12 Shirley - South of Dog Kennel Lane

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

Proposed building site dickens heath/majors green

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

see attached letter

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

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

Our main concerns are:

Impact to the environment:

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

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

It also brings people together and gives a community feel.

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

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

Large amount of houses within a small space:

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

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

Impact on the local roads:

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

Impact on school places:

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

Impact on local train services:

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

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

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

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

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

Floodplain:

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

Disruption whilst working is being carried out:

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

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

Youth activities:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has come to my attention that as part of some "Central Government Targets" that have been set on House building that as a result means the erosion of nearby Green Belt areas close to where I live. I wish to register my objections in the highest regard on plans to build housing on Allocation 12 and 13.

The roads around Dog Kennel Lane and Blackford road are already over contested by traffic accessing nearby Dickens Heath village meaning that we have long waits to get onto Blackford Road via the side road. The traffic that comes through Blackford road also completely disregard the speed bumps meant to calm and slow down traffic further!! By adding even more housing in the area this problem will be exacerbated even further and will not only cause further pollution to the area but also make the surrounding roadways hazardous to children of residents and attendees to nearby schools.

Local Doctors surgeries will be overrun adding to the already increasing problems within NHS doctors surgeries and meaning that current patients will have to endure even longer periods of time before we can even make a doctors appointment.

When Dickens Heath was originally built (To solve the housing problem in Solihull) It was agreed that there should be a Green-Belt Buffer between Shirley and Dickens Heath which would keep the village separate and protect our ever disappearing Green Belt areas. How long before even more targets are set for housing and the rest completely disappears????

Green belt areas are created to protect what little countryside we still have yet it seems this is completely being disregarded by a council and government which I voted in??? There are plenty of other sites which can be redeveloped within the current solihull boundaries without the necessity to overspill into the green belt

I welcome your comments and hope that as my MP I am represented fully both at Commons and Council levels!

Development of Green Belt for housing - Shirley

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

see written response attached

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

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

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

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

My key objections are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would also like to make the following observations:

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

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

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

I strongly recommend your proposals are revisited focusing on:

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

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

Draft Local Development Plan- South Shirley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solihull Draft Local Plan Review - Allocation 13

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


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


Under the government white paper Fixing our broken housing market" it states that,


"Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements".


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

The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. If this is the case HS2 will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near the proposed developments.


The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath past the Miller and Carter is a constant flow of traffic, as are some of the local roads such as Burman Road, Bills Lane an Shakespeare Drive.
With the addition of this huge number of new homes this will compound congestion and traffic flow to an eventual standstill.

With regard to public transport, the local rail stations are not fit for purpose, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations. There are no spaces available at Shirley Station after 7am.

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

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

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

The area has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land and even evergreen forest. There is a network of drainage ditches and well-established farm ponds and also a sink area which is effectively bog land. The area is very wet and for the most part of the winter is very boggy and forms a flood plain due to the very high water table and the constituent soil composition. This results in heavy flooding across most of this low lying area.
The network of ditches and ponds provides a varied eco system and I have seen frogs, toads and newts, along with Muntjac Deer, Cuckoo, Woodpecker and birds of prey.


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

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


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

Objections to allocation 13

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

see letter

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards

Objections and Comments on Shirley allocation plot 13

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

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!

see attached - site 12 land south Dog Kennel Lane

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.