11 Shirley - TRW Site

In response to the consultation, I would like to add mine and my husband's support for the full and detailed response made by the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum on all counts.

I understand there is a need to build additional homes, but my biggest concern is that building on Green Belt would be to the detriment of Solihull and it's long-standing Urbs in Rure motto. People come to live here because of the proximity to green and open spaces. To build homes - or anything else - on these spaces is to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Once green belt is gone, you can't ever get it back. Brown field sites should be favoured for housing, such as the TVR site in Shirley where housing - with it's excellent transport links - would be most appropriate.

FAO: Policy and Spatial Planning. Solihull SMC.

The reasons why we oppose the plans to build new houses on local green belt land are as follows:

1. We lose this green belt land forever. It changes the semi rural aspect of the area. We need all our green spaces!

2. They're unfair - 41% f houses in Solihull's plan are in 4 sites that neighbour our community.

3. They will have a negative impact on our community: aside from the loss of green space around and near our homes (and the benefit to community well-being that that brings), the propsed housing would create transport problems along an already busy and overcroded Haslucks Green Road, Bills lane, Tamworth Lane, Blackford Road and many of the roads that run between them. It could also have a detrimental affect on schools and doctors.

4. It won't help HS2: the draft Local Plan Review makes a lot of reference to the benefits to the borough from the HS2 interchange at the airport. However, Shirley will be one of the worst places in the borough to get to the new station. Areas to the east and North of the borough are more easy and natural access points that won't need to contend with the congested A43 and M42.

We would like our views as local people taken into consideration to cancel or at the very least severely scale back this all of this local plan. Allocation 13 should be in particular scrapped.

Proposed plans for new houses in Shirley

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

Mass building in shirley and local areas.

Sirs.I write in support of the many objections you will have received with regard to council planning applications to develop as many green areas as possible in and around Shirley, Chiswick Green ,Blyth Valley rather than sharing required development over the whole of the metropolitan borough. anyway the council lack of foresight will ultimately create many problems associated not only with health care,when all these housing plans which do not include GP surgeries ,even if they did , they cannot be manned,because of the lack of Medical Professionals.We read daily in our newspapers hospitals cannot cope , A&E departments being closed down,staff shortages everywhere.
Local roads overloaded with ever increasing traffic on roads not fit for purpose.
In spite of the fact ministers are coming under increasing pressure from members of parliament, Solihull Council continue to plod on with there building ambitions .We need more MPs like Andrew Mitchell who wants to adhere to tory manifesto pledge
to protect the Green Belt..

I am sending this email about the many houses that are to be built in Shirley area, there seems to many on so little land and the roads and leafey lanes can not cope with this a mount off traffic will there be new schools to cope with amount off children and doctors. There will be no green fields left to enjoy.

Proposed development of South Solihull

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

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

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

Proposed Green Belt Housing Allocation - Shirley, Solihull

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

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

My concerns are :

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

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

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

The proposed building on Green belt around Shirley

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

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

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

We would like to comment on the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review.
1. We would prefer the unique identity of Dickens Heath to be retained. If permission is granted for housing development on both land to the north of the Miller and Carter and the site to the west of the existing village, we feel that Dickens Heath would simply become part of a large urban sprawl and would lose its village character. Compared with the original plan for Dickens Heath, considerable additional housing has already been approved, but at least most of this is on the side of the village adjacent to more green belt.
2. Green belt which was confirmed in 1997 would be abandoned and the green corridors separating existing housing areas would either shrink or disappear. We would not object to development of the land north of the Miller and Carter, as there would still be some green belt protecting the village on that side. If the land west of the village centre was to be developed then there would be no effective separation of the village from the housing north of Whitlock's End Station. We do not believe that there are exceptional circumstances justifying housebuilding on the land west of the village centre. We recognise that new homes are needed; we believe that other areas of the borough should help to provide, instead of the lions share being permitted round Dickens Heath.
3. If development on the scale being considered was permitted, then the existing infrastructure is simply inadequate. There is insufficient parking in Dickens Heath centre now; 700 extra homes would exacerbate the problem. As any new homes would be further from the village centre, it is unlikely that people would walk to Dickens Heath, so parking problems would intensify. The car park at Whitlock's End Rail Station is already heavily used and unless it was extended, then would in all probability be unable to cope with the volume of traffic generated by the extra houses.
4. The road network in the area is of poor quality now, both in terms of inadequate width of roads, bad visibility at junctions e.g. both ends of Birchy Leasowes Lane, and condition of the carriageways. There are no footpaths on some roads e.g. Birchy Leasowes Lane, and the extra traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, would make these roads even more dangerous.
5. We are concerned that the service infrastructure e.g. doctors, dentists, schools, broadband provision etc. would be unable to cope with the likely number of extra houses.
6. We believe that the sports facilities are very valuable. One proposal we have seen relocates these north of Tythe Barn Lane, but on a diminished land area, which would not allow a realistic usage comparable with the current situation.
7. We would not like to see "Akamba" being forced out as it is a useful asset to the village, providing an unusual set of resources in the area.

We hope the Council will consider these points before making a decision and reject some of the requests to convert green belt into building land.

Housing Plans for Shirley and nearby areas.

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

To whom it may concern

Re Spatial Planning Council House Solihull - Local Plan Review Shirley - South Shirley

I am writing in response to the consultation on the Local Plan Review and wish to draw the following concerns in respect of the draft consultation proposals in this area:

* To retain and enhance the existing amenity fields and the green corridor to the bridleway, with access to Bills Lane, the canal and the countryside beyond.
* There to be no secondary vehicle access roads via the Woodlands or Badger Residential Estate.
* We object to the concentration of 2550 homes in such close proximity to the South Shirley area and seek a fairer distribution across the borough.
* That there should be retention of a wider Green Belt between South Shirley and the built area of Dickens Heath.

I hope that the views of residents will incorporated into making a more inclusive and fair plan for the borough.

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

see attached documents

see letter and supporting documents for Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Nos. 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green

Proposed building site dickens heath/majors green

We are shocked,and very worried about the sheer scale of the proposed building of over 2,500 houses between Dickens Heath,and Majors Green,if this is allowed to go ahead the semi rural aspect of the area will be turned into a town,with all the increase in traffic,pollution,and noise,can you tell me how much green belt land will be lost?,and can I ask the councillors of dickens heath,majors green,wythall,and Bromsgrove,as well as Solihull, to try aggressively to reduce the amount of houses and the impact this will have on the area,many thanks

Solihull Local Plan Review
We wish to object in the strongest terms to the parts of the Solihull Local Plan which will result in the loss of green spaces in Shirley South.

We particularly object to the proposal Allocation 13 - this beautiful and popular recreation area is an asset to the area and is important for the health, fitness and wellbeing of the local community. Further, developing on Allocation 13 would have a negative impact on the enjoyment of our home - which we chose because of it's proximity to open spaces. We would hope that future generations of local residence would be able to enjoy Allocation 13 as a recreational space too.
The building of homes on Green Belt land is out of line with the 2015 Conservative Manifesto (April 2015; www.conservatives.com/manifesto) which places great importance on the Green Belt and talks about maintaining existing levels of protection.

We consider it to be unfair to residents of Shirley South, that such a large part of the Local plan's proposed houses are in 4 sites that neighbour our community (approx 41%).

We are also very concerned that these developments will create traffic problems on Blackford Road - as we have seen the effect that recent developments (Dickens Manor and Cheswick Place) have had on traffic on our road already.

With regard to Allocation 11, we understand the need to develop on this allocation - but we wish to object to the high intensity of the proposal. We are very concerned about the building of 4 story buildings along the rear of houses on Blackford Road and believe their proximity and height will result in a loss of our privacy. Additionally, residential buildings of this scale and height are out of keeping with other houses in the area and we believe that their design and appearance should be sympathetic to the surrounding community.

see attached letter

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

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

Our main concerns are:

Impact to the environment:

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

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

It also brings people together and gives a community feel.

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

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

Large amount of houses within a small space:

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

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

Impact on the local roads:

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

Impact on school places:

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

Impact on local train services:

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

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

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

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

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

Floodplain:

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

Disruption whilst working is being carried out:

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

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

Youth activities:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development of Green Belt for housing - Shirley

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

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

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

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

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

My key objections are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would also like to make the following observations:

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

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

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

I strongly recommend your proposals are revisited focusing on:

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

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

Draft Local Development Plan- South Shirley

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition to development on green belt in Shirley (specifically area 13)

I object to the building of new housing developments in Shirley and most specifically area 13. The roads around Shirley especially Haslucks Green Road (on which I live) are gridlocked for a large part of the day, GP services (in which I work) are at breaking point with wait times for a routine appointment at 2 weeks. Decent schools are over subscribed with local kids being forced to travel further from home ( contributing to the road issues) . Why not use brownfield sites or failing that get the infrastructure right first THEN the houses

Solihull Draft Local Plan Review - 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.


Plans show that Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of the new housing in the borough. Why? This is disproportionate and unfair.


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 understand that there are numerous options yet to be explored and would be interested to know why these other options are not suitable?

The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. If this is the case HS2 will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near 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 past the Miller and Carter is a constant flow of traffic, as are some of the local roads such as Burman Road, Bills Lane an Shakespeare Drive.
With the addition of this huge number of new homes this will compound congestion and traffic flow to an eventual standstill.

With regard to 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. There are no spaces available at Shirley Station after 7am.

I am also very concerned that the area is not able to facilitate the large number of potential new families. This influx of new residents would be detrimental to our schools, doctors and dentists which are already full to capacity. Therefore this would mean that there would be a need for either school extensions or new schools, which would require more of our green land taken away.

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 difficult and can take over an hour in traffic to get there.

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

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.
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.


I feel that Allocation 13 should become a recognised conservation and public amenity area serving Shirley South. Land has already been taken away from Shirley Park with a previous need for housing which has left a reduced amount of green space for residents to use. We need areas for general exercise to keep fit and healthy.

I am sure there are many alternatives to developing green belt sites and I am not convinced that all possibilities have been exhausted, both in smarter use of land.


I would be grateful if you could consider my objections when making your decision.

Objections to allocation 13

I am 31 years old and live at 41 Baxters Road, Shirley. I object to the proposals for allocation 13 and further development in Shirley. I appreciate there is a need for more houses but believe Shirley is taking on an unfair proportion of the allocation compared to other areas of Solihull. It will create further congestion on a;ready busy roads, both residential streets and arterial roads as well as the local motorway network. Also local amenities such as public transport, infrastructure, schools and doctors surgeries will be adversely affected by the influx of new residents. Further to this the health and well being of the Shirley community will be impacted upon with the loss of green and open spaces for leisure and recreation, with already lost parkland such as the Parkgate development at Shirley park. The expanse of this infilling on green spaces surrounding Shirley will unnecessarily increase urban sprawl towards Dickens Heath.It seems the possible eco friendly development of brown filed sites is less considered or the allocation is not being proportionally spread across the borough.

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards

Objections and Comments on Shirley allocation plot 13

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


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

Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of the new housing in the borough. This is disproportionate and unfair. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements".
I believe that there are numerous options yet to be explored and have yet to see the exhausted list of alternatives that have been investigated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.