13 Shirley - South of Shirley

Objection Allocation 13

I wish to register my objection to the proposed housing development on allocation 13 in South Shirley.

I feel strongly opposed to the building development as we have recently moved onto Shotteswell Road and our main reason for moving to the area was the close proximity of the green belt. We are dog owners and use the area on a daily basis to exercise our dog. It also provides much enjoyment for our young daughter. To think that this area could be taken up by housing is absolutely devastating and would drastically affect our lifestyle.

There is also the extra traffic that these developments will cause. It is already a nightmare to get down dog kennel lane & Tanworth lane during rush hour. The roads could not cope with more cars. Any through road down Shotteswell Road or Woodloes Road would cause major disruption to the residents.

Local services such as Schools and hospitals are already over stretched and building more houses in the area will only put further strain on this.

It seems pointless to have so many new homes this side of the borough when the HS2 development is the other side. Why not look at building near the NEC. I don't feel that other options have been considered. Why not build smaller developments in pockets of land or brownfield sites rather than green belt land.

I hope that the council reconsider the plans.

Re allocation 13

To who it may concern

I am writing to you with my objections to you building on the beautiful land that is allocation 13.
Me and my family use this often and are devastated at the thought of loosing it.
We have had so many happy times here and hoped for many more.
There is too much nature here and beauty to concrete over.

We moved here in 2010 to appreciate the rural Solihull and feel that all this will disappear.

I suggest that allocation 13 be turned into a community park managed by the community linking Shirley, Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green.

Yours faithfully

Allocation 13 - Shirley

I am writing to object the plans to use the above land to build new homes.

I moved to Shirley 6 years ago, previously living in Oxfordshire, believing that it was close to both busy town centres and rural areas.

I am concerned that the wildlife on the land you plan to allow building work to happen on will be affected.

The community will be affected. Many walkers, dog walkers, runners, nature lovers and children use the land for pleasure and exercise.

I am concerned that local services will be affected. My son is at shirley heath and already in a class of 32 children. I try and make an appointment with my GPS and am referred to a walk in surgery at sparkhill because there are no appointments as they are snowed under, and the Solihull walk in centre has closed down.

I suggest if some of the land must be used for housing, then some of it be kept as a park or nature reserve and ensure that new schools and surgeries are built to cover the increase in demand that has happened even before any houses have been built.

Thank you for listening

Allocation 13
To whom it may concern

On behalf of me and my family who have lived in the borough for many years I would like to raise an objection to allocation 13.

As I am sure you are aware obesity levels are on the rise and according to recent statistics obesity levels have increased over the last decade, meaning we are the fourth highest county recognized for obesity (House of Commons Briefing paper 2017). Shirley, due to new developments has minimal green space left so, by taking this away you're not helping make a change to the risks posed to peoples health and well being, that have just been shown to be on the rise.
As well as being home to pastoral grassland ,marshland ,streams drainage ditches hedgerows ,ancient trees ,endangered species including aquatic life such as newts ,birds such as cuckoo wildlife such as water voles will all be eradicated.

What may seem to you as a small piece of land, that has the potential of being developed, is a lot more to the surrounding community. Green land around that area is quickly diminishing which is a shame thinking back to what it was and thinking about what the future holds for the community.

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

Save Allocation 13

I am reiterating objections to the proposal of building 600 houses on our lovely green fields

OBJECTION TO ALLOCATION 13

I object to site allocation 13 being used for anything other than green belt. I have lived in my house on Baxters Road for 35 years and it was bad enough you took away our playground we had for all the children to play in, people moan that children should play out more as they are getting obese and lazy and take notice of the environment around them and here you are taking the community's green belt away from us. We should protect our green spaces for future generations to experience and all the wildlife that lives there from frog's to wild rabbits, foxes and all the birds especially the beautiful owls and wood peckers. My family choose all them years ago to live here where we have to walk to our house as there is no road just grass and tree's to the front, side and rear in a peaceful location where I played as a child and I bought my children up here and I now play with my Granddaughter here so building here would change our whole way of life for the worse not only to our health with all the extra pollution from already busy roads plus the new roads you'd have to build next to our houses, plus this would devalue our homes and for some of us we couldn't afford to move to a place like this with all the open space where we feel safe and secure and don't worry about the kids playing on the green as no cars can drive near them and we can walk the dog as a family.

I wish to register my objection to the proposed development at Allocation 13.

One of the reasons we bought our home, as I am sure many others did, was to have this beautiful green belt land in such close proximity. We use the land on a regular basis to take our children for walks where they love to spot the local wildlife. It would be devasting to see this beautiful land disappear & all the wildlife along with it.

The area is already becoming extremely congested, the roads are becoming busier on a daily basis, I cannot begin to even imagine how gridlocked these roads would become if all these homes were to be built.

Also, the local amenities would not be able to accommodate such a large number of new residents. Schools & doctor surgeries are already at nearly full capacity, had this been taken into consideration?

Yours sincerely

SOUTH SHIRLEY Site 13

I wish to register my concern regarding the proposed housing development in this area. The current proposal is to saturate this green belt area with 41% of Solihull's new housing when there are other more suitable sites including brown field sites that we have a moral duty to transform. Another interesting exerciser is to superimpose onto overall plan the home addresses given by the members on the planning committee , no hi density housing here !! While I understand the need for new houses and except that it has to happen.
HS2 is given as one of the reasons for new housing but the road network cannot support this number of houses from this site.
The well being of the community is my prime concern.
Obesity is of great concern to the nation health service, this open space is used by many dog walkers, joggers, ramblers and cyclists, a community spirit has developed in this open space with people stopping to chat and socialise, this is not unused waste land and if it has to be developed it must be done with sympathy with the old and new community in mind.

# Allocation 13 objection

I wish to register my objection to 'Allocation 13' of the council's Local Development Plan.

I have lived in Lillington Road, Shirley since 1989 and enjoy the fields and natural space that is covered by 'Allocation 13' on an almost daily basis, as do many other people. This open space and community resource is an essential breathing space for people and even more so for 'nature' as it is being squeezed from all sides.

I appreciate that considerations for non-human animals and nature in general don't constitute an official reason for objection, but I must put my views across and be a voice for the voiceless who don't pay council tax or are registered in the borough.

I also feel that this area is being given an unfair allocation of housing for the borough. I've always considered that Shirley Heath was the 'edge' of Shirley and that a green space should be left between here to retain the rural feel. The developmeant of Allocation 13 practically joins Shirley up with Dickens Heath, which itself now nearly joins Tidbury Green - where is space for nature in this?

I believe that building here would substantially alter the character of the area and would be incredibly detrimental in many ways.

On a more practical level, a further increase in the number of people in this area would cause further transport issues, increasing air pollution and adding to the strain of existing services.

I understand that some of the requirement for additional housing is as a result of the proposed HS2 station in the north of the borough. Surely if there has to be development, it should be nearer to this area which would in turn not add quite so much to congestion on the already over-used M42.

I sincerely hope you will consider not adding Allocation 13 to the LDP for the benefit of the people of this area, for the benefit of nature, for the benefit of the character of the area and future generations.

I am writing to register my objection to the loss of Allocation 13 to the proposed new build developments.

This piece of land represents the only piece of countryside which is accessible for thousands of residents within the B90 area.

The piece of land known as Allocation 13 enables the local community access to the natural environment and is very well used by families, walkers and dog owners alike. The land provides a valuable community amenity, which should be protected.

There have been a number of recent developments within the B90 postcode including Parkgate, which has resulted in the loss of parkland and green space for residents to enjoy and other large scale developments such as Dickens Heath taking acres of greenbelt land.

Residing on Neville Road, I feel that the roads and surrounding infrastructure would not be able to cope with the proposed 600 houses to Allocation 13. There is already insufficient parking at nearby Shirley and Whitlocks End train stations. Places at already oversubscribed schools will become even harder to obtain. Solihull Hospital has already been downgraded and does not meet the needs of residents of Solihull, who often have to travel to Heartlands and further afield when treatment is required. Doctors surgeries have closed patient lists and I cannot see how the area could cope with such large scale development.

Working within residential development and acting for social housing landlords and new build developers I am not opposed to development. However, given the large scale of the proposed development to Allocation 13 and other surrounding proposed sites (totalling 2550 new homes), the proposals are too vast and confined to one area. Surely there are other less populated areas within the Solihull Borough (such as Knowle, Dorridge, Hockley Heath, Hampton in Arden) which could be considered leaving residents of B90 with some accessible green space, having already lost most of it.

It should also be a priority for Solihull Council to ensure that Birmingham City Council have used all of the brownfield sites available to them before any overflow of allocation is passed to Solihull.

I am writing to register my objection to the loss of Allocation 13 to the proposed new build developments.

This piece of land represents the only piece of countryside which is accessible for thousands of residents within the B90 area.

The piece of land known as Allocation 13 enables the local community access to the natural environment and is very well used by families, walkers and dog owners alike. The land provides a valuable community amenity, which should be protected.

There have been a number of recent developments within the B90 postcode including Parkgate, which has resulted in the loss of parkland and green space for residents to enjoy and other large scale developments such as Dickens Heath taking acres of greenbelt land.

Residing on Neville Road, I feel that the roads and surrounding infrastructure would not be able to cope with the proposed 600 houses to Allocation 13. There is already insufficient parking at nearby Shirley and Whitlocks End train stations. Places at already oversubscribed schools will become even harder to obtain. Solihull Hospital has already been downgraded and does not meet the needs of residents of Solihull, who often have to travel to Heartlands and further afield when treatment is required. Doctors surgeries have closed patient lists and I cannot see how the area could cope with such large scale development.

Given the large scale of the proposed development to Allocation 13 and other surrounding proposed sites (totalling 2550 new homes), the proposals are too vast and confined to one area. Surely there are other less populated areas within the Solihull Borough (such as Knowle, Dorridge, Hockley Heath, Hampton in Arden) which could be considered leaving residents of B90 with some accessible green space, having already lost most of it.

It should also be a priority for Solihull Council to ensure that Birmingham City Council have used all of the brownfield sites available to them before any overflow of allocation is passed to Solihull.

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!

addendum to site 13 objection
I would like to add a proposal to my objection on your proposed development of site 13 Shirley.
Site 13 as you are probably already aware is a very much loved area by Shirley residents with its peaceful bridal way's walks pools woodland and fields. Shirley residents have been using this area for peaceful recreation for generations.
After speaking with many local residents we would like to propose to Solihull council planning that you would consider letting Shirley residents develop site 13 as a community managed nature reserve.
Shirley residents have many skilled and experienced people in our ranks who we believe could develop this area into a jewel of a nature reserve in Solihull borough that could involve the whole community of all ages and back grounds .Not only would this be fantastic for community health and relations it would also benefit the Butterfly and Bee population if we restore the fields to wildflower meadow land which can be done and this would have a fantastic knock on effect for wildlife and I am sure it would put Solihull on the map. Site 13 has the perfect ingredients of wet low marshland with small river and pools with an inclining field system surrounded by drainage streams pools and glade woodland. Its open elevation to round the clock sunlight is perfect to re create wildflower meadowland.
I am sure this would work and even become a visitor attraction. As I have probably mentioned before the site does have a thriving Hedgehog population with various species of owls and bats and abundant bird life which includes gold crests bullfinches herons woodpeckers cukoos sparrow hawks and kesterels.and Muntjac Deer.
I have attached a photo of some restored meadow land to give you an idea of what we are proposing.
I hope you can give this proposal some serious thought as the benefits of this idea are immense for the borough.

Allocation 13

No to housing in this area. Keep some green belt.

Allocation 13

Please accept my objection against the plans for allocation 13. I have been a Shirley resident for 20 years and love where we live. I love to walk my dog with my family and friends in those lovely green fields. We were saddened that we lost part of our park to the Parkgate scheme, so please, please don't let Shirley lose more! Shirley will suffer if all those houses are built and won't be the same great place to live. I honestly hope and pray that someone sees sense and saves our green land.

Many thanks for taking the time to read my objection.

We object to
A) Proposed land development adjoining Langcomb road (Site 13)
B) Wider issues of concentration of Sites in South Shirley

Objections
1, 40 % of all housing allocation in Shirley

While we recognize that new housing needs to be provide. It cannot be right that 40% of all the new houses being proposed at this time should be located with the Shirley area on green belt land. Surely there should be a more even spread across the borough?
We object to the land having high density housing which will result in urban sprawl and effectively connecting Shirley to Dickens Heath.

2, Traffic Congestion

The local network infrastructure is already under significant pressure and arguably cannot take any more strain? The traffic flows in that area will be directed predominantly down Haslucks Green Road, Bills Lane, Tanworth Lane, Blackford Road and Dog Kennel Lane, also impacting the numerous roads that run between them, and would only further congest the A34. In terms of benefitting from HS2, I can understand the logic of building residential properties in the vicinity of UK Central, but for residents of the properties being built around Shirley, they would need to access both the A34 and the M42, worsening what are already congested roads.

2, Building on green Belt land

The green belt in this area has been long established and contains a large variety of wild life. The area concerned is wildlife rich. While no official study has been done at present; we regularly see and hear a variety of species. The evidence for this is supported by the large number of Owls and bats regularly heard and seen in the area. This supports the evidence that there is good food supply for them provide by a diverse range of insects and mammals.
including :-
Birds:- Cuckoo's, owls , Jays, woodpeckers.
Mamel's:- field mice, shrews, hedgehog's, foxes, Frogs, newts, squirrels.
Insects: - Dragonflies, bumble bees, honey bees, butterflies and Beetles,

3, Flooding

The gardens backing onto the fields behind Langcomb road regularly flood. We believe the fields and trees behind the house play an important part in mitigating the effects of the flooding. Should these trees be removed additional drainage will be required.
However there are times when a pool of water covers the ground across our properties. This usually stays for up to a week before dispersing. We believe the line of oak trees on the border play an import part in helping control any flooding.
The proposed development should take account of this:-
1) Flooding problems.
Review the proposed developments to ensure they are not going to create additional flooding problems.
2) Housing density.
Ensuring the lowest housing density while allowing retention of as much of the natural tree lines to help control flooding naturally.
3) Drainage Review
Review and providing extra drainage to protect our properties, including the maintaining protection and planting addition Oak trees in the existing tree line.
6, Prevention of neighbouring towns merging into one.

We object to the land having high density housing which will result in urban sprawl and effectively connecting Shirley to Dickens Heath.

7, Well-being and quality of life

We chose to live in the vicinity, due to its close proximity to open country side. We utilize and enjoy the local country paths and routs through the land adjacent to Langcomb road, providing connections to the local canal paths and other county bridal ways. This contributes to our well-being and general health.
This is documented in the "Solihull health and well-being strategy 2016 - 2019"
1) Evidence : Refer to page 26 of "what we need in Solihull"
Improved access to quantity and quality of open and green spaces, to improve both physical and mental health.

This could be reinforced by retaining and improving the existing local bridleways and footpaths, combining and incorporating the wildlife corridors in a dual purpose amenity for everyone.

2) Recreation and fitness
Currently the land is used by many people for recreation and fitness purposed . we wish to be considered in the layout of the proposed developments , so this can continue to be an important health benefit to all current and new residents in the community.

8,Proposed amendment to local plan

Alternate Shirley housing plan to reduce encroachment on green belt land while improving the local area and helping with traffic flow.
Following the announcement of the councils need to provide additional housing in the Shirley area, we believe an adjustment to the plan can achieve a more balanced approach providing many addition al benefits to the community as a whole.
E.g. to demolish and use the Light hall school land as development. Currently the school is very run down, with classed being attended in Porta cabins.
Proposed new School
A new school could be built opposite Miller and Carter. This new school could then have the capacity to accommodate pupils from both Shirley and the Dickens heath areas. Utilizing this location would also have many advantages.
Advantages
* The green belt land behind the new school could be saved and used by the school, while still being available for general community use. Protecting the Wildlife.
* The road system by the Miller and Carter is already substantial with good connections to the local estates (Shirley and Dickens Heath). This would help reduce congestion within the Light hall school area.

I am writing to you, as I have seen a petition in regards to save allocation 13.

I am writing against this petition as being a young professional working in the solihull area I have had to move away as there is a shortage of housing and housing costs are too expensive in neighbouring areas.

I am not the only person that shares this opinion as many of my childhood friends who have grown up with me and who still work in the area have had to move away because of the sheer lack of housing.

I strongly support the plans to build further housing on allocation 13, and hope that you come to the decison to go ahead.

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 would like to draw your attention to our comments regarding the Local Plan Review.
The current Local Plan and the number of houses required was based on population growth partly fuelled by immigration which under Brexit should no longer occur and therefore is flawed. Until new information on the likely future housing requirements post Brexit is obtained these plans should be put on hold.

I also agree with the concerns of the Shirley Residents Association in that:

To retain and enhance the existing amenity fields and the Green Corridor to the Bridleway, with access to Bills Lane, the Canal and the Countryside beyond.

There to be no secondary vehicle access roads via the Woodlands or Badgers Residential Estates.

We object to the concentration of 2550 homes in such close proximity to the South Shirley Area and seek a fairer distribution across the Borough.

That there should be retention of a wider Green Belt between South Shirley and the built area of Dickens Heath.

We have been residents of Shirley for over 35 years and moved here partly attracted by the motto of Urbs in Rure. It would appear that shortly the motto will have to be abandoned as there will be plenty of Urbs but very little Rure

PROPOSED SHIRLEY GREEN BELT DEVELOPMENT
We wish to register our concern about the proposed building development in this area.
We have lived at this address for 40 years and have seen many changes in that time.
We understand that the Government have set targets, but the number of houses seems excessive in this one area.
Will new schools be built or can existing schools be developed (without the use of portakabins) to meet increased demand?
Will new doctor's surgeries be implemented/built to meet increased needs?
Solihull Hospital has been downgraded to such an extent that it is going to be inadequate to meet increased needs of a vastly greater population in the area.
Nationally, hospitals are at breaking point.
Roads in this proposed development area are only 'B' roads and the traffic is already heavy, getting out at junctions can take some time.
If thousands more cars are added to already congested roads, what measures are planned to ease traffic flow in the area?
A lot of prime building plots have been allocated to 'Senior' living, when they could have been better used for Family housing.
We ask you to consider all these points when final decisions are taken.

Development on Green Belt SHIRLEY SOLIHULL
We appreciate that new housing is required but the numbers of dwellings are staggering, the density of new houses is so important, get it wrong and the project will be a disaster. Dickens Heath has certainly got it wrong. The architects and the Planners didn't get it all right!

We also know that the local amenities are under pressure right now. Being a resident in Bills Lane for 30 years we have noticed a massive increase in traffic, which affects air quality with airborne carcegenic particulates being present - one of the most dangerous pollutants. You must also consider Noise Pollution and the danger to local residents and animals regarding traffic numbers.

The existing infra structure will not be able to cope with such an increase in housing. Schools, hospitals, doctors surgeries will all be affected.

Drainage sewers will not be able to deal with the large number of new houses, water treatment plants are already at full capacity.

When house design is being considered developers have only as their priority - one thing PROFIT, it is important to make sure that the developers are not the only winners as they will not be around tomorrow.

It is essential to make sure an adequate number of affordable homes are built and some must be designated for the younger generation.

The 1947 Planning Act is of significance and the document was and still is a major landmark - the main principal part of the Act should be adhered to whenever possible.

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

We wish to register our objection to the development of Green Belt land to the south of Shirley and at Whitlocks End for the following reasons:-

1. We object to the loss of the use of Green Belt land for housing development.
2. The current road system is not able to support the additional traffic flow that these developments will generate. There are housing developments already under construction in and around the Tidbury Green area and proposals for the Powergen site in Haslucks Green Road that will generate traffic flows in addition to the South Shirley and Whitlocks End proposals.
3. The parking provisions at Shirley, Whitlocks End, Earlswood Lakes and Wythall railway stations are already inadequate and will not therefore encourage people to use the railways.
4. The provision of school places will be inadequate to cope with these developments.
5. Existing doctors surgeries are having difficulty coping with the influx of people over the last 10 years and will not be able to cope with this additional population.
6. Supermarkets in Shirley are currently very busy at peak shopping times and the additional number of shoppers created by the developments will make it worse.
7. The proposed developments are too high a concentration in the Shirley area and in our opinion should be spread out over Solihull Borough.

We trust our views will be taken into account when considering these developments.

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.

Thank you for your recent correspondent regarding the proposed planning for Allocation 13 off Bills Lane.
We would like to strongly object to the current plans for the following reasons:

1. There is no other green space within walkable distance (1/2 mile) for our children to play outside and enjoy green belt.
2. The current green space is the habitat of bats, newts, owls and many other important wildlife.
3. The green space is very attractive and the development would have a detrimental visual impact on the area.
4. It's Part of the community. I and many other dog walkers currently enjoy meeting and socialising in a local green outdoor, safe space. If this was removed there would be no other comparable alternative in the area.
5. Current overcrowding. There is already significant overcrowding during rush hour on the roads surrounding the whole area. Dickens Heath up to the miller and Carter. Bills lane leading up to the Tanworth lane and Shakespeare drive. Through majors green leading to Norton Lane, which is already having another development site built. The A435 leading up to the M42 junction 3 motorway island.
6. The schools, doctors and hospitals are all already over prescribed.
7. 41% of the development are proposed within close proximity to each other and not enough other areas has either been considered or proposed.