13 Shirley - South of Shirley

Allocation 13 - 600 houses
I wish to object to the proposal to build 600 homes on the land near my home in Baxters Green, Shirley - under Allocation 13. There is an area contained within this land which is used on a daily basis by a cross section of the local community for recreation and is highly valued by all concerned.

Allocation 13
We wish to lodge our protest against allocation 13 development on the following grounds:
1. The loss of recreational amenity in destroying the public amenity of walk from Woodloes road to Bills Lane. This is a very well used amenity which was supported by LAYCA paying for necessary fencing. This walk enables the Community to undertake healthy,safe walking on pleasant land which is of GREAT benefit to large numbers of people.
2. The increased traffic will only add to an already extremely busy area with increased pollution very busy traffic.
3. With the proposed development on Light Hall Farm and TRW site we cannot see the need for this development although we fully understand the needs for additional housing but this just seems one development too far.
4.The infrastructure will need to be upgraded in terms of schools, roads and traffic management and who will pay for this additional cost without increasing council tax, when cuts everywhere are being made by the government.

Proposed planning for Shirley
SAY GOODBYE TO THE CUCKOO

I am writing to state my opposition to the 'proposed' building development in Shirley and the surrounding area.
To my heading: 'Say Goodbye to the Cuckoo'. Every year it is a complete and utter joy to hear the cuckoo when walking the fields. Many people come for miles to spot and listen to the cuckoo. This bird is on the official site for the most endangered species of bird and on the RED LIST, their numbers have decreased by 37% and we should be protecting these birds, not destroying their habitat.
Having attended the recent consultation meetings at various venues, not once have the council officers been able to give any information regarding the access to these developments, extra schools places, doctors surgeries, transport e.g. bus or train. I congratulate Solihull Council in their training of these officers in subterfuge.
For the past forty years, Shirley has been 'dumped' on by Solihull Council. We have seen our green open spaces eroded away on a systematic scale with Monkspath, Hillfield and Dickens Heath. Solihull Retail park was built in SHIRLEY. From the M42 the A3400 is one road of car dealerships leading into Shirley itself. Powergen was left derelict for more than twenty years when this could have been utilised in that time. Blythe Valley is now a Business Park. Now you proposed to fill in the remaining spaces, depriving the population of Shirley of many beautiful green open spaces full of wildlife, ancient oaks which will be chopped down and no doubt buildings will be demolished to make way for these homes.
It is a disgrace that you intend to build on football fields that our young people use, and what about the allotments that are within the area, will they be protected? I doubt it. I love to be able to say when walking the fields that I can go out in the summer months and see cows, sheep, goats, ducks and even reindeer. What about all the foxes, badgers, Muntjac dear, plus the numerous species of birds and the wonderful site of flocks of starlings swooping over the fields and hedge rows at dusk. We need these places for families to be able to take their children to learn to enjoy and protect their countryside, to know where their roast beef dinner comes from, not just a piece of meat on a plastic tray in the supermarket.
Where is the traffic supposed to go, what about the roads. It is a well known fact that people in Dickens Heath cannot get out of the village at certain times of the day, the traffic tailing back from as far as the Miller and Carter island because all of the traffic is heading towards the A3400 and on to Solihull. Commuters from Yardley Wood in Birmingham already make the journey to Whitlocks End Station to commute into Birmingham, because they are unable to park at Yardley Wood. Trains from Whitlocks End are very often only three carriages long and people are standing all the way to Birmingham having paid for a seat! It is obvious that more trains will be needed, more buses will be needed. Traffic from Tythe Barn Lane will have to come through Dickens Heath Village or along Haslucks Green Road and on to Bills Lane which is already congested in the mornings and evenings.
We build the smallest homes in Europe, to squeeze in as many homes as possible, It is well known that you would not be able to get a Fire Engine to homes in Dickens Heath because of traffic parked on the roads.
If the building development should go ahead, I can agree with the TWR site being utilised and reluctantly the Lighthall Farm site at least they would have a chance at travelling to the Stratford Road, being adjacent to it but I am opposed to all of this development. Solihull needs to look at the areas east of Shirley, Hampton in Arden, Knowle, Dorridge even the Green Burial Site has been given the go-ahead at Temple Balsall, was Shirley not considered for this? This would have been far more acceptable to the Shirley residents than the 6,150 homes. There is ample land on Widney Manor Road behind Solihull Sixth Form with direct access to Solihull and the M42. 'Urbs in Rure' Not for much longer.

Allocation 13. Increasing the Urban sprawl onto what was supposed to be our Green belt land, so we almost meet Dickens Heath. Seems to contradict everything Solihull is supposed to stand for.

Allocation 13. I was bought up in the middle of Birmingham and moved to Shirley over 60 years ago because it was on the edge of Green Belt Land. I love the open fields which I have been walking on for over 60 years. it forms a major part of my life talking to old and new friends this is very important to my health and welfare especially as I become less mobile.

Objection to proposed housing on Allocation 13 Shirley
I have been a resident on Shotteswell Road in Shirley for 5 years now with the main attraction for moving there being the green spaces, excellent local services and quality of life.

Whilst I understand there is a need for more affordable housing, I am deeply concerned about the impact building 600 houses on allocation 13 and other allocated areas will have on my local neighbourhood, wildlife, and local traffic.

I spend most weekends walking through Shirley's wonderful green belt and observing local wildlife and removing this would be absolutely devastating.

I also spend most mornings sitting in unbearable traffic on Tanworth Lane trying to undertake my daily commute to work but struggling to get out where the junction meets with the B4102 due to the heavy volume of traffic streaming up from Dickens Heath. Building additional housing on the surrounding fields would make this commute simply intolerable.

There are plenty of other surrounding villages in Solihull which I'm sure could absorb some of this required housing, yet Shirley has been so heavily targeted. Planning was recently rejected on fields on Earlswood Road Dorridge due to this being green belt land, yet its ok to suggest Shirley sacrifices its green belt.

I'd like to request that Solihull Council considers the local residents of Shirley and the impacts this substantial housing will have on the community and quality of living. I feel a reasonable compromise would be to leave green belt land in allocation 13 untouched and proceed with the housing in allocations 11 and 12 (totalling 1250 homes) which is adequate for Shirley to contribute to the current requirement for housing due to the proposed HS2 development.

Objection to Shirley Allocation 13
I would formally like to state my vehement objections to Solihull Council's proposed new housing "Allocation 13".

I am a life long resident of Shirley and regularly use the local green belt for sports and recreation. My wife who also loves the area due to her has very keen interest in the wildlife that this small but wonderful area of natural habitat provides.

I do fully understand and appreciate the country's current housing crisis and accept that Shirley and Solihull have a part to play in resolving this issue, however the key reasons for my objections are as follows:

* The loss of much loved greenbelt land and the associated health, recreation and natural benefits to wildlife this provides.
* The fact that there are 1250 houses planned in allocation 11 and 12 only a matter of metres away from allocation 13 which to my knowledge is not greenbelt land. I feel this is a fair and reasonable amount of homes for this area of Shirley to cope with. More seems simply unnecessary and unwarranted.
* I struggle everyday to get out of the junction between Tanworth lane and the B4102 due to the stream of traffic coming up from Dickens Heath. The tail backs can go past the junction with Stretton road and it can take 20 minutes to get over this traffic blackspot currently. An additional 600 homes will simply make this an untenable area for vehicular traffic.
* The impact on local amenities and services would be detrimentally effected to great measure with the additional 600 homes that allocation 13 proposes (on top of the 1250 houses proposed for allocation 11 and 12).
* I believe there are other areas around Solihull that can accommodate more houses and essentially share their fair amount of new homes. To my knowledge there are no homes being planned in Dorridge. My understanding is that a prior planning application to build houses in Dorridge was refused and the fact the land was greenbelt was the rationale for the refusal. However it appears this reasonable precedent is conveniently forgotten when it comes to the already congested Shirley.
I strongly request that the proposed plans for 600 homes on Allocation 13 are scrapped in full, immediately.

Draft local plan review - Shirley
I wish to object to the proposed sites in Shirley. It is unfair that 41% of the houses in the plan are on sites neighbouring Shirley. I understand the need for more homes but would query why this area has to lose its Green Belt when other areas are more suitable.

This area has already seen a huge increase in new homes in recent years and the road infrastructure cannot possibly cope with another increase in traffic. I live on Bills Lane and it is almost impossible to exit my own drive in the rush hour. This will also impact on school places and GP services.

Shirley has become a very busy, over developed community. The adjacent green belt is therefore vital and brings many benefits to the area. Please reconsider the location of the proposed sites.

Solihull plan for new housing in Shirley
I strongly oppose building of houses on the green belt around Bills Lane and the back of Lancomb Road especially the public amenity recreation fields provided by the Layca Community Association in lieu of land on the corner of Hathaway Road that the society gave up for building of houses.

If housing is so desperately needed why has the building Powergen been allowed to stand empty for so long. We have already lost parkland to Asda.

Shirley has become so industrialised with car show rooms, supermarkets and out of town shopping the area becomes totally gridlocked during busy times especially weekends. Most of the new businesses do not provide parking for their employees who are forced to find parking in local hotels and residential areas. Shirley has become a dumping ground for every shopping amenity Solihull did not have. How many supermarkets do we need. We are totally ignored when we raise objections.

We are lucky to have green spaces which we all cherish for our children and well being. Beautiful wildlife the young ones would not be able to enjoy and learn from would disappear. I hate to think what the pollution levels are like at the moment with the amount of traffic in the area and the motorway down the road must churn out. Plus our extra 'beautiful ' new service station that has been forced upon us . Why there is a need for such a service station in an area where you can already get petrol 24hrs and also food right on the motorway junction is beyond me.

Affordable housing is required yes. It is about time the builders were told that affordable housing does not have five bedrooms and three bathrooms. Many new lovely elderly retirement properties have been built in the area. The residents of these new properties are all leaving houses to go back into the 'pot' for housing for families. I am sure with some ingenuity and help from local knowledge, not just here but all over the country, our green and cherished land could be saved.

Please listen to the people.

proposed development in South Shirley
I wish to register my objection to the possible development for significant future housing developments in the South Shirley area of the Borough.

1.A disproportionate number of the houses which the government require the borough to take are targeted on the South Shirley part of the borough.

2.If these houses are built they will destroy valuable green areas which provide open space amenities for a significant number of residents and provide for healthy exercise and mental well being.

3.The areas proposed ,particularly area 13, provide a green buffer between South Shirley and the large Dickens Heath development.Filling in with so many houses will destroying the individuality of these individual communities.

4.The developments will ,inevitably, increase traffic significantly on the country roads in the surrounding area.

5.If planning is granted then there will be further issues raised concerning the special wildlife which are to be found in this particular area.

I wish to lodge my very strong objections to the proposed building over the green belt land from Tanworth Lane and across to Bills Woods.

The people of South Shirley have had to endure the erection of Dickens Heath (town) and this has increased in size by stealth with new phases being continually added on.

The traffic is now at horrendous levels during early morning and evening.
The line of traffic extends from the junction at the top end of Tanworth Lane all the way past Stretton Road and sometimes down to my own house at number 96 as the traffic travelling along from Dickens Heath is virtually nonstop. Stretton Road also becomes congested as the traffic cannot get in to Tanworth Lane because of the traffic backed up there. Once we make it onto the Stratford road off Dog Kennel Lane, the traffic is backed up both ways on the approach from and to the M42.
On an evening the traffic then backs up all along Dog Kennel Lane back to the Stratford Road.

How can a sane person think that building even more housing in our area is going to be sustainable within any proposed infrastructure?

Why does this council think that it's acceptable to pen us in even further in South Shirley when there are green belt sites around the Dorridge/Knowle and other areas?
Would this be because perhaps the South Shirley population on the whole probably does not have the money, power, influence or status as some Dorridge residents may be deemed to have? Why are we, and our children thought of as not needing the afforded 'luxury' of some accessible clean air as residents in other parts of the Borough?
This smacks of discrimination in my view.

We have so much traffic travelling around us that they only respite we have for our families, within walking distance, is the exact place you have proposed to now take away from us. We would have to get into a car to get some fresh air, which is kind of ironic as it clearly all adds on to the problems we have regarding traffic.

It's vital to both young and older people's, physical and mental wellbeing to have open, pollution free spaces within which to escape to.

We hear that builders, counsellors and relevant landowners between them have already made up their minds to do this and this is shameful.

Yes, new housing will need to be built but why oh why concentrate it on South Shirley once again??

REGARDING ALLOCATION 13 HOUSES
Regarding the above 600 houses on allocation 13 in Shirley, these properties are being being built at the bottom of our gardens,
which is in Sandfield Close.
Our reservations to these being built are as follows:-

1. HOW FAR AWAY FROM OUR PROPERTIES WILL THEY BE BUILT.

2. WILL THE PRESENT AMENITY AREA BY OUR PROPERTY REMAIN, ALSO THE OAK TREES.

3. ENVIRONMENT - AT PRESENT WE SEE SQUIRRELS, DIFFERENT SPECIES OF BIRDS, HEAR CUCKOOS AND OWLS, THERE
ARE FOXES AND BADGERS. ALL THIS WILL BE LOST FOREVER.

4. THE LOSS OF THE PLAYING FIELDS.

5. WHAT TYPE OF PROPERTIES ARE GOING TO BE BUILT, AND HOW HIGH WILL THEY BE? WILL THEY BE PRIVATE OR COUNCIL?

6. DOCTOR FACILITIES, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SURGERIES IN THE AREA, FOR THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTIES BEING BUILT.

7. SCHOOLS, THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT SCHOOLS IN THE AREA FOR THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTIES BEING BUILT.

8. ROADS, AT PRESENT THEY ARE NOT SUITABLE NOW FOR THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT USES THEM, NEVER MIND
HAVING MORE VEHICLES ON THE ROADS.

9. WHERE WILL THE ACCESS ROADS BE FOR THIS ESTATE?

10. WILL THIS ESTATE BE SEPARATE FROM OURS, AS WE DONT WANT PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH OUR ESTATE, AND
USING IT AS A PUBLIC FOOTPATH.

We would appreciate a reply as soon as possible, with regards to our concerns about this matter.

REGARDING ALLOCATION 13 HOUSES

Regarding the above 600 houses on allocation 13 in Shirley, these properties are being being built at the bottom of our gardens,
which is in Sandfield Close.
Our reservations to these being built are as follows:-

1. HOW FAR AWAY FROM OUR PROPERTIES WILL THEY BE BUILT.

2. WILL THE PRESENT AMENITY AREA BY OUR PROPERTY REMAIN, ALSO THE OAK TREES.

3. ENVIRONMENT - AT PRESENT WE SEE SQUIRRELS, DIFFERENT SPECIES OF BIRDS, HEAR CUCKOOS AND OWLS, THERE
ARE FOXES AND BADGERS. ALL THIS WILL BE LOST FOREVER.

4. THE LOSS OF THE PLAYING FIELDS.

5. WHAT TYPE OF PROPERTIES ARE GOING TO BE BUILT, AND HOW HIGH WILL THEY BE? WILL THEY BE PRIVATE OR COUNCIL?

6. DOCTOR FACILITIES, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SURGERIES IN THE AREA, FOR THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTIES BEING BUILT.

7. SCHOOLS, THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT SCHOOLS IN THE AREA FOR THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTIES BEING BUILT.

8. ROADS, AT PRESENT THEY ARE NOT SUITABLE NOW FOR THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT USES THEM, NEVER MIND
HAVING MORE VEHICLES ON THE ROADS.

9. WHERE WILL THE ACCESS ROADS BE FOR THIS ESTATE?

10. WILL THIS ESTATE BE SEPARATE FROM OURS, AS WE DONT WANT PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH OUR ESTATE, AND
USING IT AS A PUBLIC FOOTPATH.

We would appreciate a reply as soon as possible, with regards to our concerns about this matter.

Save Allocation 13 Paws off our Green Belt
We would like to object to the above proposed planning application.

This would impact on the schools and doctors, and the traffic. We currently leave near Woodlands Lane School and it is a nightmare
trying to get in and out of our drive and if ambulances were required you would be unable to get near a house. If the planning went ahead this would mean more chaos.

Allocation 13
I am writing with my objections to the building of houses on allocation 13 in Shirley, solihull.

Me and my family are regular visitors to this area and have spent hours and hours exploring this land.
Even during Xmas we were there every day with our dog.
It is absolutely beautifull on every season of the year, we not only socialise but excercise at the same time without realising. There is so much wildlife to be seen.
My children are devastated to think that the owls, birds, foxes, bats etc will now have there homes demolished.
There is a beautiful stream and a duck pond there also which we already had plans to be picnicking and cycling around this summer.

The elderly people have dogs and love to socialise too, without this field so close to home I'm sure they will be feeling depressed and confined to there homes.

Many people have bought there homes in Shirley to appreaciate these open spaces and I cannot understand how you can now be build over them.

The doctors, dentists, schools and hospitals are already so overcrowded I also cannot understand how you can be overloading these services even more.

Football pitches being taken away, this is a joke, kids need to be excercising more.

The roads round here are already a joke and you are adding to this problem also.

I have added a picture that my children have made!

You really shouldn't be taking away this natural beautiful land, please think twice before you do it!

Objection to building on Site 13
I am completely in agreement that new housing must become a priority for our country if we want our future generations to have homes where they can live in peace and be free to bring up families.
But ......
There must be thought and consideration when planning where these homes are to be built. Other major cities in Europe are more populated than London and Birmingham and have more countryside nearby than our major cities. We need to make the best use of the land available. We need to employ architects that are imaginative - one of the most desirable places to live in London are Kensington and Chelsea and yet these are densely populated. Getting people to live in town centres, within walking distance of shops, pubs and cafes, won't just create lively new communities - it will provide - a much needed boost for local businesses. Train stations, car parks and warehouses could be moved underground and derelict ground near railways could be used. We must build above shops and revitalise our High Streets, without ruining the skyline (see Madrid, it has wide boulevards and low-rise buildings, yet it is home to more than 3.5 times as many people per hectare as London). There is no need to use green belt and tear up our precious countryside.

Solihull, especially Shirley seems to be taking the brunt of the regeneration programme. According to plans there will be non-stop housing from Stratford Road to Cheswick Green. Families living in this rabbit warren will need recreation land to survive and Site 13 is perfect for this. It has played a massive part in the health and well-being of the local community for many years and must be safeguarded as such. It will be all the more important if families living in the proposed houses are to be content. This land was given by the LAYCA Community Association under an agreement with Solihull Council to provide an informal recreation area for the then recently constructed estate (Woodloes rd, Baxters rd and Stretton rd). Surely, as well as building on green belt land the council will not renegade on this agreement as well.?

The main roads in the area are very congested especially during peak times, it will make it very difficult to enjoy living in Shirley if commuting takes even longer. Schools are full and short of money, unable to afford to build extra classrooms; doctors surgeries are buckling under the weight of their patients, G.Ps unable to cope. We need to take all aspects of 'living' into consideration. Plans for 2550 homes to be built in a small concentrated area in Shirley is too much, we ask for Site 13 to be left as an open space. The shortfall will be approx. 600 houses, these could be accommodated in other infill sites in the area such as Dorridge.
Dickens Heath is also being expanded, we need a coalescence between DH and Shirley, site 13 is perfect for this. This area is and should remain as an area of public space for the benefit of the present and the new community.

see attached letter

Allocation 13
i would like to register my objection to 600 houses being considered for allocation 13 for the following reasons.
1. As you probably know the traffic is unbelievably bad coming from Dickens Heath already plus the pollution that comes with that.
2. Wildlife will be decimated as a result. The habitats of birds, bats, foxes etc will all disappear.
3. Lack of green spaces for people new and old for their health and enjoyment (Shirley Park space has already been reduced).
4. Basic infrastructure such as doctors, roads and schools will be in short supply based on past projects as all under massive pressure already.
I cant help thinking quality of life for people already here and the people possibly coming will be very poor in a town that's motto is Town in
the Country.
thank you for considering my objection

Allocation 13
I write in relation to the planned housing development Allocation 13.

I live near to the proposed development (just off Bills Lane) and I would like to raise the following objections relating to this planning application:
The proposed siting of the development is particularly ill-considered: it is on a greenfield site used by many local residents for recreation and walking dogs, and building here would diminish the striking greenbelt scenery.
Further to this, the development will create transport problems in the local area. Bills Lane is already a busy and congested road; this additional concentration of traffic and roadside parking will cause traffic problems and create a safety hazard for other motorists.
Therefore, I ask that Solihull Council refuse this Planning Application.

allocation 13

I am a resident of Burman Road, Shirley and I wish to formally oppose the building of 600 new houses on allocation 13 in Shirley

This will have a negative impact on our community such as increased traffic problems, loss of green space and impact upon schools and services such as doctors etc.

Allocation 13
I received a flyer through my doorway yesterday evening outlining proposed development of allocation 13 of 600 houses in Shirley to which I know nothing about? I live at 5 Burman Road, and have received no notification of development from the council or local government? Given that Shirley has the least green land out of all the boroughs of Solihull and has already lost park land in the Parkgate development with an increase in congestion and harmful pollution I certainly object to any further development. It is already difficult to get a bus from Shirley to Solihull with no reliable immediate service, it takes several days to obtain a doctors appointment at Tamworth lane surgery,even when very ill, no accident and emergency for children at Solihull, and reduced maternity services. Local class sizes already at capacity and not to mention the loss of such beautiful countryside. The development of the proposed 600 houses would be a negative impact on Shirley and should not go ahead.

I should like to know what exact percentage of the four developments are affordable housing and who qualify's?
Catering for which category of the population as we already have an excess of elderly in Shirley and insufficient for young people who are not able to get on the property market.

Plot 13 - There should be a retention of the Green Belt between South Shirley and Dickens Heath. The field, alongside Woodloes Road is a popular amenity.

schools don't have the money for improvements and many don't win grant cases. I think a good idea would be to open a new school on one of the sites, light hall is in a good location for developing on. A new school to replace light hall, possibly on a different site as a land swop like Arden have done would provide school possibilities and places for the additional housing developments.

Mr Knight has received a number of emails of objection in relation to the proposed 'Allocation 13' under the draft Local Plan review consultation. Mr Knight would be grateful if constituents views can be taken into account, and in particular to ensure that any local developments are sustainable, including looking at flooding mitigation controls (perhaps balancing ponds or similar) for areas which may flood, as well as the impact on wider infrastructure such as schooling provisions, emergency service access and cover, and local road capacity

The key facts of why we are opposed to the plans are:
* They're unfair: 41% of the houses in the plan are in 4 sites that neighbour our community
* They will have a negative impact on our community: aside from the loss of green space around our homes and the benefits to the community and health that brings, the proposed housing would create transport problems along Haslucks Green Road, Bills Lane, Tamworth Lane, Blackford Road and many of the roads that run between them. It could also have a detrimental impact on schools and doctors.
* It won't help HS2: the Draft Local Plan Review makes a lot of reference to the benefits to the borough from the HS2 interchange at the airport, but Shirley will be one of the worst places in the borough to get to the new station. Areas to the east and north of the borough are more natural access points that won't need to contend with the congested A34 and M42.
* My mental health will suffer as I bought this property in the location it is as I suffer with PTSD and CANNOT live on or near a main road. I can give you access to my medical records to prove this if required.
* Shirley Golf Club wants to sell some of their land which is not bordered by any current propertys - build these houses there!

planning objection allocation 13
I would like to raise several objections as to the planning application on allocation 13 the proposal to build 600 houses on woods Christmas tree farm
WOODS FARM HAVE ALREADY CONVERTED A NUMBER OF BARNS IN THE GREEN BELT INTO RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS CAUSING TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ON THE PRIVATE RD THAT RUNS DOWN THE BRIDAL PATH
The loss of several thousands of Christmas trees which are very good for cleaning up the air pollution is not acceptable

I am a local resident and I cannot see how you can build on green belt yet again with the poor infrastructure of roads the lack of shops to accommodate all these extra people no extra doctors surgeries.
WE struggle to get doctors appointments at the moment at Tanworth lane surgery.

The Stratford road is permanently grid locked
WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF THE EXTRA TRAFFIC FROM THIS AND SEVERAL OTHER PROPOSALS THE TRW SITE FOR ONE ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE OLD POWERGEN SITE IS GOING TO ADD TO THE CHAOS IN THE MORNING RUSH HOUR IT CAN TAKE 40 MINUTES TO TRAVEL FROM SAINSBURYS TO THE M42 CRANMORE BOULEVARD IS GRID LOCKED.
Haselocks Green Rd is a nightmare for people living on this road trying to get off there drives in rush hour I know of several people who have left the area because of the current congestion without adding to it .

Where are the additional children going to school with a proposal for in excess of 2500 homes to be built around Shirley
Solihull hospital is not capable of coping with the current population yet adding at least 10.000 extra people to their catchment is ridiculous you have to go to Heartlands a round trip of at least one half hours for the most minor of ailments.
Shirley station and Whitlocks end station have insufficient parking facilities NEVILLE RD AND SEVERAL OF THE ADJOINING RDS ARE CURRENTLY BEING USED AS OVERFLOW CAR PARKS MAKING IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO WALK DOWN THE PAVEMENT WITH A PUSHCHAIR BECAUSE OF ALL THE CARS PARKED ON THE PAVEMENT AND IF THEY DON'T PARK ON THE PAVEMENT IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DRIVE DOWN THE RD IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE ENGINE OR AMBULANCE REQUIRING ACCESS THIS WOULD BE A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN.
We no longer have a police station in Shirley or surrounding areas recently when the police were required in Neville Rd because of a fight between groups of teenagers it took 20 minutes plus for any assistance to arrive by then it is all over and they have dispersed
AS A RESIDENT IN THIS AREA FOR IN EXCESS OF 35 YEARS IT IS ABOUT TIME SOLIHULL COUNCIL STARTED LOOKING AFTER LOCAL RESIDENTS EVERY OBJECTION THAT IS EVER RAISED GETS OVER TURNED
LOOK AT PARK GATE TRAFFIC CHAOS, SHOPS HALF EMPTY
LOOK AT SHIRLEY HIGH ST CHARITY SHOPS BANKS BUILDING SOCIETIES NO LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES ALL AS A RESULT OF SOMETHING THE LOCAL RESIDENTS NEVER WANTED ASDA THE MAJORITY OF CUSTOMERS TRAVEL IN FROM OUTSIDE THE AREA THEY TRAVEL STRAIGHT BACK OUT AGAIN NEVER SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESSES.

see attached letter

I wish to make the following comments in respect of the Local Plan review:

1. The proposed allocation of sites is disproportionate with over 40% of the allocations being located in the B90 Shirley postcode in the Shirley South and Blythe wards. If this is adopted in the final plan, the impact on infrastructure in the Shirley area will be profound. This has not been properly thought through. I am particularly opposed to site 13 which massively expands the urban area of Shirley into the Green Belt.

2. There are few sites in the Meriden Gap with a preference for cramming sites into the Blythe ward which will result in the urban part of the borough creeping into the Green Belt. It is notable that there are no sites put forward in the Dorridge and Hockley Heath ward. Not including sites in the Dorridge and Hockley Heath ward would be a missed opportunity in an established community , and is at odds with what has been proposed for Knowle.

3. Design standards must be required to meet the highest possible energy efficiency levels both to reduce carbon emissions and reduce costs for consumers. Issues including flooding need to be carefully considered when considering sites and appropriate engineering solutions provided in areas liable to flooding. Protecting and enhancing biodiversity should be a key thread throughout the plan.

4. Provision of new facilities, including medical practices, schools and transport infrastructure required to facilitate development on the scale proposed needs to be planned for well in advance of sites being built out. New communities need to be built sustainably, and take into account local needs such as affordable housing for first time buyers.

5. Shirley is designated as an "Urban Growth Area". It is not clear what this means and Solihull Council should not go down the route of high density development along the Stratford Road corridor. Instead, the focus, through the Shirley Economic Plan, needs to be on improving Shirley to make it more of a destination for visitors and local people.

6. Any sports pitches removed as a result of site allocations need to be replaced in other locations.

In summary, although I fully recognise the need for new housing development in the borough, and the need to secure a 5 year land supply to avoid unplanned development, we must allocate sites in a manner that safeguards Solihull's unique 'Urbs in Rure' appeal, protects health and wellbeing of our population and preserves our environment for generations to come.

see attached letter

see attached response