11 Shirley - TRW Site

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

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



I thought I would try to put forward some positives.

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


I've tried not to make it too longwinded!

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

We wish to make representations as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly object to the extent of the proposals re the building of 2500 houses around the Shirley area. The scheme is untenable, unrealistic, disproportionate (considering many other areas in Solihull), and fraught with considerable problems, particularly traffic ones. Yes, Shirley must play its part in the provision of new housing, but not to the degree proposed. Most of the cars from these potential areas will use the A 34, to turn left or right along it or cross it on the way to Soliuhull. Are you aware of the problems we experience now? And the possible future. YUK.

What about the Green Belt?
Some of the proposed areas are less unacceptable in your suggestion,e.g.TWR site and the Blythe Valley. Others, particularly allocation 13,off Baxters Close and Woodloes Road, are definitely untouchable, considering the numbers who use it for leisure and recreational activities.

Now a practical proposal. Solihull is overprovided with golf courses, and using one of these would be more acceptable to the vast majority of Solihull residents. The merging of Robin Hood and Olton golf courses is one suggestion to providing building land, but my choice would be to develop Copt Heath golf club. Two reasons; it would involve the Knowle area in Solihull's scheme , but mainly because it is near the M42 and this would generate less traffic congestion. Either scheme would be politically challenging; has the council got the courage to attempt them?

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

objection allocation 13

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

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

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

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

Without prejudice, Objection to the Solihull Local Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Housing Developments in Shirley

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

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

To whom it may concern,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Volume Traffic along Haslucks Green Road, Majors Green end

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please take our concerns into account.

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

Green Belt Annihilation

This plan to build two & a half thousand new houses in an area already suffering from the Dickens Heath development in terms of loss of green belt land and extra road congestion in this area is preposterous. The 700 site adjoining Dickens Heath village looks as if it will mean losing several football pitches , including Highgate United and Leafield Athletic.

All this at a time when we are hearing daily about the harm to our health caused by pollution from the increasing numbers of vehicles on the roads of this country and the number of children who are suffering from obesity caused partly by not taking part in physical activities such as football, rugby, cricket etc.

I have lived in Bills Lane for over 30 years and the traffic here has got worse and worse, especially in the last 10 years. How this road and all the others in this vicinity are going to cope I dread to think.

Just a few miles from here in Earlswood there are several big building sites on green fields already being developed. The infrastructure is not there for the extra traffic to join the huge numbers already heading to Shirley , Solihull and Birmingham.

Surely there must be brown field and green sites elsewhere in the Borough that could be used for building a share of these 2,500 new dwellings.

see attached

see attached

Letter responding to draft local plan review.

see response and supporting documents

Views on Allocation 13

These are my objections and comments on Allocation 13. I am writing to register my formal objection to Allocation 13.
- The area is currently semi-rural. Building on Allocation 13 as well as the other proposed locations will make Shirley an urban area of sprawling housing.
- 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". The Council have not explored all other options and have not considered all options across the Solihull borough.
- Traffic along the A34 is already problematic and this will only become worse. I live on Burman Road and that road together with surrounding roads will become busier and more congested.
- The addition of housing in Allocation 13 together with the other proposed areas totals in excess of 2000. Assuming that families are the main occupants there may be at least an additional 2000 children - where are the proposals for the new primary schools that would be required as well as at least one secondary school? There will also need to be more medical facilities.
- Allocation 13 is a popular recreation and amenity area and is an area of environmental importance and benefit. There will also be an impact on recreation areas.
Before developing greenfield sites, it is necessary to prove that all options have been explored - what about development on sites surrounding Birmingham airport, close to the HS2 link or spreading the housing provision across Solihull rather than impact in one defined area.
Please bear these valid points points when making your final decision.

see attached response and supporting documents

i wish to object to the proposed buildings of 41% share of houses in Shirley Solihull. As I live on Marshall Lake Road and the traffic is already dire,the thought of so much more traffic and congestion around this area is ridiculous. Green belt land and wildlife are more important to people than houses which they cannot afford I feel. Traffic pollution is not good for anyone's health or safety, whereas open spaces and fields,peace and quiet,bridal paths,dog walking areas,canals and rippling streams are most beneficial to health and well being.
'IF IT AINT BROKE....DONT FIX IT'

Please take into account that all the housing you propose to put in our local community, will have a detrimental impact on our schools and doctors, it will create awfull transport problems along haslucks green rd. Bills lane Burman rd. Tamworth lane and Blackford rd.

Proposed housing in Shirley

The proposed plans for such a large amount of housing, adding to that already in Dickens Heath and the further traffic congestion this would bring to the area is, in my opinion, totally short sighted. My objections are:

* The congestion on the Stratford Road up to the motorway connection is already very bad and getting worse especially during commuting times.
* Dog Kennel Lane, by its very name is a lane and the amount of traffic from your proposed building would make it untenable for most journeys as it would be completely jammed.
* The exit from Tanworth Lane onto Blackford Road and Dog Kennel Lane is already a nightmare when people are trying to exit Tanworth Lane as the traffic from Dickens Heath is constant with little leeway to move out of Tanworth Lane. This is already an accident waiting to happen!
* We have had a large amount of retail expansion in this area over the past few years. The Sears Retail Park, plus the stores on the Stratford Road bordering the island at Stratford Road/Blackford Road and Marshall Lake Road, make it very difficult and we are virtual prisoners in our homes as the Stratford Road is grid locked as is Marshall Lake Road and Blossomfield Road, virtually all the way into Solihull.
* I firmly believe we have 'done our bit' for the area with all the above and would like my objections recognised.
* Surely it would be much safer and more manageable for the housing to be built at Catherine de Barnes where there is more room and less problems with the amount of traffic these builds would generate.
* I feel this proposal would have far reaching negative implications in that many people would not travel to this area as it would be a travel bottle neck and be avoided being detrimental to the NEC and surrounding businesses.

see attached

Herewith my thoughts concerning the local plan review, I send them by email because of the issues with the web portal.

1. The proposed developments on allocations 4, 11, 12, 13 are closely clustered. This will clearly impact road usage as well as require additional provision for schools, medical and other facilities. As a resident of Blackford road I am aware of the steady increase in traffic from the existing developments in and around Dickens Heath. It would appear that the highway usage and plan is a critical part of the proposal. Further, a lot of local traffic is caused by Dickens Heath pupils travelling by car to Alderbrook or other schools in Solihull. In summary, I can't see how the scheme is supposed to work sustainably without understanding the plan for additional services and roads.
2. The use of the 'TRW' site seems very logical. The land has limited recreational value and is clearly underutilised. Given the existing developments on the site it seems logical to extend the 3-4 storey buildings and provide housing local to the Shirley industrial area (including Cranmore) within walking distance.
3. Allocation 13 is the exact opposite and I oppose its use for housing. It is a valuable green space for recreation, nature and acting as a buffer between Dickens Heath and Shirley. Unless the previously planned 'Shirley Relief Road' is reinstated it is difficult to see it offering any improvement in the already busy traffic in the area. This allocation in particular would cause Shirley and Dickens Heath to merge into a mass of over-corded small local roads and housing.
4. A more general observation is that across Solihull there are a number of large ground level car parks. These don't strike me as a very efficient use of space, especially when they are near to shops/services or travel connections. Has adequate consideration been given to reviewing these for re-development and incorporation of housing?
5. Further to the point about local traffic above (1) I believe that additional provision will be required for car commuters to Solihull, the motorway network and to the rail network. The local railway station at Whitlocks End is already overloaded with cars. If more housing was within walking distance of this or other rail stations, it would relieve the pressure. The commute to the M42 in the morning is already difficult and I believe specific improvements are required to allow the traffic out of Shirley (to the motorway) to not be delayed by traffic coming in to the Cranmore businesses, as they currently do. Improvements to Dog Kennel Lane and the connecting roundabouts on the A34 and at Dickens Heath road could ease this. It would appear that this needs to be planned and enacted before the developments commence to minimise the impact and allow maximum flexibility in planning new roads/connections.

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

I would like to object strongly to 41% of the proposed 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. The 2550 homes in South Shirley, allocations 4,11, 12 and 13 will have a serious impact on what are already congested roads: Bills Lane, Tamworth Lane, Dog Kennel Lane, Stratford Rd (A34) and M42, Haslucks Green Rd and Blackford Rd.
1. 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 local community, as this area is used by so many for exercise, recreation and dog walking.
2. Affects on local services, schools and GP surgeries will be hit the most. Whilst Solihull Hospital will be affected with longer waiting lists or patients moved to Heartlands Hospital which will effect patients and relatives alike.
3. The plan will also remove six sports and recreational fields from the area.
4. The area of Badgers estate next to Allocation 13 is prone to flooding and many properties have suffered damp. Any removal of old trees and vast areas of tarmac and building will make this problem far worse.
5. The building of high density housing is not good and it leads to disputes over parking, noise and many other social issues that are raised through a lack of space to live.



I would ask Solihull MBC to revise its plan to build these 2550 new homes in the areas of South Shirley and Dickens Heath as it is grossly unfair to its people. It is widely known that the council has identified more possible sites that would have less an impact on the people and families of these areas. I would therefore ask Solihull MBC to consider the people who already live here first and foremost.

proposed allocations 4/11/12/13
see letter

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment