12 Shirley - South of Dog Kennel Lane

FORMAL OBJECTION TO ALLOCATION 13 - 600 houses on land adjacent to Woodlands and Baxters Estates

I would like to formally object to the provision of 600 houses on the open countryside adjacent to the Woodlands and Baxters residential estates. I have no objection to the building of homes along Dog Kennel Lane however.

The reasons for my objection to (a) the density of such proposal and (b) its proximity to the above estates are as follows:-

1. The development will result in urban sprawl - coalescence. It will mean that heading towards Shirley from B'ham City centre there will be no countryside at all.
2. Your Council's motto is "Urbs in Rure" - there will be no "rure" south of Shirley and as Cheswick Green, Tidbury Green and Dickens Heath grow in size there will be coalescence. Your motto will no longer apply.
3. Your Council's Green Space Strategy Review 2014 applauds "a sustainable network of good quality green spaces that are safe, healthy, rich in biodiversity and distinctive in character celebrating what is special about Solihull" and the executive summary of that document states that "The importance of Green space within Solihull should not be underestimated ...".
4. That document also mentions "Green corridors", "wildlife conservation", "natural and semi natural green spaces", "health and wellbeing", and areas "that allow people to access and connect with the natural environment" (PPG 17).
5. WHAT I WOULD URGE THE COUNCIL TO DO , IF YOU HAVE TO BUILD ON ANY OF THE FIELDS ADJ. WOODLOES ROAD, IS TO ENSURE YOU RETAIN A WILDLIFE CORRIDOR OF AT LEAST 2 FIELDS' WIDTH RUNNING FROM THE REAR OF PROPERTIES IN TANWORTH LANE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO BILLS LANE. THIS WOULD AFFORD NOT JUST A NATURAL HABITAT FOR FOXES, FIELD MICE, SHREWS, OWLS AND BATS (all of which live in those fields) BUT WOULD ALSO GIVE VERY REAL BENEFIT AND QUALITY OF LIFE TO THOSE OF US LIVING ON THE BAXTERS AND WOODLANDS ESTATES (and those who drive to the area to exercise their dogs) AND INDEED WOULD SIMILARLY BENEFIT ANYONE LIVING IN ANY NEW HOMES TO BE BUILT BEYOND THAT WILD LIFE CORRIDOR AS WELL AS GIVING SOME CREDIBILITY TO YOUR MOTTO "URBS IN RURE". Any hedges and mature trees should be retained thereby preserving the rural character and wildlife habitats.
6. It appears to be the case that 41% of the new house building within Solihull is scheduled to be within the Shirley area - aside from the coalescence issue and disregard for the Council's motto, increasing the density of Shirley will have a detrimental and huge impact upon infrastructure, schools, doctors' surgeries etc.

Objection - allocation 13

I am writing to voice my objection to the 2500+ new houses planned for the shirley area, in particular the plot allocation 13.
We already have severe traffic congestion daily along bills lane, the stratford rd, and haslucks green rd.
The impact of so many new houses in one small area will have a severe detrimental affect on local services such as schools, doctors, hospitals and transport.
There are several football clubs /pitches included in the overall area affected which many of the local children use. Where will our children go to play football if these are destroyed.
I believe that this is 41% of the new housing for the borough of solihull, this is a very unfair proportion for one small area of such a large borough.

Objections and Comments on Allocation 13 (without prejudice)
Dear Sirs,

I wish to register my objection to the development of Shirley South - particularly Allocation number 13 which is designated green belt land.

I gather that Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of proposed new housing in the Solihull borough, this seems disproportionate and unacceptable given the size of the borough. 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'
"The National Planning Policy Framework is already clear that Green Belt boundaries should be amended only "in exceptional circumstances""
"authorities should amend Green Belt boundaries only when they can demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements, including: - making effective use of suitable brownfield sites and the opportunities offered by estate regeneration; - the potential offered by land which is currently underused, including surplus public sector land where appropriate; - optimising the proposed density of development"

I understand that there were numerous options given to the council that have yet to be fully explored as also referred to in the paper:-
"Supporting small and medium sized sites, and thriving rural communities 1.29 Policies in plans should allow a good mix of sites to come forward for development, so that there is choice for consumers, places can grow in ways that are sustainable, and there are opportunities for a diverse construction sector. Small sites create particular opportunities for custom builders and smaller developers. They can also help to meet rural housing needs in ways that are sensitive to their setting while allowing villages to thrive"

I do not see the current proposals as sustainable due to the high volume of houses in one focused area.

The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In this case of HS2 which is referred to in the current plans, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to these proposed Shirley developments - therefore more congestion would be caused by people driving to the proposed HS2 station as there is inadequate public transport to that area of the borough.
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, Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. The main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter has a constant flow of traffic for the rush hour stopping any traffic flow from Tanworth Lane. Stretton Road can be very dangerous with drivers cutting through due to the main routes being busy - this is an area with two schools and a large elderly community.

The addition of hundreds of new homes will compound this issue and there is not enough space for the road infrastructure to be improved enough to overcome this higher volume of traffic.

Driving into the centre of Solihull can take around 30 minutes at certain times to travel just over a mile, new traffic lights have made the situation worse - all of 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.

The proposed sites also take away football fields that are used several times a week - where will these people go then? Not to mention the hundreds of new families and children who will need amenities like these to have a balanced life.

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. In fact it is part of the reason we bought our house on the badgers estate so we were close to the countryside. I personally regularly run in this area and go walking with the family.

The area has grass land, marsh and heath land. There are well-established farm ponds providing 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, an in-depth wildlife survey should be carried out before any decision is made.

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.
I have seen there is a proposal for development on the door step of HS2 and around the NEC, also to compliment the recent resort World Complex, this seems logical as traffic and infrastructure would be easier to resolve.

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 - 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.

I am not a town planner but there really must be many more options than simply carving up the Green Belt in large swathes as this proposal seems like it is taking an easy option to put a lot of houses up in 'one hit'.
I understand we need more houses to accommodate the growing population - I have two children who will need houses in a few years - however I do not believe this current proposal is the right answer - there needs to be a balance of smaller sites across the borough.

Finally, I am led to believe that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses from the Birmingham Allocation. There are many brownfield sites and public open spaces in Birmingham that could 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.

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

see attached documents

see attached documents

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

I have lived in Shirley for ten and a half years and enjoy the semi-rural location of my home and fear that with this proposed development of Allocation 13, along with Allocations 4, 11 and 12, we will be losing important green spaces which not only enhance the area but provide open space for residents to enjoy.

The proposed development of 600 houses for Allocation 13 will leave a huge detrimental effect on the local area such as follows:-

There are 4 proposed development sites that border Shirley - surely any developments should be spread across the borough rather than having 41% in one area.

The loss of vital green space - this is a benefit to the local community and provides health benefits such as green open space, ie a vital lung to the area. Allocation 13 is used for both leisure and dog walking and gives access to local countryside and nearby canal. This area is also home to our local wildlife such as owls, bats, muntjac deer and foxes.

Congestion - The A34 Stratford Road, M42 and surrounding routes are already heavily congested and the proposed 600 homes for Allocation 13 will add an unbelievable amount of extra traffic, not to mention pollution which could lead to an increase in respiratory illnesses. I live off Bills Lane and during morning rush hour I could be waiting on occasions for a minimum of 20 cars to go past before I could pull out onto the main road. With the additional traffic this will be even worse and will just lead to tail backs on all surrounding roads. As anyone who uses this road already knows there is always congestion around the junctions where Burman Road and Shakespeare Drive meet Bills Lane. Though no doubt you will probably conduct a traffic survey at a much quieter time during mid-morning and come to the conclusion there is no such problem. I would ask that any traffic survey of roads near to the proposed site take place during rush hour to see exactly how much traffic there is at present and you will see that we will end up with roads that won't be able to cope with the extra vehicles that will result from the additional homes.

Transport links - There is already an unreliable bus service to this area of Shirley and adding extra homes will just result in an increase in traffic. Although there are two railway stations nearby - Shirley and Whitlocks End - neither of them have sufficient car parking spaces for the current number of users so how will they cope with additional users.

Pedestrians - If Allocation 13 goes ahead and the access road does join Bills Lane this will be dangerous for pedestrians as there are several points along that road where there is only footpath on one side which is also very narrow in places. Additional traffic from the new homes will be dangerous for anyone trying to cross the road, especially on winter evenings which surely must be a health and safety issue.

Health and Education - Local schools, nurseries, doctors surgeries and our local hospital at Lode Lane are already unable to cope with the number of residents in the area and with this additional residential population our vital services will be at breaking point. Solihull hospital only has a Minor Injuries unit and due to downgrades in services there we have to use Heartlands hospital which is already over-stretched. We would need to see an increase in services at Solihull in order to keep up with local demand from these new homes. Additional schools and doctors surgeries will be required because existing facilities are already full.

Unfortunately, it really feels like Shirley has previously been the forgotten area of Solihull with funds preferring to be used in poorer areas such as the north of the Borough, however, we now just appear to be a dumping ground for developers to ruin our area.

Can I please ask that you seriously reconsider the proposed development areas and look at other options which have better transport links with more direct access to the motorway and the A34.

I wish to register myself and my wife's complete opposition to the latest housing plan for the Solihull area.
We live on Haslucks Green Road in Majors Green and the amount of traffic that passes our home from Dickens Heath and the extended Whitlocks End station car park is a major hazard
To even contemplate huge numbers of additional housing in this area effectively joining Majors Green , Dickens Heath, Tilbury Green and Shirley beggars belief.
What happened to the protection of the green belt.?
This area is becoming one giant housing estate.
Two very angry residents.

Site 13

Re the above: We live on the Badgers Estate which borders the proposed LPR Ref No 13 (between Whitlocks End Farm and Dickens Heath Road) where proposals are being made to construct some 600 homes. In addition, some 1950 homes are to be built on three neighbouring plots in the area.

My first concern is the effect that these proposed developments will have on transport infrastructure in Shirley. Since the development of Dickens Heath we can wait 2/3 minutes to access Bills Lane from Langcomb Road and with the proposals for Plot 13 we could well see a further increase of vehicles onto Bills Lane, thus making matters worse.

At peak times it is extremely difficult to access the A3400 Stratford Road and with a further possible 2500 (?) vehicles added to the mix this, too, will only exacerbate the problem.

We are constantly encouraged to leave our cars at home and use public transport. To find a parking place at either Shirley or Whitlocks End stations after 7.30 and 8.30 respectively is fair nigh impossible.

The impact on schools and health services will be seriously affected if these proposals go ahead.

This is a further loss of Green Belt land in Shirley. In our opinion, these public open spaces are vital for the area.

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

I have lived on Hawkesbury road for just over 2 years and shirley for 9 years now and even in that time have witnessed the general increase in congestion on the roads in this area, particularly at school times, rush hour and weekends. The impact of a further 2,500 homes in the Shirley South and Dickens Heath areas would have a huge detrimental effect on this and put an intolerable strain on local services, schools, doctors, transport etc.

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

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

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

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

Objection to Allocation 13

I am contacting you wth a view to registering my objection to the loss of allocation 13 to residential housing. This piece of land represents the only direct countryside access for thousands of residents living on the badgers estate, the housing estate directly adjoining the land, and the wider community on the Shakespeare Estate.
I live in Shirley, and I know this piece of land well, my family and I are able to walk in green country side on public footpaths, through a very well used natural environment, accessed via the green corridors that link the urban environment with the countryside. On our walks we pass the time of day with dozens of people of all ages and from all walks of life, this piece of land provides a valuable community amenity and it should be protected.
We use this land at least three times a week, if not more, for dog walking and leisure walks, with allocation thirteen giving access to the wider countryside, and the canal beyond. This piece of land forms a valuable green space between the existing built up areas, and to loose this space to building would be a disaster for current residents and generations to come.
Shirley has been very accommodating in terms of housing, and other development over the years, with Dickens Heath taking acres of green belt, and infill developments eating into remaining green fields. It is fair to say that the residents of Shirley have not been anti-development, and it should be clear that the reaction to the potential loss of allocation 13 is a genuine and undeniably just refusal to accept the loss of something of such value in terms of local amenity and well being.
This land benefits from historic hedgerows, trees, wild flowers, and is directly linked with areas of wetland to at least one boundary, and I am sure is home to a diverse ecosystem of insects, mammals etc as you would expect to find in such a location. I would suggest an independent ecology survey, rather than one funded by a potential developer, would present a very clear picture of this.
I am sure my fellow Shirley residents will agree that the council's, and MPs / councillor's, reaction to our justified and rational objections to the loss of the open space will be very telling. After living in Shirley for since 1983 we have dealt with many changes, but continue to support and invest in the local area. We are not saying no to development in any form in other areas, we are however saying no to the possibility of giving up this valuable green space, the loss of which would undoubtedly detract from our quality of life, further more why is this area carrying a hefty 41% of the housing allocaton.

Objection to Allocation 13

I am contacting you wth a view to registering my objection to the loss of allocation 13 to residential housing. This piece of land represents the only direct countryside access for thousands of residents living on the badgers estate, the housing estate directly adjoining the land, and the wider community on the Shakespeare Estate.
I live in Shirley, and I know this piece of land well, my family and I are able to walk in green country side on public footpaths, through a very well used natural environment, accessed via the green corridors that link the urban environment with the countryside. On our walks we pass the time of day with dozens of people of all ages and from all walks of life, this piece of land provides a valuable community amenity and it should be protected.
We use this land at least three times a week, if not more, for dog walking and leisure walks, withallocation thirteen giving access to the wider countryside, and the canal beyond. This piece of land forms a valuable green space between the existing built up areas, and to loose this space to building would be a disaster for current residents and generations to come.
Shirley has been very accommodating in terms of housing, and other development over the years, with Dickens Heath taking acres of green belt, and infill developments eating into remaining green fields. It is fair to say that the residents of Shirley have not been anti-development, and it should be clear that the reaction to the potential loss of allocation 13 is a genuine and undeniably just refusal to accept the loss of something of such value in terms of local amenity and well being.
This land benefits from historic hedgerows, trees, wild flowers, and is directly linked with areas of wetland to at least one boundary, and I am sure is home to a diverse ecosystem of insects, mammals etc as you would expect to find in such a location. I would suggest an independent ecology survey, rather than one funded by a potential developer, would present a very clear picture of this.
I am sure my fellow Shirley residents will agree that the council's, and MPs / councillor's, reaction to our justified and rational objections to the loss of the open space will be very telling. After living in Shirley for my entire life we have dealt with many changes, but continue to support and invest in the local area. We are not saying no to development in any form in other areas, we are however saying no to the possibility of giving up this valuable green space, the loss of which would undoubtedly detract from our quality of life, further more why is this area carrying a hefty 41% of the housing allocation?

Allocation 13
We have already seen the Shirley community abused by large scale supermarket and retail park developments - it is only fair that these housing developments should be more evenly distributed across the borough. Building 41% of the total requirement in such a small concentration is clearly not in the best interests of local residents. This is before considering the social and environmental impacts.

I am most closely impacted by Allocation 13 however; taking allocations 4, 12, 11 and 13 together, it is disappointing that the future house building plans for the Borough intend to devour so much Green Belt land in close proximity to each other. Whilst understanding the national need to build houses it cannot be equitable that so much Green Belt land is lost at the same time, in the same place when other areas in the borough are totally unaffected. I regularly use the footpaths in these areas for recreational walking the loss this amenity will affect the whole community and impact on the quality of daily life.

I am concerned that building 2500+ houses in such close proximity to each other, will significantly increase the number of cars on small local roads which will be unable to cope, further impacting on the life of the community. The Stratford is already a very congested and this will exacerbate the issue. Public transport is already stretched to the limit. There is inadequate parking provision at local train stations. The train services themselves are inadequate to carry the potential increase in users. It is well known that there is a national diesel train shortage so it is highly unlikely that the services could be increased to cope with demand even if there was a willingness to do this. There is inadequate provision in respect of school places - a fact acknowledged in your own report.

I believe the present plans do not represent the best way forward. Unless the Council is prepared to improve school provision and transport links there will be major problems. If the developments continue this needs to be on staged basis, so that the impacts of developing each allocation can be measured and understoos and plans amended as the development proceeds.

Proposed housing developments in Shirley and Solihull

I wanted to lodge my huge concerns over the proposed new housing developments in Shirley and Solihull. As a Shirley resident, who primarily moved to the area four years ago to be nearer local countryside I am astonished by the amount of new housing planned. We already have growing congestion around the Bills Lane and Tile House Lane areas but have the pressure that these thousands of homes will put on local services been taken into consideration? For example, Solihull hospital has had so many of its facilities cut or completely removed. What about school places? Let alone the amount of sports pitches that will be built on and the subsequent recreation amenities removed. I find the prospect of such large scale changes quite stressful and really worry about the impact it will have on mine and my family's future in this area. We already feel that the existing infrastructure in the area cannot cope with the current demands made upon it.

Re: Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan

We love Solihull !
One of the reasons Solihull is a desirable place to live is that unlike the overdeveloped sprawl of other areas it has some breathing space - Urbs In Rure!
The proposed housing developments contained in the Draft Plan are a massive over development of the Borough and challenge the very reason that makes it a good place to live.
Future generations will thank the Council if this element of the plan is scaled back, particularly in Shirley which bears a disproportionate burden of 41% of the proposed
units on allocated new housing sites.
Solihull could be a beacon by holding up a hand and resisting over development and saying that breathing space is important in our overcrowded island.

Allocation 13 - objection to development plans

I'm writing in relation to the plans to seek planning consent for a number of green belt sites in the Shirley area including allocation 4, 11, 12 and the one upon which I'm am focusing allocation 13.

The plans to seek permission for a further 2550 houses of which 600 will feature in allocation 13 will have a detrimental impact on the area both in and surrounding allocation 13.

Firstly it will have a negative effect on the green area/countryside that we currently use to allow our children to enjoy the open space and countryside to view wild animals and other wildlife especially as the one of the other green areas of Shirley (Shirley Park) has been eroded via the recently built Parkgate complex and will mean that it will become a more urban area of concrete and brick and not an area which our children can enjoy or feel safe to run around and enjoy themselves without fear of vehicles being nearby.

Also to add at least the 600 houses on allocation 13 will have a significant impact on the infrastructure of the area. For example it can take over 20 minutes each morning to drive the circa 100-150 yards up Tanworth Lane onto the B4102 towards either Solihull/Monkspath and the M42 and the roads between the hours or 7.30am and 9.00am and the from circa 5.00pm to 6.00pm struggle to cope with the current traffic levels let one anything which could increase between a further 600-2550 additional houses.

Further to this as a father with two young children due to changes to school catchments areas and the overpriced housing in certain areas of Solihull there are significant challenges on school places and the Solihull Council School Report of 2016 already highlights the limitations of the current school places let alone the expected demand in the next 5 years which combined with the development plans will mean we will not have enough places for our children to grow, develop and learn and as such will add pressure to the local community and school needs via over capacity classrooms/stretched teachers and under educated children (leading to worse local social demographics and adding further pressure to the local government budgets across multiple touch points including anti-social behaviour due to less focus on supporting education and development.

Further to this there are also limited GP services in the area and also with the reduction of the Solihull Hospital A&E to minor injuries will mean our healthcare capabilities will be stretched beyond breaking point and capacity. In conjunction with the closure of the Shirley police station means we wouldn't be able to support then increased needs that come with a vastly expanded community.

I have also been informed that there are plans to build a nursing home between Active Angels nursery and tanworth lane surgery which is going to add significant chaos to the current road infrastructure immediately with more cars and a potential dangerous building area close to a nursery where children are regularly outside and will be close to the building that will take place. A nursery that my daughter goes to and I have to be honest that even now it can take 10 minutes to get out do the driveway in the morning post drop off due to inconsiderate drivers and the sheer traffic levels. God help us what this would be like with the additional 600 houses of allocation 13 let alone the short term challenged with the new nursing home.

We should preserving the green area of allocation 13 as a dedicated green area for wildlife and community area for the local residents to enjoy and preserve a space for our future generations of children to grow up safely away from the busy roads and speeding motorists that believe it's right to drive at 40 mph+ on the local roads around allocation 13.

Please find attached

Kind regards

Dear Sir/Madam

Please can you confirm receipt of this email, as significant research and analysis has been undertaken in writing this response and would be grateful to know that this has been taken into account. See response to consultation below.

Kind regards
Sarah Smith

Start of response

14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?
An extra 15,000 houses in an area that currently only has 86,000 houses seems an extraordinarily high number. The population of Solihull is around 207,000 people, compared to a national population of 64.1 million people. The Government's target is to build 1,000,000 new homes by 2020 (i.e. over its 5 year tenure). For the sake of argument, Solihull should be looking to build 0.32% of these houses based on its population, which is 3,229 houses over a 5 year period, which is only 9,687 over a 15 year period. Therefore, there is no justification to aim to build over 15,000 more houses at the expense of the quality of the surrounding area.

15. Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?
No. There are too many developments, too focussed on the area south of Shirley where roads are already too busy and there is no space to widen roads or provide new infrastructure. Traffic congestion on Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane and the surrounding area is already extremely bad at rush hours, and it is increasingly difficult to turn out of Tanworth Lane near the doctor's surgery due to the large volume of traffic coming from the new development in Dickens Heath. Proposed allocations 12 and 13 will exacerbate these problems significantly by putting an extra 1,450 houses on them - potentially an extra 2,900 cars, not to mention the extra 400 houses and 800 cars on the TRW site (plus any additional commuters if there is to be additional employment on that site). Even if new roads are built to access the Stratford Road, there are already traffic jams on the Stratford Road trying to get onto the M42, so putting extra traffic onto the Stratford Road is not going to resolve traffic problems, but will make them worse.
More of these sites should be focussed around the HS2 site if that is one of the main draws for new housing in Solihull. In particular, there are a number of sites marked as lower quality green belt land nearer the HS2 development that aren't being earmarked for development such as parcels of land RP18 and RP19 just north of Hampton in Arden on the Green Belt Assessment report 2016 (both plots of land only have a grading of 4, compared to RP69 and RP65 both graded as 6 but the latter have been earmarked for building allocations 12 and 13 even though they serve a better green belt purpose).
There are also a number of poorer quality greenbelt areas around Dorridge which would be more suitable for development. These areas would be closer to HS2, and are also closer to a better quality train-line than that in Shirley or Dickens Heath. Housing in Dorridge would provide commuters with access to around 72 trains per day to Birmingham (compared to only 45 on the Shirley line), and would also provide easy access to commute to London via either the existing Chiltern service, Birmingham International or the new HS2. In particular RP34 only has a grading of 3, and other sites are graded 4 or 5 (RP33, RP41, RP39, RP40, RP48, RP47, RP45). It would be preferable if you considered these sites to proposed allocations 12 or 13.
The added benefit of building around Dorridge is that Arden School is (I believe) being rebuilt on a new site, so this would be an ideal opportunity to rebuild a new, larger, fit for purpose school to cater for significantly higher numbers instead of trying to extend existing schools on their existing grounds.
There is a triangle of land near to proposed housing allocation 4, bounded by Houndsfield Lane, Tilehouse Lane and the railway line. This does not appear to have been included in plans, even though RP72 only has a green belt grading of 4 and there is already a proposed development near there, and it is significantly more convenient to access Whitlocks End railway station than proposed allocations 12 and 13. It may be that some housing could be put on here, or it may be that there's a plan to extend station car parking here.
There is also a number of green belt sites in the north of the borough within already built up areas around Kingshurst, Fordbridge etc. These are all poorly performing green belt areas, and the green belt strategic review has even highlighted some that do not perform their green belt functions at all. It would be preferable if these areas could be used. As they are amidst built up areas anyway, it would be possible to build at a higher density here, without the development being out of character for the area. (RPs 01, 02, 03, 79, 06, 08).
An area where a lot of space that has already been removed from the green belt which could be more efficiently used and should be considered before any new green belt building, is the huge car parking areas around the NEC, airport and station. Were some of these to be turned into multi-storey car parks, then a number could be released to build housing on, and these would provide significant brown-field sites and save removing further land from the green belt. These would also provide good access to the proposed new employment site north east of Land Rover.
In addition the density of housing being proposed seems to be very low. Both proposed allocations 12 and 13 seem to only be around 20 dwellings per hectare. To reduce the impact on the green belt, build higher density developments in fewer areas (particularly if one of the drivers for new housing is single person households). This was highlighted in the Government's Planning Policy Guidance note 3 suggesting a net density of 30-50 dwellings. If your intended figure of 36 dwellings per hectare is net (which I assume it must be), then it would be in keeping with the same to reduce the space used and build higher density developments, rather than only 20 dwellings per hectare. Look at alternatives for putting parking under houses to use less space. Consider terraces rather than semi-detached, or consider low rise flats. Higher density developments can be significantly more environmentally efficient than lower density developments, and can also allow residents of the new and existing developments to enjoy green belt countryside that hasn't been destroyed.
With regard specifically to proposed allocation 13 (south of Shirley), if this site were to be used (but I would prefer it if it wasn't), it would be preferable to build higher density further away from Stretton Road to provide a full field's gap (not just the narrow strip of bridleway and amenity land) between the estates to still allow for a significant band of open space. This land provides enormous intrinsic benefit to local residents and it would be a huge blow to the area for it to be built upon. It is possible to walk for over an hour on a circular route without having to go on more than a few metres of road. This provides good health and stress-relieving benefits for local people. This would be lost by developing this area. The fresh air would be replaced by polluted air from thousands of extra cars sitting in traffic jams, and would be detrimental to all impacted.
In addition, this area of grassland is important for drainage in the area. Building more tarmac and impermeable surfaces on this area is likely to have knock-on impacts for existing and future residents.
It is also an area that provides a large open space for wildlife and significant numbers of trees.

16. Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure35 required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are they?

Schools local to proposed allocations 11, 12 and 13 already have two or three form entries at primary school level where they used to be single form entry. It is difficult to envisage how much additional capacity these schools can really withstand before it has a detrimental impact on their ability to provide the outstanding education that they are renowned for.
This would exacerbate congestion of the significant numbers of cars dropping or collecting pupils from Lighthall School, and Woodlands School (and all of the other schools in the borough) and the knock on impact on local residents who live around these schools.
At school start and finish times there are already severe issues with driving round the estate surrounding Stretton Road, parking, school delivery lorries. I have personally nearly been killed on my bicycle trying to get to the station by parents turning their cars in our road without looking, and also run off the road by a school food delivery lorry on the roundabout on Shakespeare Drive.
Roads around proposed allocations 11, 12 and 13 are already overcrowded, and they are not convenient for train travel without using a car to get to the station, or an extended walk. Parking already became a problem at Shirley station with the growth of Dickens Heath. Several years ago it became impossible to find a parking space at Shirley station unless you arrived before 7.30am. This led to the expansion of Whitlocks End station parking and the extension of the line to Whitlocks End instead of Shirley, but with the scale of housing being proposed, again I can't see how the train infrastructure on this line could stand the scale of the proposed housing. Perhaps extra buses may be proposed but they won't be able to get through the gridlocked traffic, and it will then take up to an additional hour from Shirley to get into Birmingham by bus.
Tanworth Lane, Stretton Road, Stratford Road, Dog Kennel Lane are all already severely congested due to Dickens Heath traffic, leading to extra pollution in the area. To extend further would cause even more congestion and pollution. It is unfair to existing residents to prevent them from being able to get to places due to additional congestion. It is already the case that it can take longer to drive from Withybrook Road to the TRW site than it does to walk on the occasions my husband needs to take his car to work. It can take 20 minutes to drive that mile, purely due to the Dickens Heath traffic. By adding further housing developments in this area, this will become impossible. The residents of Shirley won't be able to get onto the M42 in the morning, or return home in the evening as the Stratford Road and adjoining roads will be gridlocked.
Regarding pollution, in the 25 years we've lived here and run a local Scout troop, we've seen the number of children with asthma increase dramatically, which appears to be due to pollution from the Stratford Road, and the Council should feel responsible for the impact of their decisions on local residents.
We have seen nothing in the plan about nursery provision. This needs to be addressed as it is difficult to find nursery places in the area. On a personal level, we have enrolled our daughter at Active Angels nursery for when I return to work, and a very significant factor in choosing this nursery was that it backed on to open fields, so she wouldn't be inhaling the fumes of the Stratford Road every day. However, if proposed allocation 13 is built, not only in due course will there be lots of houses and cars, but in the meantime, she'll be attending nursery on a building site with heavy lorries and heavy plant in operation rather than the fields and open spaces that was a major factor in choosing this site. We're now uncertain whether the nursery will even exist in the future. We've also missed our opportunity to book into our other nursery choices now, because it is necessary to obtain places so far in advance.
For the number of houses you're proposing, it will be required to have additional secondary schools. It is not feasible to extend existing ones as you will not be able to get any more cars there or back in the mornings and afternoons. The new schools will need space and access roads. Several primary schools as a minimum must be considered in these plans.
Good quality, well lit cycle paths separate from traffic (but not slower to use than the road) should be drawn into any of these planned developments and linking to major sites. With the increase in traffic on the roads, Solihull's roads will become even more dangerous for cyclists (and pedestrians). The poor design of Dickens Heath leading to significant levels of on-street parking has made it dangerous to cycle through here as drivers are impatient to wait to pass. Similar problems could easily happen with any of these new sites if not well designed.
I think it is likely that there is a significant flooding risk by building allocations 12 and 13. Certainly the fields around allocation 13 are always boggy and muddy in winter. The drains at the top of Hathaway Road at the junction with Shakespeare Drive overflow in any heavy rain. I would envisage this getting significantly worse if allocation 13 is built on, and this large area of grass/marshland is removed. The drainage system of the whole area would need to be significantly improved.
End of response

Please find attached my own general comments on the Draft Local Plan

See Attachment

Shirley newsletter reply slip and letter

see letter -

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for land at and to the rear of 146- 152 Tilehouse Lane, Whitlock's End, B90 1PW.

The submission comprises the
* letter of representations (10463 HRW LPR APP);
* a site plan (ref.no. 10463-01A) with the site edged red;
* an Illustrative layout (10463(10)M-101 prepared by Tyler-Parkes Partnership
* a Transport Statement prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering Ltd
* An updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey prepared by Cotswold Wildlife Surveys
* Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy prepared by BWB

petition submitted by Solihull Ratepayers - 34 pages containing 361 signatures

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the site at Tidbury Green Golf Club, Tidbury Green.

The submission comprises
* The letter of representations (10171 LPA3 LPR APP)
* An existing site plan (ref.no. 10509(EX)01) with the site edged red.
* Schedule of accommodation (10509(SC)01)
* Illustrative Site Layout (10509(MP)01)
* Ecological Appraisal prepared by Crossman Associates
* Environmental Noise Report prepared by Sharps Redmore
* Flood Risk Assessment prepared by THDA
* Tree Survey prepared by Abbey Forestry
* Transport Statement and Travel Plan prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering
* Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Landscape Matters
* Site Investigation Report prepared by Georisk UK

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for land at the rear of Bakehouse Lane and Wheeler Close, Chadwick End

The submission comprises the letter of representations (6439.LPA1.HMG LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 6439 site plan) with the site edged red.

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review on behalf of the landowners at the sites at Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common.

The submission comprises
* the letter of representations (10607 LPA2 JD LPR APP);
* Site plan (10607(OS)01) with the site edged red;
* Illustrative layout (10607(MP)01);
* Transport Assessment prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering; and
* Landscape character assessment response prepared by Landscape Matters

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land south of Hampton Lane, and west of Ravenshaw Lane/ South of Hampton Lane, Solihull.

The submission comprises the letter of representations (9263 SHL LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 9263 Site Plan) with the site edged red.

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land at Barston Lane/ Oak Lane, Barston B92 0JR

The submission comprises the letter of representations (10445 LA3 GC LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 10445-01A) with the site edged red.

Too much green belt land is being built on in Shirley.
The area south of the Stratford Road is already congested and will not be able to cope with the amount of traffic. There are insufficient transport connections such as railway links to these areas. By reducing the green belt areas, Shirley's image is reduced from the lovely 'town in the country' it always was.
More high density housing could be built in the north of the borough. I also disagree with the East of Solihull development of 650 units on green belt again.

Far too many to be built on the green belt in the Shirley and Dickens Heath area. Also taking into account Blythe Valley and the houses already being built in Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green, the house numbers account for at least half are those to be built in Solihull.They should be spread out across the borough.