11 Shirley - TRW Site

see attached letter

see attached letter

I am strongly Against the proposed planning by Solihull Council for the house development for the Shirley, Dickens Heath and Majors Green Area. I feel it will be very damaging for the area and the people who live and will be living there in the future . There are roads which aren't much more than lanes in some parts, some with narrow footpath and pedestrians have to step into the road to pass each other. I myself have been hit twice by vehicles wing mirrors in Haslucks Green road by vehicles moving over to avoid traffic coming the other way. The roads in peak time is very heavily used and there has been several bad accidents recently at Bills Lane, Haslucks Green Road, Rushleigh Road ,Cambria Drive and Whitlock End Station Bend, fortunately up till now not a fatal one. I feel the area is being over developed by property developers who will cram as many house as they can into the area and Solihull Council who see green fields as £ signs.
Schools, Doctors, Hospitals and other services & amenities are stretched now. Will they be able to cope with an increased the population. Are there Plans to improve these services and facilities .

see attached written objection

Solihull Local Plan Review: Shirley South Site 13
I wish to register my strong objection to the plans to build a large number of houses in Shirley South and in particular on the land close to the Woodlands and Badgers Estate.
I have lived in Woodlands Lane for forty years and, together with many other residents, have used the footpaths and fields for walking to get fresh air and exercise. It is an important area of open countryside providing for the health and well being of the local community. The extensive old hedgerows, trees and wetland areas are important habitats for wildlife. This area provides a green buffer between us and Dicken's Heath and should not be used for excessive development. It is quality green belt that should be preserved.
The Dicken's Heath development has badly impacted on the traffic in the area because of insufficient development of the road infrastructure. In the morning there is a continuous stream of traffic heading from there, up Dog Kennel Lane to junction 4 of the M42. This makes it so difficult for us to get out of Tanworth Lane that it creates the frustrating situation whereby, if using the car, we do not leave the house between 7:45 and 9:00! More development in the area will merely add to the already congested stretch of the Stratford Road and M42. Why not build closer to the M6, M40, Birmingham International and the proposed HS2 stations. Worcester shire and Warwickshire do not have any interest in improving the roads up to the Solihull boundary and access to junction 3 of the M42 is still via poor country lanes. Some "joined up " thinking about road infrastructure would really help to ease a poor situation for road users in Shirley South.

Solihull Local Plan Review: Shirley South Site 13
I wish to register my objection to the plans to build the large number of houses in Shirley south and in particular on the land close to the Woodlands and Badgers Estate.
I have lived in Woodlands Lane for forty years and, together with many other residents, have used the footpaths and fields for walking to get fresh air and exercise. It is an important area of open countryside providing for the health and well being of the local community. The extensive old hedgerows, trees and wetland areas are important habitats for wildlife. As this area provides a green buffer between us and Dicken's Heath please don't swallow it all up with development. I have this year worked with the 'Love Solihull' team to keep these fields and the canal tow path free from litter. It is quality green belt.
Dicken's Heath has already impacted on the traffic in the area. In the morning there is a continuous stream of traffic heading from there, up Dog Kennel Lane to junction 4 of the M42. This makes it so difficult for us to get out of Tanworth Lane that it creates the ridiculous situation whereby, if using the car, we do not leave the house between 7:45 and 9:00! More development in the area will add to the already congested stretch of the Stratford Road and M42. Why not build closer to the M6, M40, Birmingham International and the proposed HS2 stations. Most do not use other ways out of Dicken's Heath as Worcester shire and Warwickshire have not improved the roads up to the Solihull boundary. The access to junction 3 of the M42 is still country lanes.

see attached letter

Proposed planning for Shirley
SAY GOODBYE TO THE CUCKOO

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

Objection to proposed housing on Allocation 13 Shirley
I have been a resident on Shotteswell Road in Shirley for 5 years now with the main attraction for moving there being the green spaces, excellent local services and quality of life.

Whilst I understand there is a need for more affordable housing, I am deeply concerned about the impact building 600 houses on allocation 13 and other allocated areas will have on my local neighbourhood, wildlife, and local traffic.

I spend most weekends walking through Shirley's wonderful green belt and observing local wildlife and removing this would be absolutely devastating.

I also spend most mornings sitting in unbearable traffic on Tanworth Lane trying to undertake my daily commute to work but struggling to get out where the junction meets with the B4102 due to the heavy volume of traffic streaming up from Dickens Heath. Building additional housing on the surrounding fields would make this commute simply intolerable.

There are plenty of other surrounding villages in Solihull which I'm sure could absorb some of this required housing, yet Shirley has been so heavily targeted. Planning was recently rejected on fields on Earlswood Road Dorridge due to this being green belt land, yet its ok to suggest Shirley sacrifices its green belt.

I'd like to request that Solihull Council considers the local residents of Shirley and the impacts this substantial housing will have on the community and quality of living. I feel a reasonable compromise would be to leave green belt land in allocation 13 untouched and proceed with the housing in allocations 11 and 12 (totalling 1250 homes) which is adequate for Shirley to contribute to the current requirement for housing due to the proposed HS2 development.

Objection to Shirley Allocation 13
I would formally like to state my vehement objections to Solihull Council's proposed new housing "Allocation 13".

I am a life long resident of Shirley and regularly use the local green belt for sports and recreation. My wife who also loves the area due to her has very keen interest in the wildlife that this small but wonderful area of natural habitat provides.

I do fully understand and appreciate the country's current housing crisis and accept that Shirley and Solihull have a part to play in resolving this issue, however the key reasons for my objections are as follows:

* The loss of much loved greenbelt land and the associated health, recreation and natural benefits to wildlife this provides.
* The fact that there are 1250 houses planned in allocation 11 and 12 only a matter of metres away from allocation 13 which to my knowledge is not greenbelt land. I feel this is a fair and reasonable amount of homes for this area of Shirley to cope with. More seems simply unnecessary and unwarranted.
* I struggle everyday to get out of the junction between Tanworth lane and the B4102 due to the stream of traffic coming up from Dickens Heath. The tail backs can go past the junction with Stretton road and it can take 20 minutes to get over this traffic blackspot currently. An additional 600 homes will simply make this an untenable area for vehicular traffic.
* The impact on local amenities and services would be detrimentally effected to great measure with the additional 600 homes that allocation 13 proposes (on top of the 1250 houses proposed for allocation 11 and 12).
* I believe there are other areas around Solihull that can accommodate more houses and essentially share their fair amount of new homes. To my knowledge there are no homes being planned in Dorridge. My understanding is that a prior planning application to build houses in Dorridge was refused and the fact the land was greenbelt was the rationale for the refusal. However it appears this reasonable precedent is conveniently forgotten when it comes to the already congested Shirley.
I strongly request that the proposed plans for 600 homes on Allocation 13 are scrapped in full, immediately.

Draft local plan review - Shirley
I wish to object to the proposed sites in Shirley. It is unfair that 41% of the houses in the plan are on sites neighbouring Shirley. I understand the need for more homes but would query why this area has to lose its Green Belt when other areas are more suitable.

This area has already seen a huge increase in new homes in recent years and the road infrastructure cannot possibly cope with another increase in traffic. I live on Bills Lane and it is almost impossible to exit my own drive in the rush hour. This will also impact on school places and GP services.

Shirley has become a very busy, over developed community. The adjacent green belt is therefore vital and brings many benefits to the area. Please reconsider the location of the proposed sites.

proposed development in South Shirley
I wish to register my objection to the possible development for significant future housing developments in the South Shirley area of the Borough.

1.A disproportionate number of the houses which the government require the borough to take are targeted on the South Shirley part of the borough.

2.If these houses are built they will destroy valuable green areas which provide open space amenities for a significant number of residents and provide for healthy exercise and mental well being.

3.The areas proposed ,particularly area 13, provide a green buffer between South Shirley and the large Dickens Heath development.Filling in with so many houses will destroying the individuality of these individual communities.

4.The developments will ,inevitably, increase traffic significantly on the country roads in the surrounding area.

5.If planning is granted then there will be further issues raised concerning the special wildlife which are to be found in this particular area.

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached response

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

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

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

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

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

Section 5 Question 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 7 Question 15

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

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

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

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

2. Roads/Congestion.

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

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

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

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

3. Increased Anti Social Behaviour(ASB) and Crime

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

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

4. Loss of Green Belt and nature

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

5. Health and well being.

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

6. Create more problems than it solves.

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

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

Good evening,

I have just heard that there has been an interest in the land opposite Miller and Carter, Solihull. The planning application I believe is to build 2000 houses on green fields. Unfortunately I could not make tonight's meeting (copy of minutes please).

I was under the impression there may be some development on Dog Kennel Lane too, so if these developments are agreed, this will mean that the whole of Shirley South will be engulfed with further housing instead of the lovely countryside which drew me to coming from Shirley East.

I live just off Stretton Road and come across traffic queues from Tanworth Lane to Blackford Road/Dog Kennel Lane on my daily commute to central Solihull. This will be much worse once this development is erected. Currently we have the excess traffic from the existing Dickens Heath village plus new developments, Dickens Manor, The Paddocks and Cheswick Place which has definitely increased.

I understand there has been a willingness to sell land from the Christmas Tree farm owners and the Football Ground which I am very surprised.

We have lots of dog walkers, joggers and cyclists go through this area, where will they go now? Also there are steel Pylons through this land, surely that is not suitable building land?

I am very concerned about the old people living round this area and the extra houses and noise.

What you should be concentrating on is flattening the speed bumps on Tanworth Lane, Stretton Road and Hathaway Road and reducing the amount of noise from motorbikes and them using our roads like a race track.

What is going to happen to the pressure on school places with our schools bursting at the seams already? Both Dickens Heath and Woodlands cannot be expanded due to space, no one has thought about this. Why not build at Blythe Valley, right by motorway access? LEAVE SHIRLEY ALONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Shirley Housing development

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

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

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

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

Housing development issue

I am a Shirley resident and I am not happy with the housing plans in Shirley, especially around the green belt areas. I feel the green areas should be preserved. Further,ore this housing expansion will have a detrimental impact on schooling and gp surgeries, where problems with waiting lists exist.

Proposed site in Shirley
My husband & I wish to protest against the proposed site in Shirley. We have been in residence here for 40 yrs & are both getting on in years. The amount of housing in the time we have lived here has almost doubled, even taking up some of our local park area. The 41% which the council have proposed to put here is much too high, apart from the traffic (which is already horrendous) our green belt is being taken away from us, we will now have nowhere to take an afternoon stroll.
As we are both in our 80's & my husband (who is 86) & an invalid it is the only place near enough for me to be able to push him in his wheelchair to get a little bit of country life, so the Bridle path is very important to us & of course dog owners too, let alone all the walkers that use it. While we appreciate that there is a need for more houses, surely 41% is MUCH too high for a place like Shirley. Please reconsider, as some of us don't have too many years left to enjoy our little walks & taking away our Bridle Path is a step too far.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs Phyllis Brookes & Mr Vernon Brookes.

see attached letter

New Homes draft plan Shirley

As a resident on Langcomb Road I must write to object to these plans on many grounds.

Any building work would cripple the road network around here which is already busy at peak times down Bills Lane and Haslucks Green Road during school run and work rush hour times.

Also green belt land was one of the reason we moved here so to see fields carved up for housing and having the potential for being overlooked and also security issues is very worrying. There is also significant wildlife there and this would affect that.

Please formally record my objection.

I appreciate your response.

see attached letter

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

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

Based on this information being correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would welcome your response.

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

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

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

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

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

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