not perform their green belt functions at all. It would be preferable if these areas could be used. As they are amidst built up areas anyway, it would be possible to build at a higher density here, without the development being out of character for the area. (RPs 01, 02, 03, 79, 06, 08).
An area where a lot of space that has already been removed from the green belt which could be more efficiently used and should be considered before any new green belt building, is the huge car parking areas around the NEC, airport and station. Were some of these to be turned into multi-storey car parks, then a number could be released to build housing on, and these would provide significant brown-field sites and save removing further land from the green belt. These would also provide good access to the proposed new employment site north east of Land Rover.
In addition the density of housing being proposed seems to be very low. Both proposed allocations 12 and 13 seem to only be around 20 dwellings per hectare. To reduce the impact on the green belt, build higher density developments in fewer areas (particularly if one of the drivers for new housing is single person households). This was highlighted in the Government's Planning Policy Guidance note 3 suggesting a net density of 30-50 dwellings. If your intended figure of 36 dwellings per hectare is net (which I assume it must be), then it would be in keeping with the same to reduce the space used and build higher density developments, rather than only 20 dwellings per hectare. Look at alternatives for putting parking under houses to use less space. Consider terraces rather than semi-detached, or consider low rise flats. Higher density developments can be significantly more environmentally efficient than lower density developments, and can also allow residents of the new and existing developments to enjoy green belt countryside that hasn't been destroyed.
With regard specifically to proposed allocation 13 (south of Shirley), if this site were to be used (but I would prefer it if it wasn't), it would be preferable to build higher density further away from Stretton Road to provide a full field's gap (not just the narrow strip of bridleway and amenity land) between the estates to still allow for a significant band of open space. This land provides enormous intrinsic benefit to local residents and it would be a huge blow to the area for it to be built upon. It is possible to walk for over an hour on a circular route without having to go on more than a few metres of road. This provides good health and stress-relieving benefits for local people. This would be lost by developing this area. The fresh air would be replaced by polluted air from thousands of extra cars sitting in traffic jams, and would be detrimental to all impacted.
In addition, this area of grassland is important for drainage in the area. Building more tarmac and impermeable surfaces on this area is likely to have knock-on impacts for existing and future residents.
It is also an area that provides a large open space for wildlife and significant numbers of trees.

16. Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure35 required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are they?

Schools local to proposed allocations 11, 12 and 13 already have two or three form entries at primary school level where they used to be single form entry. It is difficult to envisage how much additional capacity these schools can really withstand before it has a detrimental impact on their ability to provide the outstanding education that they are renowned for.
This would exacerbate congestion of the significant numbers of cars dropping or collecting pupils from Lighthall School, and Woodlands School (and all of the other schools in the borough) and the knock on impact on local residents who live around these schools.
At school start and finish times there are already severe issues with driving round the estate surrounding Stretton Road, parking, school delivery lorries. I have personally nearly been killed on my bicycle trying to get to the station by parents turning their cars in our road without looking, and also run off the road by a school food delivery lorry on the roundabout on Shakespeare Drive.
Roads around proposed allocations 11, 12 and 13 are already overcrowded, and they are not convenient for train travel without using a car to get to the station, or an extended walk. Parking already became a problem at Shirley station with the growth of Dickens Heath. Several years ago it became impossible to find a parking space at Shirley station unless you arrived before 7.30am. This led to the expansion of Whitlocks End station parking and the extension of the line to Whitlocks End instead of Shirley, but with the scale of housing being proposed, again I can't see how the train infrastructure on this line could stand the scale of the proposed housing. Perhaps extra buses may be proposed but they won't be able to get through the gridlocked traffic, and it will then take up to an additional hour from Shirley to get into Birmingham by bus.
Tanworth Lane, Stretton Road, Stratford Road, Dog Kennel Lane are all already severely congested due to Dickens Heath traffic, leading to extra pollution in the area. To extend further would cause even more congestion and pollution. It is unfair to existing residents to prevent them from being able to get to places due to additional congestion. It is already the case that it can take longer to drive from Withybrook Road to the TRW site than it does to walk on the occasions my husband needs to take his car to work. It can take 20 minutes to drive that mile, purely due to the Dickens Heath traffic. By adding further housing developments in this area, this will become impossible. The residents of Shirley won't be able to get onto the M42 in the morning, or return home in the evening as the Stratford Road and adjoining roads will be gridlocked.
Regarding pollution, in the 25 years we've lived here and run a local Scout troop, we've seen the number of children with asthma increase dramatically, which appears to be due to pollution from the Stratford Road, and the Council should feel responsible for the impact of their decisions on local residents.
We have seen nothing in the plan about nursery provision. This needs to be addressed as it is difficult to find nursery places in the area. On a personal level, we have enrolled our daughter at Active Angels nursery for when I return to work, and a very significant factor in choosing this nursery was that it backed on to open fields, so she wouldn't be inhaling the fumes of the Stratford Road every day. However, if proposed allocation 13 is built, not only in due course will there be lots of houses and cars, but in the meantime, she'll be attending nursery on a building site with heavy lorries and heavy plant in operation rather than the fields and open spaces that was a major factor in choosing this site. We're now uncertain whether the nursery will even exist in the future. We've also missed our opportunity to book into our other nursery choices now, because it is necessary to obtain places so far in advance.
For the number of houses you're proposing, it will be required to have additional secondary schools. It is not feasible to extend existing ones as you will not be able to get any more cars there or back in the mornings and afternoons. The new schools will need space and access roads. Several primary schools as a minimum must be considered in these plans.
Good quality, well lit cycle paths separate from traffic (but not slower to use than the road) should be drawn into any of these planned developments and linking to major sites. With the increase in traffic on the roads, Solihull's roads will become even more dangerous for cyclists (and pedestrians). The poor design of Dickens Heath leading to significant levels of on-street parking has made it dangerous to cycle through here as drivers are impatient to wait to pass. Similar problems could easily happen with any of these new sites if not well designed.
I think it is likely that there is a significant flooding risk by building allocations 12 and 13. Certainly the fields around allocation 13 are always boggy and muddy in winter. The drains at the top of Hathaway Road at the junction with Shakespeare Drive overflow in any heavy rain. I would envisage this getting significantly worse if allocation 13 is built on, and this large area of grass/marshland is removed. The drainage system of the whole area would need to be significantly improved.
End of response

Development Knowle and Dorridge

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 find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan

See Attachment

Shirley newsletter reply slip and letter

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for land at and to the rear of 146- 152 Tilehouse Lane, Whitlock's End, B90 1PW.

The submission comprises the
* letter of representations (10463 HRW LPR APP);
* a site plan (ref.no. 10463-01A) with the site edged red;
* an Illustrative layout (10463(10)M-101 prepared by Tyler-Parkes Partnership
* a Transport Statement prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering Ltd
* An updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey prepared by Cotswold Wildlife Surveys
* Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy prepared by BWB

petition submitted by Solihull Ratepayers - 34 pages containing 361 signatures

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the site at Tidbury Green Golf Club, Tidbury Green.

The submission comprises
* The letter of representations (10171 LPA3 LPR APP)
* An existing site plan (ref.no. 10509(EX)01) with the site edged red.
* Schedule of accommodation (10509(SC)01)
* Illustrative Site Layout (10509(MP)01)
* Ecological Appraisal prepared by Crossman Associates
* Environmental Noise Report prepared by Sharps Redmore
* Flood Risk Assessment prepared by THDA
* Tree Survey prepared by Abbey Forestry
* Transport Statement and Travel Plan prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering
* Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Landscape Matters
* Site Investigation Report prepared by Georisk UK

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for land at the rear of Bakehouse Lane and Wheeler Close, Chadwick End

The submission comprises the letter of representations (6439.LPA1.HMG LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 6439 site plan) with the site edged red.

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review on behalf of the landowners at the sites at Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common.

The submission comprises
* the letter of representations (10607 LPA2 JD LPR APP);
* Site plan (10607(OS)01) with the site edged red;
* Illustrative layout (10607(MP)01);
* Transport Assessment prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering; and
* Landscape character assessment response prepared by Landscape Matters

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land south of Hampton Lane, and west of Ravenshaw Lane/ South of Hampton Lane, Solihull.

The submission comprises the letter of representations (9263 SHL LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 9263 Site Plan) with the site edged red.

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land at Barston Lane/ Oak Lane, Barston B92 0JR

The submission comprises the letter of representations (10445 LA3 GC LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 10445-01A) with the site edged red.

Far too many to be built on the green belt in the Shirley and Dickens Heath area. Also taking into account Blythe Valley and the houses already being built in Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green, the house numbers account for at least half are those to be built in Solihull.They should be spread out across the borough.

a whole list of sites
site 4 - shouldn't be allowed to sprawl across and join almost to majors green . the existing roads cant cope
site 5 - a no brainer what on earth will happen to the existing road network and the traffic corridor for the Chester road/ Collector road especially with all the expected extra growth at the HS2 hub . traffic east bound on this route to bham will increase. The last road improvements on the chester road at Craig croft and the Timberley shops have been heavily criticised so the council dont have a great track record on roads in North Solihull. also you would not build on a large open island in South solihull so why is it ok in Chelmsley Wood,
site 7 - yes if its done sensitively and enhances kingshurst. but if the homes are more modern Bellway shoeboxes like at Woodlands next to smiths wood college then it is a waste of an opportunity.
Site 14 - same as site 7 Arran way deserves well planned homes . not high density modern slums
site 15 - yes to building on brownfield but not the open space /sports ground. why does chelmsley wood have to lose all its open space
site 16 - major road works would be needed to prevent gridlock back onto Damson park way , hampton lane and the warwick road junction to the M42. proposed high growth at the A45 corridor from JLR / HS2 will have a massive impact on this whole road network between A45 and A41 & M42
site 17 - if the council depot and light industry move out where will they be relocated . will more green belt be taken elsewhere . Lode lane is a congested traffic corridor . the site would have to be carefully designed to avoid all the social and parking problems that wharf lane next door has experienced

Richborough Estates Limited support the proposed allocations at Frog Lane, Balsall Common (Potential Housing Allocation 2) and West of Dickens Heath (Potential Housing Allocation 4) which fully accord with the sequential approach adopted in the Local Plan Review towards the identification of suitable sites. Further comments are made in site-specific representations attached.

Richborough Estates endorse the master planning approach towards Potential Housing Allocations and have already sought to engage with stakeholders in the formulation of proposals for the sites at Frog Lane, Balsall Common and West of Dickens Heath. Richborough Estates will continue to engage with the Council and other stakeholders prior to the submission of any planning application.

Point 87.
Dickens Heath Village was specifically designed to be an independent village with its own infrastructure. The village has been continually expanded and expanded - the current additions are still being built. The village infrastructure simply cannot cope. Main Street was built as a collection of local shops that residents could easily walk to. This has been lost, with cars parked everywhere is has become unsafe and the local businesses suffer.

Whilst I understand the need for extra housing I feel Dickens Heath has had more than its fair share.
These plans propose expanding it by 60% without any additional amenities.

The moto on Dickens Heath's coat of arms is 'In the Countryside we Flourish'. Families moved here in promise of a semi-rural village life.

As a resident of Shirley South I am getting increasingly concerned about flooding that is affecting gardens in the area and also the effect of development on the land at Site 13. Site 13 has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land, evergreen forest and mature deciduous trees and hedgerows. 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 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.
If the proposed development of Site 13 was to go ahead then there would be significant effects on the water table in the area, both in terms of run-off and drainage. The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy from April 2015 doesn't factor in surface water meaning that the flood risk at site 13 is significantly underestimated. The long term predictions are for wetter weather throughout parts of the year. I am concerned that the constraints map used to detail the flood risk across the borough doesn't fully capture all the areas of concern, especially Site 13.

Hi,

I wanted to pass on my thoughts to what can only be described as the destruction of the local environment around the Dickens Heath Village area through the number of houses being built.
The village is currently poorly serviced by roads in and out, plus the lack of parking around the shop area for visitors, so much so that they often turn around and drive out, which obviously affects local businesses.
The area around the village is beautiful mix of fields, woodland and canals which are home to allsorts of wildlife...What are the Council's plans for the wildlife if they agree to further houses being built. Seeing buzzards and birds of prey within a short walk of the village is great but will all be lost to further development.
Currently the roads are unsuitable to sustaining the current levels of traffic, they are already in disrepair, with the extra houses being proposed it will be more like constant traffic jams..

The plan to add extra houses to this area is a complete farce, and the area is just being picked on because it has beautiful green belt land, that the council think is ok to turn in housing estates, just to make money..

If this all goes ahead, then there needs to be improvements to all the roads, bypasses for the smaller villages (like Dickens Heath), better train services, more shops and medical services.

But overall factor for me is that this area is a beautiful area of small villages and fields and woodland that the Council seem adamant to ruin and turn into another suburb of concrete and bricks....

I really hope that SMBC listen to their residents..


Rgd​s