12 Shirley - South of Dog Kennel Lane

see attached letter

Good evening,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Shirley Housing development

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

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

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

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

Housing development issue

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

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

see attached letter

New Homes draft plan Shirley

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

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

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

Please formally record my objection.

I appreciate your response.

see attached letter

Solihull Draft Local Plan

I wish to record my objections to the proposed sites for housing at Tythe Barn Lane and Shirley South identified as Site A and Site B.

Solihull's development at Dickens Heath has had a massive effect on the traffic using the narrow roads through Majors Green and any development on Site A will add to the traffic on these already overcrowded roads. Site A would mean that Solihull was developing right up the boundary with Worcestershire and the green belt. I would have thought a more logical difrection for development for Dickens Heath would be to take in the land on the other side of the Stratford on Avon Canal bound by Tanworth Lane, Braggs Farm Lane, Lady Lane and Dickens Heath Road, and then continue over the other side of Tanworth Lane to the land bound by Tanworth Lane, Blackford Road, Creynolds Lane and Stratford Road. This would make access to the considerable better roads and the motorway network much easier and would give a much better traffic flow.

As said my main concern is the effect the proposed development will have to the roads and infrastructure or Worcestershire and particularly Majors Green. Solihull seem to be proposing these developments for their own benefit and with a complete disregard for the effect on and cost to their neighbours.

Solihull's motto is said to be Town in the Country but this proposed development, right up to the Worcestershire boundary, is in complete contradiction to that.

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

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

Based on this information being correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would welcome your response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Green belt devastation Whitlock's end, Shirley Heath Light Hall Farm

Although I recognise that it is pointless to complain I am nevertheless
doing so about the destruction of green belt land around Shirley.

An alternative plan would be to fill in the space between Solihull and
Coventry along the A45 corridor, in and around the NEC and beyond.

Why is it pointless? Planners ignore the views of residents (though they
call it 'taking residents' views into account'} as they have done with
respect to Parkgate, the Powergen site the relocation of the library, the
Sainsbury site and KFC all of which contribute to making Shirley a less
pleasant place in which to live.

Already the roads are crowded, Tanworth Lane Bill's Lane, Shakespeare Drive
and the Stratford Road but planners are never there early in the morning or
at school/work going home times - the traffic surveys they carry out are
mostly done in work time hours where the problem issues are not evident.

Shirley Conservatives newsletter reply

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.

Shirley Conservatives newsletter response

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

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

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 attached documents