13 Shirley - South of Shirley

rejection for green belt allocation
A quick note to support the leaflet I received on "paws off our green belt"

I can confirm that I totally oppose the building of any houses, it is not right to have so many houses built on green belt so I am opposed to all allocation 11,12 4 and especially 3

Did you know at 3 the green there are a large number of SMBC employees which occupy the ground floor of one of the office spaces I wonder if they are aware of this project as it will have an effect on them getting into work? In an already heavily congested area

see attachments

see letter

Firstly, I have tried to voice my objections via the online portal but I have found this to be very difficult, hence this email I will detail my objections. Additionally, my house backs on to the site known as Site 13 (back of Langcomb Road and the Baxters estate). I understand that I have the right to formally respond, but the documents sent to me prior to Christmas was so poorly written that it has been thrown away as it was seen as having no importance. I am therefore also formally responding to the letter sent to me asking for my response.

PLEASE NOTE, THESE VIEWS ARE WRITTEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH MARK BRUCKSHAW, ALSO RESIDENT OF 70 LANGCOMB ROAD.

Section 5 Question 3

I do not understand why 41% of the new build has been proposed for such a small area in South Shirley and so far away from HS2. Surely, 'spreading the load' and locating more in reach of HS2 would be sensible. I am hopeful that HS2 will bring opportunities to Solihull, but by building the homes at the furthest corner of the borough away from HS2, will reduce the opportunities it can bring. Additionally, I believe it will damage the opportunities it can bring:

1. Residents of South Shirley will not catch the train into Birmingham and then out again to link up with HS2, and so will drive. Regardless of what road improvements are made, by making residents travel across the borough to get to HS2 from South Shirley, will increase congestion to all areas in between. Also this will affect the environment at a time where we should be aiming to reduce the use of the car.

2. Businesses will suffer and move out of the area if they can not drive around the borough

3. The well being of all Solihull residents between South Shirley and HS2, will be negatively affected.

4. Policy P8 seeks to reduce congestion but the proposals will quite clearly increase congestion.

5. Policy P9 seeks to mitigate climate change, but the proposals of increasing car use will quite clearly contribute to climate change.

I strongly believe that the interests of all residents of Solihull should be considered. By 'spreading the load' around all of Solihull, the impact will be minimised.

Alternatives should be considered, brownfield sites can be utilised with creative thinking, such as the car park at Monkspath Hall Road, a multi storey car park could be built on part of the land therefore maintaining or increasing the existing number of spaces, and the rest of the land could be used for housing. The principle of 'top hats' could be used for existing block of flats and other buildings (additional floors are added to existing buildings). Commercial buildings can be converted to residential. Smaller pockets of green belt, spread around the borough could be used, therefore reducing the impact on infrastructure and therefore reducing costs to the local authority.

Section 7 Question 15

I object to the locations of the new housing in South Shirley, in particular site 13 (behind Langcomb Road and the Baxters Estate) and site 4 (Tithe Barn Lane, Dickens Heath). I do not have as strong objections to Site 12 (Light Hall Farm), although a beautiful area and a terrible loss if built on, it is better placed than Site 4 & 13 if Shirley is to have it's fair share of housing. Site 11 (TRW) I have no objections with.

Below is the justifications for my objects. I will state that my objects are based on my 25 years professional experience of managing residential estates and working with developers. I am a surveyor and a member of the Royal Institutions of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). I am also a volunteer and campaigner for homeless people and those without secure accommodation. I regularly go into Birmingham to feed and cloth people sleeping on the streets. I say this to stress that I am not a 'not in my back yard' person. My husband, Mark Bruckshaw, has over 30 years experience of managing estates and also volunteers, so between us, we have a vast amount of real and practical knowledge of the impact of housing developments.

1. Flooding.
Our back garden regularly floods from half way to the back of the garden. At some places it can be 5 inches deep. Bills Lane regularly floods and at times, the flood water gathers under the railway bridge. On Haslucks Green Road, at the junction with Bills Lane, the roadway regularly floods and is at times in-passable. Given that the water table is rising, the problem will increase.

Point 313 of the draft plan states 'New development sites must be resistant and resilient to flooding, to accord with the NPPF.' The trees in the Christmas tree farm at the back of Langcomb Road, currently assist to reduce the level of flooding. I am aware of the flood measures that can be taken for new developments, but the increased risk of flooding by removing the trees and the impact on the surrounding land would also need to be considered. This work would be very expensive and developers would 'overlook' the impact on the surrounding areas.

2. Roads/Congestion.

I believe that the road system in Shirley (and the wider impact on Solihull) would not cope with the amount of homes proposed in such a small area. Although road improvements can be made, there is a physical limit to the improvements. I have detailed above the negative impact of congestion.

As a society would should be looking to reduce travel by car. Building on green belt increased the need for the use of a car. Site 4 and 13, have no real bus services and Whitlocks End and Shirley train stations are overcrowded. It is impossible to park as either station past 9 am. The proposed increase number of residents, will not be able to use the trains. Both points add to the need to use a car.

With regards site 4 & 13, the proposed Affordable housing - should include those on lower incomes or disabilities, some of which would not be able to afford a car. How is it proposed for these disadvantaged people to access society if they can not travel?

With the additional planned build on the old CEGB site, the land by San Souci, the building planned by Bromsgrove Council near to site 4 & site 13 and the various other pockets of developments in Shirley which will already have an impact on the roads, for even more developments in a such a small area, the impact on the roads will be immense.

3. Increased Anti Social Behaviour(ASB) and Crime

Statistics show and in my experience, the building of new highly populated homes in small areas such as proposed for South Shirley increases ASB and crime. This increases the cost on the police service and support services. Residents health and well being is affected. We have a duty as a society to reduce risks not increase them. I would urge Solihull Council to learn from mistakes made by others and not make the same mistakes.

There is a public bridle way at the back of my house, if the development goes ahead, this should be removed. Various local authorities, including Birmingham and Redditch are spending £millions on removing alleyway. If the bridle way remains and a new development is built, it will be rife with ASB and crime. I can say this with authority from managing housing estates.

4. Loss of Green Belt and nature

From experience of living by site 13, it is rich with nature including, bats, woodpeckers, owls, field mice and many more. I am aware of the measures developers can take to reduce the impact such as building bat boxes, but in real terms, the bats do not stay long in the bat boxes they find alternative places to live. I strongly feel that the human race should protect wildlife and not be happy destroying their habitat, particularly when there are alternative areas for building.

5. Health and well being.

Many people use site 13 and site 4. I regularly walk with my children in site 13. We are all being encouraged to consider our health and well being to enrich our lives and also to reduce the financial strains on the NHS and other support services. To build on the sites, will have a negative impact and is clearly against the objectives in policy 14, policy 17 & policy 18.

6. Create more problems than it solves.

The problem of a 2 million housing shortage is a real problem and one that has been highlighted to government over many years. I am very glad to see that finally, some steps are being taken to address the problem. I would urge Solihull Council not to solve one problem by creating many more problems as I have highlighted above.

I do hope my views as a resident and as a professional are taken into consideration. Given my professional experience, I would be happy to volunteer my time to work with yourselves to help to problem solve, should you wish.

Allocation 13

On behalf of my family who have lived in the borough for many years I would like to raise an objection to allocation 13 , my reasons are outlined below,

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.
There is little green space for Shirley residents and this area is very important to the health and well being of the local community.

Objection to Allocation 13 Proposal

I would like to object to the proposed Allocation 13 development.

There are a number of critical reasons for this:

1) Road safety issues near schools in the area since the proposed development runs adjacent to a single carriageway.

2) Serious congestion concerns caused by increased usage of the surrounding roads and insufficient infrastructure to deal with the increased volume.

3) Reduction of amenity to existing residents for medical and educational services (doctors, schools etc)

4) The surrounding ancient woodland has many different species with great ecological value (e.g woodpeckers, toads, news). To destroy this would be a crushing blow to the biodiversity of the area.

Furthermore there is sufficient brownfield land nearer to the M42 where this could be built without impinging on the existing development in this area of Shirley and would like to understand if a lower impact alternative can be considered.

Allocation 13
Iam emailing you to express my grave concerns regarding the Council's proposals to build yet more houses on the area now called Allocation 13.

The area is most definitely a haven for so much wildlife, flora and fauna, otherwise the area would never have been given protection as a green belt. I can remember being taught about these green belt areas when I was at school, learning the true value of them and the necessity of them to protect our environment. The one real thing that stuck from these lessons was that these areas could not be built on. What will we teach our children now? They cant be built on...oh, unless the government say so!!

Another issue that is extremely concerning is the safety of my children. My daughter has recently started year 7 at Lighthall School. During the summer months we had to teach her the route for her to walk to school. Sadly, we weren't able to show her just one route, but had to show her several, in order for her to make the safest choice when crossing the road. The sheer volume of traffic is already horrendous and adding more houses and therefore most likely more drivers will only compound this situation. To cross the road to enable to her to get to Hathaway Road is an absolute nightmare and each morning I am relieved to hear she has made it to school safely.

Please, please consider the severe negative impact this is having on our children.

Objection to allocation 13

I would like to voice my objections to the proposals for 600 houses being built on Allocation 13.
I live in Binley Close and work at Light Hall School.
The impact the proposal would have on the local infrastructure would be too much.
The traffic in the area has steadily increased over the years and is already at gridlock during peak times and no improvements have been mentioned about making our roads safer.
The amount of houses being built around Dickens Heath is putting a massive strain on local services, doctors, schools and once again transport.

There must be better alternatives than taking up this green belt land in an already increasingly developed area.

I would be grateful if this e-mail could be logged as an official objection to the plans.

Shirley South site 13

I am a resident of Shirley heath whom lives in a residential area which directly adjoins the local amenity green space which is one of many local sites which are proposed for future development as part of the local housing plan review.
The South Shirley site (Site 13) which has proposals for circa 600 homes on greenbelt would be taking away vitally important greenspace to the local community which as resident we and many regularly enjoy and use.
On Shirley South site 13 the fenced off public amenity fields and corridor to the bridleway and Bills lane have been an established recreation facility for the health and well being of the local community for many years and MUST be safeguarded as such within any development scheme for this site.
The loss of ancient trees/hedgerows, loss of wildlife habitats would be huge, not to mention the vital loss of the open areas for general peace and well being in todays busy society of non stop life! Society already suffers from increasing rates of depression and such green areas provide an important escape.
The over concentration on Shirley South in general of proposed sites which could increase housing by a huge 2550 provides great concern given the increase in population, to the already congested surrounding highways, services and infrastructure that the community already suffers from. The congestion around Stretton Rd, Tamworth Lane, Dickens Heath Rd and Dog Kennel lane is already horrendous to deal with at peak times.
We request more of the greenbelt is retained to reduce the coalescence between Shirley and the built settlement of Dickens heath.
I am not blinded by the fact that the local area requires more housing and a suitable strategy however i strongly object to site 13 being adopted out of the greenbelt.

I do hope full detailed consideration is given as to which sites are more more appropriate in the first instance in the surrounding area, without just choosing the easy options without consideration to the local community.

Objection to Allocation 13

I wish to formally object to the proposal to build on land adjacent to the Woodlands Estate Allocation 13. It would have a negative impact on our community to lose this green space used regularly by locals of all ages. I appreciate the housing shortage but to simply extend an existing built up area is thoughtless in terms of community health and well being.

I see the proposals in Shirley extend to 41% of the overall plan involving 4 significant areas within the vicinity which is grossly unfair.

The infrastructure to support such proposals will have an added negative effect in terms of traffic, schools and doctors.

The burden of the central government targets needs to be fairly shared across the Solihull Borough including the more affluent areas - suspicions of NIMBY surrounding these proposals appear profound.

see attached letter

Building on the green belt in Shirley

I object to the proposal by Solihull council to build on the green belt land at Shirley south referred to as allocation 13 for the construction of 600 houses.

I live in BInley close and along with many other Solihull residents use this area for walking and keeping healthy enjoy the tranquility and the wild life . It is unfair to propose building 41 per cent of the housing you need to complete in our neighbour hood. There are brown sites available in DORRIDGE which should be utilised primarily. The government have said that a white paper will be available and that green belt land should only be used as a last resort. So you should halt any decisions until this white paper is available. We have no access to large parks in Shirley and this decision will impact on schools doctors surgeries and traffic pollution. We demand you re think this unpopular war on our green belt

Objections and Comments on Allocation 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

Received 17th feb


With reference to email above in addendum to my previous communication, I have been in contact with many local residents in our group of 730 people, and many would be keen to see allocation 13 set aside as a country park with a green corridor linking dickens heath and majors green. This could be managed by the local community and could be of benefit to the local community.

Save allocation 13

My main concern is wild life in this area apart from the hundreds of Christmas trees!
I see numerous species of birds, spotting the odd bat in early evening, have even seen a hedgehog, again evening in late summer.

Please save allocation 13.

Allocation 13

I would like to lodge an objection to the proposed building of houses off Bills Lane in Shirley, Solihull. I feel that this is not appropriate for the area it will cause far too much congestion in traffic where there is already a huge problem with traffic in that area. This is a very busy area already and with several schools in the area it could result in a dangerous walk home for many children.

I want to make my concerns and objections to allocation 4, 11, 12and 13 for housing development to be known.

As part of the community I feel any development will achieve nothing positive to our community. The attraction to living in this area is the fact that we can travel in one direction and get into town but go the other and find yourself in the middle of the countryside. What little could remains is precious and is an integral part to living in this community. If hosting development goes ahead onto these sites we will inevitably lose that reality we are so lucky to have currently.

Crime rate has massively increased in the dickens heath area coinciding with the new development that has recently being finished. Coincidental maybe or the social housing that has to be included with any new development may have a role to play?

This should absolutely no way go ahead. Hs2 is already destroying other parts of our local countryside why add is ultimately of injury with adding more destruction to our local awarebspputly and??

As a council you would object to any extensions or new development to current housing especially if breaching onto green belt which may I add I support. So why on earth is this anything different?instead of one house the treat is and Total exceeding 2000 houses???

I am writing to register my objection to the development of Shirley South. Particularly Allocation number 13 which is designated green belt land.
Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of the new housing in the borough. This is disproportionate and unfair. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements".
I believe that there are numerous options yet to be explored and have yet to see the exhausted list of alternatives that have been investigated.
The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In this case HS2, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to the proposed developments.
The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter is like a racetrack. As are some of the local rat runs such as Stretton Road which constranly has drivers coming along the road at ridiculous speeds, in an area with two schools and a large elderly community.
The addition of thousands on new homes will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.
In terms of other public transport, the local rail stations are not fit for purpose, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations.
In addition to the problem of infrastructure, the area is not set up to facilitate a large number of potential new families. It is already veirtually impossible to get your child into the secondary school of your choice. What will happen to the catchment area of schools in the borough. In my particular area, residents have been bounced back from Alderbrook and Tudor Grange over the years by the Monkspath and Hillfield developments and latterly Dickens Heath. If this development were to go ahead, there would need to be provision for either school extensions or new schools. This again would require more space to be taken up.
Solihull hospital has been downgraded over the years and no longer has a paediatric department, the closest hospital being Heartlands. The trip to Heartlands is an absolute nightmare in traffic and can take over an hour.
In terms of Allocation 13. This is an area that has over the years has become a is a very popular recreation and amenity area, popular with families, dog walkers, ramblers etc.
The area has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land and even evergreen forest. There is a network of drainage ditches and well-established farm ponds and also a sink area which is effectively bog land. The area is very wet and for the most part of the winter is very boggy and forms a flood plain due to the very high water table and the constituent soil composition.
This results in heavy flooding across most of this low lying area. Many of the houses that back onto the fields in Langcomb Road experience flooding in their back gardens on a regular basis. A phenomenon that has reduced to an extent following the intensive planting of Christmas trees in the field adjacent to the gardens.
The network of ditches and ponds provides a varied eco system and I have seen frogs, toads and newts, along with Muntjac Deer, Cuckoo, Woodpecker and birds of prey. In addition in the meadowland and the marshy areas there are numerous wild flowers, I am not qualified to identify them but I feel you should carry out an in-depth wildlife and ecosystem survey at the correct time of year before a decision is made
In addition part of the area was granted to the stewardship of the Laker Centre on the completion of the Woodlands Estate. I am led to believe that the Layca Committee purchased the fencing around this area and also contribute to its upkeep. I would argue that the whole of area 13, by custom and practice over the last 40 years is by default a very important amenity area. On only has to look at the well-worn footpaths. This is indeed the lung of Shirley, the place to which people from many surrounding areas come to breath. Also, I am led to believe that any developments that affect a local communities quality of life should be offset. I feel that Allocation 13 should become a recognised conservation and public amenity area serving Shirley South. Shirley Park is woefully small and dog owners now are restricted to a tiny fenced in dog area.
I am also concerned about the nature of housing in this area. It is a well-known fact that houses in the South of the Borough command extremely high prices. I do not believe that the houses build will be affordable by the young people. They will be 3, 4, 5 bed houses with a small contingent of affordable houses that will probably be bought up by wealth buy to let landlords and exacerbate the issues with high rents etc.
The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses.
Slightly further south of allocation 13 the loss of a number of sports fields will deprive the local community of the opportunity of recreational activities and again reduce open space, this gives further argument to Allocation 13 being designated a conservation and amenity area.
In addition, the government states that the housing contracts should go to smaller companies using innovative methods, and promote self build and housing associations. Is this in the plan.
Alternatives to developing green belt sites are numerous and I am not convinced that all possibilities have been exhausted, both in smarter use of land and also locations
Thinking outside the box, flat areas of car park such as NEC and airport could be converted to multistory and the land save could be developed right on the door step of HS2 and also to compliment the recent resort World Complex.
This would alleviate pressure on south to north traffic flow. In addition, this would be the use of brownfield sites.
In addition to this, the proposed JLR site on Damson Lane, is purely a financial gain for the company to reduce freight costs. Why not build houses in that area instead. That would mean that the houses were in the right area. That is north of the town centre on the main arterial route of the A45, which has been developed to handle a large amount of traffic. The cost of JLR distribution is not the taxpayers concern. Or alternatively, why not build on the Land Rover Sports field as a trade off with the company, very few employees actually use the sports field.
There is also the possibility of buying larger houses in Solihull which have huge gardens and developing small estates with mews or flats as opposed to the exclusive developments that are cropping up along Blossomfield Road
Along with these ideas I have come up with a number of alternative areas which are more suitably located and are smaller pocket developments as per the governments' requirements. They are for the most part also in more affordable areas of the borough, see below
Land Pockets between
A452 / A45 / M42
A452 / Coleshill Heath Road / M42
Bickenhill Lane / B4438 / Westerly direction
B4438 / M42 / A45
Hampton Lane / A41 / M42
Finally, I am led to believe that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses from the Birmingham Allocation. This is regardless of the fact that there are many brownfield sites and public open spaces that should be used before greenbelt as per the previously mentioned government document. I would urge you to push back to Birmingham City Council on this matter.
As an example I walked along Fazeley Street last week, I saw a number of brownfield sites being used as cheap car parking and also overgrown areas with rubble etc and a large grassy area devoid of natural life Public space). Can you please ensure that Birmingham City Council fully research and address all of their brownfield sites before Solihull rolls over and gives away our green belt.
Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

Please accept this communication as my objection to the planning allocations 4, 11, 12 & 13. as referred to in the housing allocation scheme. My objections are as follows:

a. the proposed allocations are grossly over allocated as it represents a around 40%+ of the whole scheme in one small area of the Borough.

b. The four sites represent over 2500 houses in a small part of the Borough, proposed on mainly on precious green space.

c. There is insufficient infrastructure to cope with this extra demand to the local area. 2500 houses will result on average in an increase of approximately 5000 additional vehicles and 7,500+ people needing to use existing community services such as Doctor's, schools and roads not designed to cope with the extra traffic.

Travelling around the Borough at peak times, such as school drop off / pick up times and weekends already result in major delays with the excessive traffic that already comes from Dickens Heath. This will be exasperated beyond breaking point if this scale of house building goes ahead. Equally, it will add further pollution to the environment and affect the health and well being of those that have to walk amidst the traffic especially around the A34, Tanworth Lane areas.

This scheme adds little value to the HS2 access plans and will make the M42 unbearable and more akin to scenes from London's M25.

I profusely object to these plans and ask that they be considerably scaled back to a sensible build programme.

Allocation 13

I object to the proposal to extend the Badgers estate into the green belt - which the latest white paper indicates a presumption against encroaching. At times it can take a whole minute before I can cross Bills Lane due to the volume of traffic - another 600 houses will make this even more difficult

South Shirley Housing development

It is rare for me to make a compliant but I have to express my extreme concern about the scale of the proposed Housing developments in the South Shirley area (your ref: Allocations 11,12,13 and 4).

We already have a massive problem with traffic congestion in the Marshall Lake, Stratford Road, Blackford Road, Tanworth Lane area. Indeed at peak traffic times, the congestion is an effective deterrent to leaving home at all. If you add a further concern about the capacity of the local NHS system and the underfunding of schools in the area, then the proposal to build over two and a half thousand new homes, which will probably bring another five thousand cars to our roads, seems to be totally absurd.

Whilst I appreciate the national requirement for new homes, surely it is wrong to blindly pursue the delivery of numbers and ignore the quality of life of existing and new residents.

I do hope that a more moderate approach can be found which will avoid turning Shirley into a new town on the edge of Solihull.

Allocation 13

I do not agree with the proposed plans to build on the site name Allocation 13. This is due to traffic concerns in Shirley, particularly the Stratford Road, and concerns about access to local facilities such as doctors surgery and schools.

I also think that any housing plans proposed should be for Brownfield sites not Green Belt.

Paws Off Our Green Belt

I recently received your flyer in regard to the housing plans for Shirley. Below is a draft of correspondence I was about to send to Solihull Council expressing my concerns. However, I think on reflection, it would be more appropriate to forward this to yourselves. I sincerely hope you can make voices heard at the appropriate level.

I would like to raise the issue of the proposed additional 1900 homes to be built on the greenfield sites at the Badgers Estate and by Whitlocks End Station (Allocation 13 and 4 respectively). I understand the commitment Solihull Council has to provide additional housing and in principle I have no firm objections.

However, I do not believe the current road system is ready for this. What sort of properties are going to be built at the Badgers location? I suspect they will not be 1 bedroom flats. More likely we will see developers building 3, 4 and 5 bedroom properties. This will inevitably attract families and affluent individuals/couples who are likely to have 2 cars.

How is the current road system going to cope?

Tanworth Lane is already difficult due to the Dickens Heath development and another 600 homes in this location is going to make Stretton Road and the roads that feed to it, as I see it, busier still. I am sure Solihull Council has not been as short sighted to not have not considered this.

The development at Whitlocks End Station is only going to exacerbate the situation. The likely roads the residents will use are Haslucks Green Road and subsequently Bills Lane and Shakespeare Drive. If you are not familiar with these routes then I will assure you that they not fit for purpose with the current traffic volume, let alone with additional cars needing to use them.

However, let's assume all the new residents work in Birmingham and will walk to the stations at Shirley and Whitlocks End. The current train network is really not geared up for this additional footfall. If you haven't travelled to Birmingham at peak time via train recently, I suggest you do just that.

The transport links are not my only concern. What about the schools? Woodlands is already fully subscribed and as a longstanding resident of the area I sincerely hope my daughter will secure place in September 2019. Can Burman Road, Tidbury Green and Dickens Heath cope?

As stated previously, I understand and appreciate the need to build additional houses. However, does Shirley have to accommodate everything? Are there no other acceptable development sites?

Housing development issue

I am a Shirley resident and I am not happy with the housing plans in Shirley, especially around the green belt areas. I feel the green areas should be preserved. Further,ore this housing expansion will have a detrimental impact on schooling and gp surgeries, where problems with waiting lists exist.

see attached letter

Allocation 13

I wish through this e-mail to lodge my objections to the proposal to build some 2550 new houses in the Shirley area and particularly the 600 proposed for Allocation 13. As I understand it this would be 41% of Solihull's housing requirements and seems grossly unfair.
It has been suggested that these houses would enable people to live in Solihull and use HS2 to commute to London. If this is the plan then it is very short sighted as to reach the HS2 station near the NEC / Airport would require a 12 mile car journey along the already busy M42. Furthermore, the Stratford Road through Shirley is already gridlocked every day and is not likely to get any better.
As for the local roads, Tilehouse Lane, Haslucks Green Road, Bills Lane and Tanworth Lane are all used on a daily basis as a shortcut for traffic from M42 J3 (from the Redditch / Bromsgrove direction via Wythall) to get to Shirley, Hall Green and Solihull Centre so any large scale building of the type proposed would put massive pressure on these roads.
If 2550 houses were built this would probably equate to somewhere around 10,000 additional people in the Shirley area. Where will the school places, doctors surgeries, hospitals etc come from ?
At a recent drop in meeting at Lighthall school I asked this question to several councillors and the stock answer was "it's too early to say". Surely such infrastructure planning should be in place before plans for housing are put forward.
Allocation 13 has always been an area for recreation i.e. walking, horse riding, cycling etc and is also a valuable area of green space keeping a clearly defined border between Shirley, Wythall and Birmingham and in my view should remain in tact.
After all Solihull's motto "Urbs in Rure means town in the countryside. Hopefully it will stay that way.

Allocation 13

600 houses =600 cars, plus school places. I do not think the infrastructure is geared up for this.
Yours faithfully

Site 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allocation 13

I am writing to you to object to the draft local plan to develop allocation 13- the area of green belt running alongside the Woodlands and Badgers estates in Shirley. I am a lifelong resident of the Shirley area and currently own a home on Langcomb Road.

My objections are as follows:

* Road Network: The roads around this area of Shirley are already very heavily congested at peak times and the development would only add to this, I do not think the area is equipped to take the extra strain. The roads I refer to are: Bills Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Road, Dog Kennel Lane.
* Local Facilities: Local schools and doctors are currently fully subscribed and I don't see any plans to expand on these services to cope with extra demand from new residents.
* Recreational Area: The green belt area is a key part of the local community and offers an area for kids to play, dog walkers and people generally enjoying the local countryside, it also acts a buffer between Shirley and the ever expanding Dickens Heath development and offers crucial social and more importantly health benefits to local residents.
* Visual Impact: The planned development will vastly alter the look and feel of the local area, and directly impact on current residents as the local landscape changes.
* There should also be considerations for the impact on local wildlife and the way that this development will change the character of the area.

To conclude, I believe there are far more suitable sites to develop on, with better infrastructure and ability to cope and I think that this proposed development would be very damaging for the local area.

Housing site 13 south of Shirley

It is with great distress that I am writing to you about your plans to build 600 new homes. I have been a resident of Shotteswell road for 39 years and I feel that it would be a great loss to our community if you were to destroy our public amenity area. It is used daily by dog walkers and children alike, to enjoy a piece of nature so close to an already built up area. I have a number of concerns about this proposal, the land has bought me great joy with the wildlife it attracts and I wonder what your plans are to preserve them ? It also concerns me what impact it will have on the flow of traffic. Where the local children would ride their bikes and play outside if we start having 600 new cars driving through our estate. I am concerned about the impact it will have on our local doctors surgery and schools. I hope that you will understand a little from my letter the reasons I am against your proposal . I understand the need for new homes but feel the loss of our loved land would be detrimental to our community here on the woodlands estate.

Objection to allocation 13-Shirley

I am 28 years of age and have lived at Langcomb Road in Shirley all my life. My family and I have always loved the outdoors and believe that a daily dog walk around our open fields (near the Christmas tree farm), has been key to a happy and healthy life. The therapeutic value of a daily walk outside in the fresh air and wildlife has been my savoir, and the thought of not being able to continue doing this outside my front door due to the new building plans, fills me with great sadness. My boyfriend has recently bought a house which looks out onto these fields in Baxters Green, and soon I hope to move in with him and wish to continue my daily walks around the fields to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Building on our beautiful green spaces will not only have a personal negative impact for myself and my family, but too for the whole of the Shirley community. It will create further congestion on the roads, will have an effect on the local amenities such as schools and doctors surgeries, wont help with preserving the rare wildlife living on the land such as newts, bats and woodpeckers, and most importantly, will massively impact the health and well being of the Shirley community.

We have had free public access to these fields for 35 years, and now that the green land in Shirley park has been reduced, we haven't got a lot of open land left!