13 Shirley - South of Shirley

Please take into account that all the housing you propose to put in our local community, will have a detrimental impact on our schools and doctors, it will create awfull transport problems along haslucks green rd. Bills lane Burman rd. Tamworth lane and Blackford rd.

Allocation 13
To whom it may concern

My children and grandchildren live in Shirley and cannot afford to buy a house. Affordable housing is needed in the area so I fully support Allocation 13 but not on the sports fields at Dickens Heath.
Regards

Proposed housing in Shirley

The proposed plans for such a large amount of housing, adding to that already in Dickens Heath and the further traffic congestion this would bring to the area is, in my opinion, totally short sighted. My objections are:

* The congestion on the Stratford Road up to the motorway connection is already very bad and getting worse especially during commuting times.
* Dog Kennel Lane, by its very name is a lane and the amount of traffic from your proposed building would make it untenable for most journeys as it would be completely jammed.
* The exit from Tanworth Lane onto Blackford Road and Dog Kennel Lane is already a nightmare when people are trying to exit Tanworth Lane as the traffic from Dickens Heath is constant with little leeway to move out of Tanworth Lane. This is already an accident waiting to happen!
* We have had a large amount of retail expansion in this area over the past few years. The Sears Retail Park, plus the stores on the Stratford Road bordering the island at Stratford Road/Blackford Road and Marshall Lake Road, make it very difficult and we are virtual prisoners in our homes as the Stratford Road is grid locked as is Marshall Lake Road and Blossomfield Road, virtually all the way into Solihull.
* I firmly believe we have 'done our bit' for the area with all the above and would like my objections recognised.
* Surely it would be much safer and more manageable for the housing to be built at Catherine de Barnes where there is more room and less problems with the amount of traffic these builds would generate.
* I feel this proposal would have far reaching negative implications in that many people would not travel to this area as it would be a travel bottle neck and be avoided being detrimental to the NEC and surrounding businesses.

Allocation 13 and Allocation 4

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to register my objection to the loss of allocation 13 to residential use.
I live on Falstaff Road in Shirley and within a few minutes of leaving my house, my family and I can be in green countryside. It is a very well used natural environment, that provides a much welcomed break from the urban environment.
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. The addition of thousands on new homes in such a small area will compound congestion.

I am also writing to register my objection to the loss of allocation 4 to residential use. I know this area well due to family being located in neighbouring Major's Green. I would be extremely concerned about the impact on local roads which are already very congested.
In addition, there is a large number of sports clubs and facilities currently in allocation 4. Sport clubs are community hubs which play an important role in both adult and children's physical and mental well-being. To lose such a large cluster of sports clubs would impact on the physical and mental well being of the residents in the local community. To transition people to other sports clubs is not a successful option due to the high rate of drop in participation when change occurs.
Yours faithful,

Objection: Sites 4 and 13 Dickens Heath of the Draught Local Plan

I write to register my objection to the proposed development of the green belt land around Dickens Heath.
National Planning Policy requires that very special circumstances must be demonstrated in order to allow for the development of green belt land. SMBC may be able to achieve this by drawing attention to the difficulties of identifying sufficient brown field sites in conjunction with a plan led approach towards addressing those difficulties in order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF and that the NPPF is unrealistic unless building on greenbelt is allowed when no other route available.

However I feel the spirit of these NPPF requirements and the very definite and absolute statements made by Central Government are attempted to be circumnavigated by SMBC. This by way of using the very special circumstance rule to not just build on green belt land but in the case of Dickens Heath to eradicate the last remaining slender green corridors between Dickens Heath, Tidbury Green, Majors Green and Shirley. This would undisputedly create major urban sprawl between individual communities and wider Solihull by way of eradicating those final remnants of green belt which presently separate these communities. This would impinge on, not just the one semi-rural community of Dickens Heath but also the surrounding communities and greater locale.

I strongly believe and agree with Central Government that the very special needs rule is not about permitting the destroying of community identities by allowing urban sprawl to eradicate the last yards of natural green separation; it is the complete opposite to this. It is really about allowing developments on green belt land in a controlled and responsible manner when absolutely no other option route is available. I do not believe SMBC have proved by sequential testing that there is absolutely no alternative green belt land available that would not eradicate divisions between communities and illiminate any possibility of wildlife commute and habitat.

As stated any necessary last option development of green belt should not destroy rural communities by way of allowing large scale urban sprawl and not eradicate green corridors completely which would serious impede free transit of species and varied cross pollination. I believe the responsibility of an authority, when forced to build on green belt should be to do so in a way which retains existing linked green areas around those communities by adopting a landscape scaled approach towards the reason for, purpose of, and essential preservation of green belt land around rural or semi rural communities. This being in line with Central Government's target to reverse decline of species by 2025 which is a necessity if the UK's commitment towards the World Target is to be at all achievable. We all have our part to play and Borough Councils, above all else, should shoulder their responsibilities as role models in a leading and positive manner.

In addition to the above it has been proven that contact with nature promotes health and well being in all of us. Committing to urban sprawl will increasingly deny not just one community of that contact but also the other communities the sprawl links to. I consider this a totally irresponsible and unacceptable way for a borough council to conduct its affairs.

Over recent years the Dickens Heath area has already absorbed a large bulks of development which seems unquestionably more than a fair share of the boroughs housing needs. This losing Dickens Heath substantial amounts of outer green belt as well as outstripping the originally planned infrastructure and concept by well over double the number of originally intended households. The redesign of Garden Squares having now also completely ruled out the possibility of additional commercial premises within Dickens Heath to at last achieve the originally planned footfall and extra public parking to, in turn, boost trade for it's presently struggling services infrastructure and shops. The woefully inadequate present village centre situation being literally locked in concrete by more flawed planning.

In addition to this indisputable present outstripping of infrastructure, the locations for these newly proposed sites would incur an increased reliance on the current services and commercial area of Dickens Heath; this would be totally impractical from an accessibility point of view. It would also not be in line with the 800yrd planning rules forcing travel by car to local services and village centre, where again, over development has already created major parking and road capacity issues. This with several hundred dwellings still under construction within the original concept area of Dickens Heath itself. No matter how these newly proposed extra developments of the DLP are viewed, they can not in any way be seen as betterment of Dickens Heath Village. In addition to this, there can be no doubt that new developments on such a large scale would without doubt seriously compound the current planning flaws already built into Dickens Heath which have themselves been brought about by ongoing disregard for infrastructure capacity and the original village concept. It can be expected that the result of continuing along this overbuild path will without question result in community dysfunction at a seriously high level.

Considering the above points, it is considered that SMBC have not demonstrated a fair approach towards distribution of housings needs around the borough. Nor have they demonstrated that all alternatives have been openly and fairly explored. Have not displayed transparency or provided evidence for rejecting the development of a completely new rural community with its own infrastructure and own green belt separation within the borough. Housing development at the scale outlined in the DLP can not reasonable be tagged onto existing communities and especially those with an an infrastructure that has already been outstripped with apparent disregarded for the very real community issues that have already been created with apparently no concept of how these might be addressed at present levels let alone almost doubling the present number of Dickens Heath households with these two proposed new sites.

Considering the previous points l feel that the design and development of a purpose built, self contained new rural community within the borough would be a far more responsible and productive way to reach SMBC's housing quota while allowing for a plan that could better harmonise with protecting the general biodiversity of that chosen new area while also preserving the slender but essential green belt come green corridor separation of these particular existing communities. The call for sites must have returned development opportunities that, with some additional compulsory purchase, the cost of which would be passed on to the developer, would provide a new community sized parcel of land.

It is felt that this would be a far more responsible approach than cherry picking the easy ones for tagging development onto an existing community with an already outstripped infrastructure. One combined new community would also help to keep house prices down, as lots of smaller developments forces separate installation of that many more main service to each site.

I would strongly urge Solihull Council to reconsider what seems to be a flawed approach to this problem and in particular the proposal for sites 4 and 13 around Dickens Heath

Herewith my thoughts concerning the local plan review, I send them by email because of the issues with the web portal.

1. The proposed developments on allocations 4, 11, 12, 13 are closely clustered. This will clearly impact road usage as well as require additional provision for schools, medical and other facilities. As a resident of Blackford road I am aware of the steady increase in traffic from the existing developments in and around Dickens Heath. It would appear that the highway usage and plan is a critical part of the proposal. Further, a lot of local traffic is caused by Dickens Heath pupils travelling by car to Alderbrook or other schools in Solihull. In summary, I can't see how the scheme is supposed to work sustainably without understanding the plan for additional services and roads.
2. The use of the 'TRW' site seems very logical. The land has limited recreational value and is clearly underutilised. Given the existing developments on the site it seems logical to extend the 3-4 storey buildings and provide housing local to the Shirley industrial area (including Cranmore) within walking distance.
3. Allocation 13 is the exact opposite and I oppose its use for housing. It is a valuable green space for recreation, nature and acting as a buffer between Dickens Heath and Shirley. Unless the previously planned 'Shirley Relief Road' is reinstated it is difficult to see it offering any improvement in the already busy traffic in the area. This allocation in particular would cause Shirley and Dickens Heath to merge into a mass of over-corded small local roads and housing.
4. A more general observation is that across Solihull there are a number of large ground level car parks. These don't strike me as a very efficient use of space, especially when they are near to shops/services or travel connections. Has adequate consideration been given to reviewing these for re-development and incorporation of housing?
5. Further to the point about local traffic above (1) I believe that additional provision will be required for car commuters to Solihull, the motorway network and to the rail network. The local railway station at Whitlocks End is already overloaded with cars. If more housing was within walking distance of this or other rail stations, it would relieve the pressure. The commute to the M42 in the morning is already difficult and I believe specific improvements are required to allow the traffic out of Shirley (to the motorway) to not be delayed by traffic coming in to the Cranmore businesses, as they currently do. Improvements to Dog Kennel Lane and the connecting roundabouts on the A34 and at Dickens Heath road could ease this. It would appear that this needs to be planned and enacted before the developments commence to minimise the impact and allow maximum flexibility in planning new roads/connections.

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

I would like to object strongly to 41% of the proposed 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. The 2550 homes in South Shirley, allocations 4,11, 12 and 13 will have a serious impact on what are already congested roads: Bills Lane, Tamworth Lane, Dog Kennel Lane, Stratford Rd (A34) and M42, Haslucks Green Rd and Blackford Rd.
1. 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 local community, as this area is used by so many for exercise, recreation and dog walking.
2. Affects on local services, schools and GP surgeries will be hit the most. Whilst Solihull Hospital will be affected with longer waiting lists or patients moved to Heartlands Hospital which will effect patients and relatives alike.
3. The plan will also remove six sports and recreational fields from the area.
4. The area of Badgers estate next to Allocation 13 is prone to flooding and many properties have suffered damp. Any removal of old trees and vast areas of tarmac and building will make this problem far worse.
5. The building of high density housing is not good and it leads to disputes over parking, noise and many other social issues that are raised through a lack of space to live.



I would ask Solihull MBC to revise its plan to build these 2550 new homes in the areas of South Shirley and Dickens Heath as it is grossly unfair to its people. It is widely known that the council has identified more possible sites that would have less an impact on the people and families of these areas. I would therefore ask Solihull MBC to consider the people who already live here first and foremost.

I would like to register my objection to the proposed building application for 600 homes on Allocation 13 in Shirley.

Dear Solihull council ,

I was dismayed to learn that there are plans made to build on the land at the back of Tanworth lane and Bills lane. I have been using the footpath and bridle path for many years and have concerns regarding building on this land due to all the fantastic wildlife and beautiful Trees I see daily on my walks. I have seen badgers, bats, woodpeckers, Jays , Sparrowhawks, Herons, cuckoos to name a few. Please can you advise what is being put in place to conserve this wildlife and its habitat ?

Kind Regards,

I am secretary to the Solihull tree wardens. We are a voluntary group who give up our time to care for trees. We have ongoing projects all over the borough and we are passionate about preserving trees and the local natural environment
We are very concerned about the new proposed housing developments proposed in Dog Kennel lane, Dickens Heath, and Baxters Green.
We do realise there is a need for affordable housing but the horrors of the intense building already in Dickens heath comes to mind.. When building new developments there needs to be plenty of green space for children and adults to enjoy and of course we need to preserve as many of the existing trees as trees are essential to our well being. Trees absorb carbon monoxide and potentially
harmful gasses from the air and release oxygen. In fact a mature canopy tree
releases enough oxygen to sustain two human beings. Please with thoughtful planning we could provide a healthy environment where people can live

see letter

see letter

proposed allocations 4/11/12/13
see letter

Objection to site number 13

We object to site number 13. The estate we live on is surrounded by what would be site 13. Currently residents use it to exercise and walk dogs, it is a much loved green area and home to various wildlife. The traffic is already a problem at times in this area and adding further properties will only make this worse. The infrastructure is not fit to accommodate further building work and the local schools would not have capacity to take more children. Also as mentioned above the wildlife in the local area would suffer greatly. It's so important to protect this kind of land from being developed on.

Bills Lane

Dear sirs,
I'm writing regarding the proposed building of large estate on Bills lane. I walk over this land regularly and am horrified as to the welfare of the wild life.
I wondered what ,if anything will be done to preserve it?
My even grater concern is that of the already failing infrastructure of the area. Where will the children go to school, schools are already full to capacity, with very large number of children per class. Also How will local Drs cope. Already difficult to get appointments. With the already huge number of houses being built in this small area.
Yours concerned,

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

See Attachment

see attached Shirley Conservative newsletter reply slip

Shirley newsletter reply slip and letter

see Shirley newsletter reply slip

see attached letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

See Attachment

See Attachment