12 Shirley - South of Dog Kennel Lane

I object to the sites identified at Dog Kennel Lane and South Shirley on the green belt. The traffic along Dog Kennel Lane is already high especially during peak hours where it can take at least 15 minutes to travel down towards Tanworth Lane. Traffic along Stretton Road onto Shotteswell Road is not able to cope with more traffic as it is too narrow for constant car travel. The fields at South Shirley are also used by many dog walkers and provide public walking routes.

I object to development on sites 12 / 13 / 4 for the following reasons...
I am against green belt land being taken for developmental use in this instance as not only will it ruin the character of Dickens Heath 'village' and Shirley, it will be a disaster for the local wildlife which reside there. Green belt was called as such for a reason, to distinguish between settlements and create a pleasurable environment for residents. The green belt in these areas provide a home for many wild animals, a escape for dog walkers and cross country runners, a football pitch for those wanting to be fit and more importantly an area that produces clean air for locals and plants and trees that soak up excess water. I fear without these areas if they are ALL to be built on as the council are proposing it will cause a serious flood risk.
My personal main concern is for the development which is proposed to be opposite my home - site 12 Dog Kennel Lane. This area specifically Tanworth Lane end is a farmed area which surrounds a LISTED Light Hall Georgian home. To build in this area would in my opinion spoil the characteristic rural feel of the area which separates Shirley from Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green. Not only would the view of the Hall be blighted ( I assume developers plan to keep it as it is a listed building?) But the farmland would be lost as well. With Britains recent exit of Europe I would have thought local farming were of even more importance now than before?!
The traffic into these new developments are also a concern. Currently there is heavy traffic daily along Tythe barn lane/Dickens Heath road and Tanworth Lane resulting in THREE accidents in the two weeks before Christmas to my knowledge! The traffic volume outside my house has already increased with the expansion of Cheswick Green and the tarmac roads are getting more and more damaged not to mention the noise level! I can no longer have a conversation on my drive without shouting! With no additional proposed access roads to these new expansions I only see this gridlock worsening. The bottle neck that is Tythe Barn lane actually at a number of points becomes a SINGLE lane, is this really sufficient for a development of 700 homes most of which will probably have two cars? Developers design the estates to cram in as many houses as possible (Dickens Heath Village included) without thought it seems to where people will park their vehicles, thus causing residents to park on the road side blocking the already narrow roads. With the development proposed along Dog Kennel lane (site 12) for a further 850 houses, the gap between Shirley/Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green will have diminished, loosing farmland/jobs/woodland/recreational sites & character of the area in its wake.
Tythe barn lane houses not one, not two, but THREE football teams ground where children and adults go to play and keep fit. The government are encouraging (children especially) to exercise, how can they be expected to do this if areas such as this are being built on and taken from them? The proposal I know states 'potential for provision of sporting facilities' but I fail to see how sufficient space to house the THREE sets of teams from site area 4 and another from site 13 can be made to fit, thus creating a shortfall of pitches within the area.

The proposed sites map fails to show the development of the Tidbury Green area which would also narrow the green land between settlements, could these new housing numbers not be added to the required build total set by the Government to reduced further plots having to be found?
There also is the question of schools. At present schools in Shirley and Dickens Heath are at capacity, with no room for expansion, so where do all these new additional children go to school? There are no plans to build a new one so will children have to travel to out of area schools thus making a mockery of the education policy that children need to be within a certain radius, allowing children to WALK to school! The same question applies to Doctors, I have not seen/heard any plans to build additional practices in the area so does this mean residents have to wait even longer to get appointments to meet additional demand?
My other worry is that of flooding, by removing this much farmland/green belt (a third of the councils allocated number in ONE area) and building on it, there will be less earth/trees to soak up the excess water which will inevitably cause flood damage along the way. I don't see why these new homes cannot be built creating a completely new settlement on a sustainable site nearer to where the creation of jobs is going to be nearer the airport/HS2 line. This way workers will be closer to the proposed new jobs and won't have to travel so far causing gridlock along the way. Areas near the airport I understand have to be left free from development to allow for 'accidents' but what of the residents of Marston Green who are already directly under the flight path, do they not count???
I would have thought it more sensible to put affordable housing nearer these areas as house prices are significantly lower in these areas anyway. Potential workers for the new jobs the HS2 will provide will then have lower travel costs also.
I understand we need to build more homes to house our growing numbers especially affordable ones, and I have no objection to the TRW site (site 11), what I don't agree with is the expansion concentrated in what to me it seems is nearly a third of the Governments allocation in one area (Shirley/Dickens Heath). It seems a very unfair distribution. I have lived on the edge of the Dickens Heath boundary for over five years now and have enjoyed the wonderful view of the LISTED Light Hall home of our neighbours. My only hope is that developers consider the CURRENT residents views/outlook and quality of life and attempt to screen off these new properties around boundaries before imposing them on our doorstep and devaluing what we have worked hard to achieve.

see attached letter

Development of green belt land south of Dog Kennel Lane will detract from the valued space and distinction between existing settlements of Shirley, Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green. It will also add to existing traffic problems in this area, along with current developments at Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green, unless there are major improvements in the road infrastructure. The site also has some flooding, supports protected species (bats, badgers) and being green belt contributes to the feeling of space and proximity of countryside for the borough; I therefore do not believe this site is suitable for 850 new houses.

Solihull Local Plan Review
Consultation Submission

I refer to the following areas proposed for housing development:

1. Proposed Housing Allocation 4 West of Dickens Heath
This development will result in the loss of a significant number of playing fields and sports amenities that are close to south Shirley and Dickens Heath. Research shows that "Regular physical activity reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia and some cancers by at least 30%." The UK Government has a clear policy (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/get-active-to-get-healthy) to encourage people to take regular exercise to reduce the possible impact of obesity with its attendant impact on not only the health of our nation but the cost to the NHS in treating obesity. These open spaces and sports and leisure facilities should not be lost whilst the health of our population is declining.

2. Proposed Housing Allocation 12 South of Dog Kennel Lane
This development will considerably reduce the open countryside between Shirley and Dickens Heath. This is contrary to the NPPF which seeks to retain individual communities and to resist coalescence of villages. In para 83 the plan talks about "The network of strong and vibrant communities across the Rural Area will have been sustained with a range of local facilities and services that are readily accessible on foot and by bicycle and that are appropriate to the scale and hierarchy of the settlement" whereas the plan seeks to extend many communities and leave only a small strip of dividing land.

3. Proposed Housing Allocation 13 South of Shirley
This development will considerably reduce the open countryside between Shirley and Dickens Heath. This is contrary to the NPPF which seeks to retain individual communities and to resist coalescence of villages.

In Para 87 there is no recognition of the new development at Lowbrook and Tidbury Green Farms for 387 houses in Tidbury Green. The plan review should recognise the reality of house building that has taken place in and around Dickens Heath. Since 1989 when approval was given for 700 houses to be built in Dickens Heath the area has seen approval for over 1500 houses plus the expansion of Dickens Heath from 700 to over 1500 houses, with the attendant loss of green space and little or no increase in amenities or leisure facilities.

Whilst the Borough has a vision to "retain its sense of identity both in its urban and rural area (including appropriate protection of the Green Belt); and the quality of the environment that make it a special place." It is difficult to reconcile that statement with the level of house building that has and will be taking place at considerable cost to the green belt (Site 4, 12 and 13 are all in the green belt.).

Conclusions
The Local Plan Review should seek other ways to meet its housing needs other than extending urban areas by pushing their boundaries into the green belt, and should not build on existing sports and leisure facilities that are close to urban areas unless there is a clear replacement and extension plan.

see attached letter and map of woodlands estate

letter from Cheswick Green Parish Council attached.

see attached letter

With reference to Site12, south of Dog Kennel Lane, in the Draft Local Plan, I wish to make the following observations.

1. There is no defined boundary on the southern edge of this proposed site. How will the Green Belt between this site and Cheswick Green be protected from further development?

2. I live on the northern edge of Cheswick Green next to the Green Belt land. Although not a flood risk area, the clay soil of this land can give rise to run-off when it becomes saturated. Covering an area with housing would increase this. Very efficient drainage will be needed to protect existing and potential housing.

3. There are many fine trees on this site, such as large mature oaks. These should be preserved for environmental and amenity reasons.

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

see attached written objection

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

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

There is a disproportionate number of homes allocated to the Shirley site without any clear and considered plans made to support and already strained local infrastructure.
There is sufficient land to accommodate more property in North Solihull if ultimately the borough needs to maintain the number of homes. I find it difficult to accept the proportion of properties that Solihull needs to accommodate due to lack of space available in Birmingham. The amount if social housing allocation is also a paramount reason for my objection.

Proposed planning for Shirley
SAY GOODBYE TO THE CUCKOO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proportion allocated to Shirley sites too high, in particular site 13 is well utilised by the local community and important to remain as public access to footpaths and open area to wildlife.
Not acceptable to use Solihull green belt areas and sports sites to compensate Birmingham shortfall.
Proportionate allocation of social housing inappropriate and will alter to detriment the nature of established housing genre.
Inadequate provision available for infrastructure to support increased population and necessitates movement for employment in other areas resulting in higher volume of traffic.
Suggest moving higher allocations to North Solihull, Catherine de Barnes, Dorrige, Hockley Heath.

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

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

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

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

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

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

see attached letter

Reference allocations 12 and 13. We object to these developments. There will be a significant increase in traffic on busy roads that are extremely congested during peak periods. This will lead to increased pollution and damage to roads already blighted by potholes. Coupled with the loss of green space and resultant impact on wildlife habitat there will be an adverse effect on the quality of our life in Solihull. It would be nice to see more effort being made to uphold the borough's motto: Urbs in Rure, Town in the Country.

Please find below my comments on Solihull's draft Local Plan.

My Comments all relate to the proposals for the site below:-
Area Ref. Site Name Green Belt Site Area Indicative Capacity
Shirley 12 South of Dog Kennel Lane Yes 42 850

I have been unable to submit these comments via the council's website but I have been assured by phone that I can submit these comments by email.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic
In the evening rush hour period Dog Kennel Lane is heavily congested with traffic going away from the Stratford Road towards Dickens Heath. At best the speed of travel could be described as a slow shuffle; at worst it is stationary. The building of 850 dwellings to the South of Dog Kennel Lane would create impossible congestion.
In the morning rush hour, it is not possible to turn right onto Dog Kennel Lane (going towards the Stratford Road and away from Dickens Heath) from Light Hall Farm and turning left can be extremely difficult due to the high volume of traffic.
Any increase in housing to the south of Dog Kennel Lane would exacerbate the existing problem.
Dog Kennel Lane cannot accommodate any increase in volume of traffic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage site - Light Hall Farm
Light Hall Farm is a heritage site - It consists of a Manor House, its associated Barn conversions and surrounding countryside and farmed land. The site is grade II listed and is therefore "of special interest warranting every effort to preserve" it. "Listing marks and celebrates a building's special architectural and historic interest, and also brings it under the consideration of the planning system, so that it can be protected for future generations" (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/listed-buildings/). As such, the outside of these buildings cannot be altered in any way and the public have the right to a view of them in their original setting. It would not therefore be appropriate to build new dwellings within sight of Light Hall Farm and it would be vital to maintain the surrounding area as farmland in order to maintain the heritage of the site.
I understand that "The Secretary of State may prescribe requirements as to publicity for applications for planning permission in cases where the local planning authority think that the development of land would affect the setting of a listed building" (Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/9/section/67) and assume that this would apply if the council were to consider building housing in this area, as the setting would be affected.
The countryside to the rear of the Light Hall farm site has remained unchanged throughout the history of the Manor House. It is green belt land and forms part of the heritage site itself. It includes beautiful ponds, unspoilt rolling grassland and woodland which all provide habitat for a rich array of plants and wildlife. Anything affecting this would desecrate the heritage site.
It is not appropriate to consider this area, to the south of Dog Kennel Lane, for construction of housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildlife
The green belt land to the south of Dog Kennel Lane, around Light Hall Farm, is beautiful English countryside and provides habitat for a rich array of wildlife. These include deer Many of these creatures are protected by law. The government's website states that disturbing the sets of badgers (for example by noise/vibration/tree felling) carries a 6 month prison sentence (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/badgers-protection-surveys-and-licences). There are many badgers living on the site of Light Hall Farm and their sets would no doubt be disturbed if any construction work were to commence within the vicinity of the site. I would be interested to know who would serve the prison sentence - the council planning committee or the construction workers?
There is a large bat population living around Light Hall Farm and it is illegal to do anything which affects the woodland and hedgerows where they reside (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bats-protection-surveys-and-licences). I understand that it is necessary to carry out a bat survey, before considering any development (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bats-surveys-and-mitigation-for-development-projects).
Additionally there are newts (possibly great crested) populating the ponds and therefore a newt survey report would be required ahead of considering construction work (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/great-crested-newts-surveys-and-mitigation-for-development-projects).

The land also accommodates toads and a variety of surveys would be required to assess the natterjack toad population. Ecologists are required to assess which surveys are required and complex mitigation plans must be developed ahead of any work which could potentially affect the toads (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/natterjack-toads-protection-surveys-and-licences).

There are many other species sharing this beautiful site and although they may not be protected in law, it would be sacrilege to disturb their habitat. There are now very few areas of natural countryside remaining (due to over development), able to accommodate wildlife, remaining in this area. It would be devastating to lose this naturally rich diverse animal population.

Furthermore this area includes a wide variety of plants. "Survey reports and mitigation plans are required for development projects that could affect protected species, as part of getting planning permission or a mitigation licence. Surveys need to show whether protected species are present in the area or nearby, and how they use the site. Mitigation plans show how you'll avoid, reduce or manage any negative effects to protected species" (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-plants-protection-surveys-and-licences).

Taking the above aspects into consideration, it is likely that Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council should declare the land surrounding Light Hall Farm as a protected area of countryside
(https://www.gov.uk/check-your-business-protected-area).

It is not appropriate to consider developing the area to the south of Dog Kennel Lane, around Light Hall Farm, for housing,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One huge sprawling conurbation

The wider Birmingham area has already spread out as far as Shirley. The land that the heritage site of Light Hall Farm sits on, to the south of Dog Kennel Lane, is the first break in developed land on the outskirts of the city. It is green belt land and provides habitat for a rich variety of plants and wildlife in addition to the pleasure it brings to the people of Solihull.

If this last remaining piece of green belt beautiful unspoilt natural English countryside is built on, Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green will merge with Shirley, which has already merged with Birmingham. We will become part of Birmingham's huge sprawling conurbation. This is not in the interests of the people of Solihull or of the wildlife and plants that populate this delightful setting.

It is not appropriate to consider developing the area to the south of Dog Kennel Lane, around Light Hall Farm, as this would create one huge sprawling conurbation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No right to a view?

As I understand it, I personally have no right to the gorgeous view of unspoilt natural English countryside that I currently have the pleasure of enjoying from my home, to the south of Dog Kennel Lane, at Light Hall Farm, despite the fact that I paid a premium for my property, because of the delightful setting.

However I would like to make you aware of my personal circumstances, in the hope that someone sitting on the committee that makes decisions such as these, has a heart.

I have stage 4 breast cancer which has metastasised to my spine, hips and my liver. This is a terminal condition and I very much wish to live out my days in the beautiful setting that I have paid good money for. As things stand, this setting brings me joy every day, despite the unpleasant side effect of necessary treatment. I don't think that I could withstand the stress of moving house.

Please do not take this source of joy from me.

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached response

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

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

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

see letter

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

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

Section 5 Question 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 7 Question 15

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

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

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

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

2. Roads/Congestion.

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

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

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

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

3. Increased Anti Social Behaviour(ASB) and Crime

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

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

4. Loss of Green Belt and nature

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

5. Health and well being.

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

6. Create more problems than it solves.

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

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

Dog kennel lane plans

I am writing in regards to the plan to build houses within the Dog Kennel lane Shirley area. I live on the Stratford road opposite the Audi garage. I am very concerned about the extra traffic etc this will have on Shirley. I drive to work each morning and it takes me at least 20minutes to get from one side of the Stratford road outside my properly to the other side due to excessive traffic. I think building these properties would have a negative effect on the Shirley area as it is very built up already.