13 Shirley - South of Shirley

Reasons not to build on allocation 13 Shirley South
There is less than one kilometre of open green fields between Shirley and Dickens Heath at this moment, building on this land will leave a very narrow corridor/AIRFIELD of green belt land, with no public footpaths.
There is a clear boundary on the northern edge, a very well used public footpath, resurfaced by Solihull council after a local petition, and public amenity land.
As the only green space with public access in the south of Shirley, This land is very widely used by the local residents and is extremely important for the health and welfare of the local residents of all ages. I walk over these fields every morning on well-worn footpaths, along with many other local residents making it a very enjoyable social activity.
Concentrating 41% of housing in one area will greatly affect the local infrastructure, already overcapacity since the building of Dickens Heath. I understand the need new housing but, the allocation of sites needs to be much more evenly spread and be built in small pockets throughout the borough so as to not adversely impact on any one community. Why do Solihull Council want to build such a large concentration of houses in such a small area? It in no way benefits the local residents. I can only think of one beneficiary THE BUILDERS, please let me know if I am wrong. I though the Council were elected by the local residents for the local residents.
I do question decisions made by the council, why an island was removed from Blossomfield Road and replaced traffic lights is beyond belief, it will have cost a fortune, created chaos while the work was done, with no benefit.
I fully back the plan for a new dementia home on Tanworth Lane, just surprised it is not included in the Draft Local Plan.
There so little information given about possible access points to "Allocation 13" for this almost land locked site, could the council please let me know? If the information was available, I would be able to comment.
Future flood risk is of great concern as some of these fields are very water logged including 2 pools and a stream that feeds into the river Blyth. How will this affect ground water levels to existing homes in the area, I live off Neville Road that in recent years, has had installed a massive pumping station for storm water.
The wildlife on this site is extensive and diverse, taking so much habitat away in one go will decimate the eco system. Just to name a few, Woodpeckers, Bats Newts, Owls, Kingfishers and soon the Cuckoo will return.
I would like the council to demonstrate they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements before releasing Green Belt land using the ambiguous "exceptional circumstances" How many brownfield sites does Solihull council own? Powergen in Shirley has been empty for over 20 years.
Why are we taking on some of Birmingham's housing allocation, when they have extensive brownfield sites, all over the city? I am assuming this comes back to THE BUILDERS preferring greenfield sites. Why are the Builders put before the residents.
Alternatives
Move Lighthall school on to allocation 12, giving much better access. Leaving a brownfield site perfect for building houses.
The Draft Plan mentions getting ready for HS2. From the land availably map plots 23,128 and 195 are a much more logical choice as they are on the right side of Solihull to benefit from HS2.
The NEC has miles of car parks, if they were made into multi-storey car parks, this would free large amounts of brownfield sites for redevelopment, close to where we believe HS2 will have a station.

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

I strongly object to your plans on the grounds of loss of GREENBELT land, loss of amenity land for local people and loss of rich local wildlife.

I find it completely disproportionate that circa 41% of Solihull's additional housing needs should be concentrated in the Shirley South area. We know that more houses are needed but they need to be far more evenly allocated. I suggest that Solihull Council examines this aspect closely and re-visits the potential of other areas in the Borough that can absorb this volume of homes.

We have already been subjected to additional developments, including Cheswick Place off Tanworth Lane and further developments extending Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green, yet nothing has been done by the Council to improve local facilities and infrastructure to accommodate a vast increase of people moving into the area.

I commute via Dickens Heath to the M42 along Tanworth Lane and Dog Kennel Lane each morning and the traffic is already congested each morning without the addition of yet more new homes. These roads will need some serious improvements in order to cope with yet more traffic coming through the area, especially at rush hour. The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion, which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane, Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter Restaurant is a constant queue of traffic each morning.

The impact of yet more homes in this area will have a huge detrimental effect on the road network, let alone local services such as schools and doctors' surgeries. The school's in this area are already at full capacity, so I would be interested to know your plans for relieving pressure on these schools. Will you be building new schools? Will you be extending the existing schools?

The local rail stations are also not fit for purpose for this amount of extra homes, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is already inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations.

Most importantly, this is also designated GREENBELT land. Greenbelt means an area of open land around a city, on which building is restricted yet you choose to ignore this!

The close proximity of this GREENBELT land to homes in the area, I know is a strong reason why homeowners chose to purchase their properties here - to enjoy the beautiful countryside on our doorstep. Why should you be allowed to take this away and concrete over beautiful rich, green land? I'm sure there are plenty of brownfield sites in the borough that are in desperate need of regeneration and could be redeveloped on instead to preserve this beautiful piece of GREENBELT land. Building on this GREENBELT land will mean it's beauty will be lost forever for the local community if your plans go ahead.

This GREENBELT land separates an already high density housing area. I, along with my friends and family, use this area extensively for much valued healthy walking exercise and enjoying the huge variety of wildlife, including owls, foxes, bats, birds of many species and more. The area is also used extensively by dog walkers and ramblers and I worry that you are not considering the impact the loss of this will have on the local community. Development of this GREENBELT land will ensure that all recreational land between Shirley and the M42 will be practically lost making the area a mass urban sprawl instead. Do you not value your local countryside?

Your plans also state that this new housing allocation should be developed to complement current and new infrastructure - in this case HS2. Well in fact HS2 will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to the proposed developments in Shirley. In fact we are surely positioned in one of the worst areas in the borough for actually getting to the new proposed station.

I strongly hope that you are taking the views of the local people into consideration before going ahead with this ill-advised plan for Allocation 13. One area of such a large borough should not be expected to absorb almost half of the housing needs for the borough, and especially not at the expense of GREENBELT land.

see attached letter

see attached letter

Proposed building site dickens heath/majors green

We are shocked,and very worried about the sheer scale of the proposed building of over 2,500 houses between Dickens Heath,and Majors Green,if this is allowed to go ahead the semi rural aspect of the area will be turned into a town,with all the increase in traffic,pollution,and noise,can you tell me how much green belt land will be lost?,and can I ask the councillors of dickens heath,majors green,wythall,and Bromsgrove,as well as Solihull, to try aggressively to reduce the amount of houses and the impact this will have on the area,many thanks

Solihull Local Plan Review
We wish to object in the strongest terms to the parts of the Solihull Local Plan which will result in the loss of green spaces in Shirley South.

We particularly object to the proposal Allocation 13 - this beautiful and popular recreation area is an asset to the area and is important for the health, fitness and wellbeing of the local community. Further, developing on Allocation 13 would have a negative impact on the enjoyment of our home - which we chose because of it's proximity to open spaces. We would hope that future generations of local residence would be able to enjoy Allocation 13 as a recreational space too.
The building of homes on Green Belt land is out of line with the 2015 Conservative Manifesto (April 2015; www.conservatives.com/manifesto) which places great importance on the Green Belt and talks about maintaining existing levels of protection.

We consider it to be unfair to residents of Shirley South, that such a large part of the Local plan's proposed houses are in 4 sites that neighbour our community (approx 41%).

We are also very concerned that these developments will create traffic problems on Blackford Road - as we have seen the effect that recent developments (Dickens Manor and Cheswick Place) have had on traffic on our road already.

With regard to Allocation 11, we understand the need to develop on this allocation - but we wish to object to the high intensity of the proposal. We are very concerned about the building of 4 story buildings along the rear of houses on Blackford Road and believe their proximity and height will result in a loss of our privacy. Additionally, residential buildings of this scale and height are out of keeping with other houses in the area and we believe that their design and appearance should be sympathetic to the surrounding community.

Objection to the Proposed Housing Development at Allocation 13, Shirley

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

I strongly object to your plans on the grounds of loss of Greenbelt land, loss of amenity land for local people, loss of rich local wildlife, and minimal evidence of consideration for expanding local infrastructure to cope with the additional population.

Why does Solihull Council think it is acceptable to concentrate circa 41% of their new housing requirements in the Shirley South area? Have any brownfield sites even been considered?

We have already been subjected to recent new developments, including Cheswick Place off Tanworth Lane and further developments extending Dickens Heath and Tidbury Green (Dickens Manor and The Paddocks), yet nothing has been done by the Council to improve local facilities and infrastructure to accommodate a vast increase of people moving into the area. Local roads around the new Dickens Heath developments cannot cope - Aqueduct Road is appallingly surfaced and too narrow, as is Peterbrook Road, also Birchy Leasowes Lane (which is downright dangerous due to lack of lighting and potholes that continue to not get repaired) and Dickens Heath Road. All of these roads have now become major commuting routes, but haven't been updated since being built as small green lanes to handle the odd horse & cart.

I commute via Dickens Heath to Cranmore Industrial Estate along Tanworth Lane each morning, and the traffic is already at a standstill each and every morning, without the addition of yet more new homes. It now takes me almost 25 minutes to travel the 'short' 3 mile commute by car, which is simply preposterous. These roads will need some serious improvements in order to cope with yet more traffic coming through the area, especially at rush hour. 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 Tanworth Lane onto Dog Kennel Lane onto the Stratford Road towards the M42 (which you should have noticed by now and at least attempted to improve!), Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane at the Dog Kennel Lane island, Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. Has Solihull Council even considered the unsustainable current levels of traffic, let alone in the future?

In addition, Allocation 12 next door also seems to direct all of its traffic onto the Dog Kennel Lane/Tanworth Lane pair of islands, and also onto the already saturated traffic of the Costa/Corus Hotel island... is it starting to become clear what a bad idea this Allocation 13 is?

At a recent drop-in meeting at Light Hall School, I overheard a gentleman asking the councillors about the issues of school places, GP surgeries, hospital and A&E admissions, and how these would be accommodated if the new housing developments including Allocation 13 were to go ahead. The answer given to the gentleman was, "It's too early to say." This is totally unacceptable. The vast majority of existing schools in the borough are currently oversubscribed as it is. Will you be building new schools? Will you be extending the existing schools? There isn't much evidence of any proposed improvements. What about the GP surgeries as well? It is already difficult to get an appointment without having to wait 4 days beforehand. In addition, we have all seen the recent news headlines about a crisis in the A&E departments across the region. How are Solihull Council proposing to accommodate the owners of an extra 2,500 homes, circa 10 THOUSAND people?

In terms of rail travel, I used to commute into Birmingham a couple of years ago via Shirley Station. There was never anywhere to park there. In addition, when boarding the train, it was next to impossible to get a seat, instead having to tolerate standing in the aisles for up to 25 minutes each morning and 25 minutes each evening. If any of the residents of the proposed new homes consider commuting to work via train, they will have an extremely disappointing experience.

Most importantly of all, however, Allocation 13 (amongst the other sites) is also designated GREENBELT land. Greenbelt means an area of open land around a city, on which building is restricted, yet you choose to ignore this!

The close proximity of this Greenbelt land to homes in the area, is a strong reason why homeowners choose to purchase their properties here - to enjoy the beautiful countryside and fresh air on our doorstep. Why should you be allowed to take this away, and concrete over beautiful rich, green land? Has Solihull Council done its utmost to select existing brownfield sites, for which the infrastructure is already in place?

This Greenbelt land separates an already high density housing area. I, along with my friends and family, use this area extensively for essential healthy walking exercise and enjoying the huge variety of wildlife, such as owls, foxes, bats, birds and more. The area is also used extensively by dog walkers and ramblers and I worry that you are not considering the impact that the loss of this will have on the local community. Development of this Greenbelt land will ensure that all recreational land between Shirley and the M42 will be practically lost, making the area a mass urban sprawl instead. Do you not value your local countryside?

What Solihull Council should be doing is not allowing the developers and house builders to conduct their own Environmental assessments, which I know goes on, as I work in the construction industry. These should be conducted by an independent third party, as it seems all too easy to bypass the 'exceptional circumstances' rule that currently prevents you from destroying the Greenbelt. Can Solihull Council explain and justify these 'exceptional circumstances'?

Whist you also extol the benefits of HS2, we are about as far away as it's possible to be from the proposed new line and stations in the whole area. Again, as HS2 is likely to generate even more visitors and commuters to the West Midlands, surely Solihull Council should be anticipating this and improving the infrastructure NOW, before deciding to sell off allegedly protected Greenbelt land for developers to clog up with substandard and undersized new homes?

I would like to remind you of Solihull's own motto, which is "Urbs in Rure", meaning "town in the countryside". There won't be much countryside left if you allow these 2,550 new homes to be built in our Borough, which is a deeply disturbing possibility.
I sincerely hope you renege on your proposals, and promise to honour our motto.

see attached letter

We are contacting you in response to the proposed housing allocation 13, for South Shirley.

The plans contain the potential for a very large amount of houses for a fairly small area in size.

Our main concerns are:

Impact to the environment:

All of the surrounding houses benefit from the bridle path and the escape to the countryside to which it gives.

This enhances health and quality of life whilst offering a safe place to exercise or walk dogs.

It also brings people together and gives a community feel.

The wildlife here would be affected by any development, which would be such a shame as we get a good variety of species over on these fields some of which are quite rare to spot in this part of the UK.

Also, many of the trees located here have been in place for many years - after destroying old trees in Shirley Park for the Parkgate development how can the council advocate this?

Large amount of houses within a small space:

Sites 4, 11, 12, 13 are all in very close proximity, with the potential of an extra 2,550 the area as it stands will not cope with that increase of people.

41% of the proposed houses are planned for Shirley. This seems an inordinate amount considering there are parts of the borough which are not having to take up this burden, but have sites that could provide adequate space for these houses without the need to destroy green field sites.

Impact on the local roads:

The roads around this area simply are not big enough to cope with extra traffic. The roads cannot cope with the traffic that currently uses them as it stands. Bills Lane connection with the Stratford Road (Staples Island) is extremely busy at peak times. I work by the airport and it can take me over 30 minutes to get into Solihull centre during these times.

Impact on school places:

Extra houses will mean extra demand for local schools, how will the council counter balance this? Local schools are struggling to offer places now. What will be done for the extra demand?

Impact on local train services:

Extra houses will place higher demand on local rail services going to Birmingham or Stratford. What would be done to counter balance this?

John catches the train from Shirley to Birmingham every day, from 0730 onwards it is very difficult to get at seat from Shirley, and the same in reverse from 1700 onwards.

The services are crowded to the point of overcrowding on a regular basis, and this is without the extra burden of more commuters moving into the area.

Will Centro be putting on extra trains, and extra carriages to cope with this extra demand?

Also the parking at Shirley and Whitlocks End stations is always full and it is nigh on impossible to get a space at either of these unless you travel very early in the morning.

Floodplain:

We often get quite a large amount of water at the bottom of our garden during winter months. Water is absorbed by the trees on the Christmas Tree Farm. Once this is removed we are going to have a lot more water coming into the garden. What will be done to prevent or asssit with this?

Disruption whilst working is being carried out:

Obviously we will be very close to the development area. Extra traffic, noise and general disruption is inevitable and it looks like it could be for quite a lengthy period of time.

Has any consideration been given to when this work would take place, ie to ensure that as little nuisance is caused to the residents of the area during 'non work' hours such as evenings and weekends as possible.

Youth activities:

There are 9 proposed sports clubs all within the same area that will have to close down as a result of these developments. This compounded with the loss of public open fields will mean a distinct lack of outside spaces to occupy young people. This will mean all the existing people who used these facilities will have nowhere available to them, let alone for the influx of new people who would be moving into the area.

This surely brings about the conditions where young people can become alienated through lack of healthy outside activities and as a knock on result this would no doubt bring on an increase in crime rates and anti social behaviour.


We feel generally that Solihull as a whole and especially the town of Shirley will lose a lot of the charm that first brought people into the area. Such an extreme project of development such as this will cause movement of people out of the area and further degrade the area that all the residents currently love.

We hope that all objections to the plans are taken into account and considered carefully towards any decisions that are ultimately made on this matter

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

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

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

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

save allocation 13 and 4

To whom this may concern,

Please can I make my objections clear to the planned build of houses on allocation 13 and allocation 4...I strongly object!!
My family, the dogs and I quite often use these areas of natural beauty for recreational walks where we are lucky enough to walk for miles, in fact, a Sunday afternoon is not complete without a good walk along some of these areas. We have fun spotting wildlife and feel really sad that you would consider using such areas of beauty to develop on!!! Let alone destroying the habitat of hundreds possibly thousands of animals! If the build goes ahead we will lose children's football pitches right at the time the government are trialling within schools to get children more active and a 'need to move' scheme!!
Then there is the matter of extra traffic on the surrounding roads, they can barely cope as it is!You should try and get off my drive of a morning and evening as it stands now!
There are also the schools which are full.
Then the doctors, you are lucky if you can get an appointment now!! So we can ill afford to put any of these under any extra stress or strain!
I understand redevelopments of old factories or dis-used offices and understand people need to live somewhere but please, not areas of beauty and wildlife.
I moved to Hall Green in 1984 with my parents trying to better themselves and to escape an area that had become really unsafe for families to grow up in, this was Alum Rock and whenever I go back now I could cry as it is so built up and heavily populated that it is now ruined...I now live in Shirley with my young family and love the fact that I don't have far to go before I am treated with some lovely views. I also know from experience that I can see the same thing happening all over again. Crime is up, children are bored and if you take away football and recreation areas and just add more people to this area you will further increase the problems.
Sorry to go on but I do feel very strong about this...

Objection - allocation 13

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

Allocation 13

I,am writing to you to voice my concerns regarding the possible development of 600 houses to be built in the fields that
are on the road of which I have lived for the past 41 years, both myself and my children have grown up with these lovely fields
to play in enjoy family walks and also walk our family dog's over the many years we have lived here. It will be with great sadness that my Grandchildern will not get the chance to grow up having enjoyed the area. The local GP surgery is already struggling with the demand of people
in the area as is the road system I work only six miles from my place of work but every morning get stuck in traffic that is already clogging up the roads so more housing would only make this a lot worse than it currently is. It is with great regret that these fields have been chosen as the nearest park for the children and dog walkers to enjoy is Shirley park and that is at least one mile away from the fields that are on our door

Save Allocation 13 And Allocation 4

I am a 12 year old boy from Shirley. I just wanted to make my objections about the plan to build houses on OUR GREEN BELT! Me and my family love taking the dogs for walks and getting some fresh air on a Sunday afternoon. I also play football for a team and I am worried that my teams training ground will be affected. There is also the fact of the wonderful birds, squirrels and other animals that live there. I think that you should be aware that you are destroying there habitat. I don't think you would be very happy if I came and built over your house I'm sure you would be very cross with me. Another thing you should be aware of is the amount of traffic that will be created by the extra people living in the houses, I can see Shirley becoming one of those areas that is overcrowded. Also if we keep building on these lovely green areas they will all disappear. I hope you take my objection into consideration as although I am young I feel very strongly about this as our lovely walks will be gone!

Objections to Allocation 13 Housing Proposal

To whom it may concern,

As residents of Shotteswell Rd, Shirley we are very concerned about the proposed 600 new houses on allocation 13. Having lived in this area for 10 years, we chose this location due to the open green space in immediate access which myself and children regulary utilise, enhancing our overall quality of life. Open green space such as this is valued within our busy lives and we are deeply concerned at the plans to remove such a facility. Shotteswell Rd is a quiet location and the potential of opening up this road to offer direct access to the new development will have a detrimental impact on my family and our neighbours. Already, traffic on Stretton Rd is so great in the mornings and rush hours, its makes commuting difficult and this development will simply add to this congestion.


Please consider our objections to this proposal on the following grounds;

1) The increased volume of traffic - this is a semi rural location with residential roads not designed for the volume or weight of traffic. The local area services a number of primary schools and Lighthall secondary school as well as pupils commuting to other local secondary schools. Increased traffic makes children's' journey to school more problematic and hazardous. With the government and local authority striving for individuals to have healthy lifestyles and promoting children walking and cycling to school, this plan places the children at greater risk to road traffic accidents. Tanworth Lane and surrounding roads have already had a significant increase in volume of traffic since the development of Dickens Heath estate.


2) Use of green belt land - It is stated by central government and local government that all options of brown land sites will be investigated before green belt land is proposed as possible residential building areas. However, I do believe there are many brown land sites across Solihull that are viable before using this green belt land. Is this because the green belt land and neighboring residential areas are seen more financially incentivised? For example Dickens Heath development has increased in size year by year with the school catchment being attached to a high performing, oversubscribed secondary school despite another local Solihull secondary school being closer in proximity?

3) Use of rural open space areas - this disturbs local wild life and families areas that are safe and in line with central and local government target to provide and maintain these areas for families. Having lived in this area for 10 years, we chose this location at a premium due to the open green space in immediate access which myself and children regulary utilise, enhancing our overall quality of life.


We urge Solihull council to consider these objections and re-consider the planning proposals.

Allocation 13

I am writing to register my objection to the loss of allocation 13 to residential use. This piece of land represents the only direct countryside access for thousands of residents living on the badgers estate, the housing estate directly adjoining the land, and the wider community in the Shakespeare Estate.

I live on Shakespeare Drive, and I know this piece of land well. Within a few minutes of leaving our house on foot, my family and I can be walking in green country side on public footpaths, through a very well used natural environment, accessed via the green corridors that link the urban environment with the countryside. On our walks we pass the time of day with dozens of people of all ages and from all walks of life, this piece of land provides a valuable community amenity and it should be protected.

We use this land at least three times a week, if not more, for dog walking and leisure walks, with allocation thirteen giving access to the wider countryside, and the canal beyond. This piece of land forms a valuable green space between the existing built up areas, and to loose this space to building would be a disaster for current residents and generations to come.

Shirley has been very accommodating in terms of housing, and other development over the years, with Dickens Heath taking acres of green belt, and infill developments eating into remaining green fields. It is fair to say that the residents of Shirley have not been anti-development, and it should be clear that the reaction to the potential loss of allocation 13 is a genuine and undeniably just refusal to accept the loss of something of such value in terms of local amenity and well being.

This land benefits from historic hedgerows, trees, wild flowers, and is directly linked with areas of wetland to at least one boundary, and I am sure is home to a diverse ecosystem of insects, mammals etc as you would expect to find in such a location. I would suggest an independent ecology survey, rather than one funded by a potential developer, would present a very clear picture of this.

I am sure my fellow Shirley residents will agree that the council's, and MPs / councillor's, reaction to our justified and rational objections to the loss of the open space will be very telling. After living in Shirley for almost 20 years we have dealt with many changes, but continue to support and invest in the local area. We are not saying no to development in any form in other areas, we are however saying no to the possibility of giving up this valuable green space, the loss of which would undoubtedly detract from our quality of life.

Objection to allocation 13

I am writing to voice my objection to the proposed planned redevelopment of allocation 13.

Having lived in the area all but 5 years of my 36, i have enjoyed the remaining plot of land for many years our family have been using this area for walks as do many other people within the area, people of all ages and from all walks of life, this piece of land provides a valuable community amenity and it should be protected.
I believe that this will be some 41% of the housing for the borough of Solihull, which is an outstanding proportion for such a small area.
Shirley has already witnessed massive redevelopment over the years with the introduction of the now "village" Dickens Heath, which has established over some time taking up acres of green belt.
The impact of this development will be hugely suffered by many areas within the Shirley district, schools, doctors, hospitals, and transport services will be effected, and well used football/recreation ground will be lost.
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 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.
Being a conservation and recreational area Allocation 13, is hugely used by many Solihull school children, living in a world where we try to encourage children away from computers and screens, it would be a massive loss to "our" children.

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

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

I gather that Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of proposed new housing in the Solihull borough, this seems disproportionate and unacceptable given the size of the borough. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.

Under the government white paper 'fixing our broken housing market'
"The National Planning Policy Framework is already clear that Green Belt boundaries should be amended only "in exceptional circumstances""
"authorities should amend Green Belt boundaries only when they can demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements, including: - making effective use of suitable brownfield sites and the opportunities offered by estate regeneration; - the potential offered by land which is currently underused, including surplus public sector land where appropriate; - optimising the proposed density of development"

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

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

The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In this case of HS2 which is referred to in the current plans, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to these proposed Shirley developments - therefore more congestion would be caused by people driving to the proposed HS2 station as there is inadequate public transport to that area of the borough.
The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane, Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. The main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter has a constant flow of traffic for the rush hour stopping any traffic flow from Tanworth Lane. Stretton Road can be very dangerous with drivers cutting through due to the main routes being busy - this is an area with two schools and a large elderly community.

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

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

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

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

In terms of Allocation 13. This is an area that has over the years has become a is a very popular recreation and amenity area, popular with families, dog walkers, ramblers etc. In fact it is part of the reason we bought our house on the badgers estate so we were close to the countryside. I personally regularly run in this area and go walking with the family.

The area has grass land, marsh and heath land. There are well-established farm ponds providing a varied eco system and I have seen frogs, toads and newts, along with Muntjac Deer, Cuckoo, Woodpecker and birds of prey. In addition in the meadowland and the marshy areas there are numerous wild flowers, an in-depth wildlife survey should be carried out before any decision is made.

Alternatives to developing green belt sites are numerous and I am not convinced that all possibilities have been exhausted, both in smarter use of land and also locations.
I have seen there is a proposal for development on the door step of HS2 and around the NEC, also to compliment the recent resort World Complex, this seems logical as traffic and infrastructure would be easier to resolve.

There is also the possibility of buying larger houses in Solihull which have huge gardens and developing small estates with mews or flats as opposed to the exclusive developments that are cropping up along Blossomfield Road - The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses.

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

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

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

I am writing to place my objection to part of the Draft Local Plan proposed.

I fully accept the requirement for housing and the quicker an adopted plan can be bought in the better for all concerned.

My 1st objection stems around the proposed numbers allocated in the draft centering around the outskirts of Shirley (Areas 4, 11, 12, 13 - totalling 2550 in an area in very close proximity to each other), I have included Dickens Heath in the figures above as the traffic flow and population currently has major effects on the area and especially highway junctions around Tamworth Lane, Dog Kennel Lane at peak times.

My particular concern is area 13 allocated for circa 600no. units to the South of Shirley. This area of green belt is considerably well used and an asset to the local area. At present from my property there is a limited amount of open space accessible to the public within walking distance. We use this area regularly and other government initiatives of new schemes centre around accessibility to open space for all - I do not feel existing stock should suffer when not necessary. If this was to remain in the plan and subsequently developed where would the accessible open space be, sustainability of getting in car all the time to travel for a walk is not in anyway in the good for anyone. Shirley Park is too far for my children to walk to and from although a good facility it is not within walking distance to many hundreds of properties around the Shirley South area.

I would not object to the other sites identified in the Shirley area if area 13 was removed from the plan. I agree the TRW site, Blythe Valley and possibly the Dog Kennel Lane site as these have more infrastructure in place already. Could the new HS2 hub area be identified to take a little more.

To implement the Shirley schemes the highways infrastructure requirements would need reviewing along with the current medical allocation, Doctors surgeries have week waiting lists and Solihull hospital has had many cutbacks over the last few
years- would Solihull not warrant an A&E / Full maternity ward?

The 2nd objection follows on from and centres around the allocation around the borough which seems slightly biased towards certain areas - in particular the Shirley is of concern to myself which is where we currently live. Reviewing the allocated numbers my understanding is Solihull is taking circa 900, Meriden 50 units and Dorridge is not mentioned (this may be because Knowle and Balsall Common appear to be taking a generous amount) (but Shirley 2550).

Objection to Allocation 13

I am writing to express my objection regarding the development of allocation 13 in Shirley. As a local resident with a young family and future generations to think about I worry about the loss and damage to the last bit of greenbelt land left in the area. Once it's gone it's gone. It's short sighted by developers and the council to give up such precious land. I ask you to review the plans and consider the detrimental impact to local wildlife, flora and fauna. Also, please consider the quality of life for local residents. We must consider our environment before the needs of humans. Shirley is at stretching point. This will have a massive impact on local services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objection to Allocation 13

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

Objection to Allocation 13

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

Draft Local Plan Site 13 - South of Shirley

To the members of the planning team,
As a long-term resident of Langcomb Road, I wish to register my concerns and ask you to take them into account.

I am concerned that, if the development of Site 13 takes place, green fields will be replaced by houses and roads:-

* We will not have the open land taking rainfall in the fields when they are replaced by hard surfaces - roofs, roads and drives, leading to local flooding
* We will not hear the 'yaffle' call of the Green Woodpecker
* We will not hear ducks calling as they fly from their pond
* We will not hear the calls of owls from the trees
* We will not benefit from the "trees breathing oxygen" as posted by Woods Farm Christmas Trees
* We will not feel the healing peace of seeing the sun over green fields
* Once the fields are gone, they are gone forever.

If this plan goes ahead, it will be URBS IN MORE URBS.
Solihull MBC and this community is worth more than that.
The Council and every single member of the Planning Team will be answerable for this decision in years to come.

Response to the Draft Local Plan Site 13 - South of Shirley

To the Members of the Policy and Spatial Planning Team,

Having living in property adjacent to this site for over 35 years, these plans are a real "wake-up" call.

I have been fortunate in having a view of part of the countryside with access to it on foot. Physical activity of walking and being out in the fresh air is advised as contributing to our general health and well-being. Having owned dogs for over twenty years has allowed me to meet a great variety of lovely people and have made good friends of many.

A few years ago, following surgery, the local surroundings and being a dog-owner encouraged me to get out and about and enjoy the lovely countryside. I am convinced that this contributed greatly to my recovery from operations and gave a positive outlook to the future.

The wildlife in this area is vastly underrated and keeps people in touch with nature - very necessary in this busy world and most inspiring.

The plans for Site 13 to include so many houses does not seem to take into account the impact of extra educational and medical facilities which will be necessary, as well as extra traffic implications to the already busy roads locally with access to the A34 and M42.

This area is not the ideal location for so much extra housing to be allocated.

Allocation 13

I would like to put forward my objection to the building plans on "allocation 13" in Shirley.this piece of land is well loved and well used by so many residents both locally and hide who travel to use the site for recreational purposes. As a family we use this area to walk our dog, it's a great area for our children and the dog, as it's a safe distance from the roads and traffic. As a childminder I use this area with the children in my care (as well as my own biological children) to go pond dipping, bug hunting, leaf and bark rubbing and many more interesting and rewarding activities that enrich the children's learning and development. Building on this area will not only destroy the beautiful land and rid the area of animals big and small but also deny our children a chance to learn about it, and what it means. Building in this area will create more traffic, pollution, fill up our schools and stretch our already struggling medical centres and eat into funds provided in this area! I am very against this work going ahead and I wholly believe that it will be detrimental to the Shirley area and residents with regards to school standards, house prices and overpopulation in the coming years!!

It has come to my attention that as part of some "Central Government Targets" that have been set on House building that as a result means the erosion of nearby Green Belt areas close to where I live. I wish to register my objections in the highest regard on plans to build housing on Allocation 12 and 13.

The roads around Dog Kennel Lane and Blackford road are already over contested by traffic accessing nearby Dickens Heath village meaning that we have long waits to get onto Blackford Road via the side road. The traffic that comes through Blackford road also completely disregard the speed bumps meant to calm and slow down traffic further!! By adding even more housing in the area this problem will be exacerbated even further and will not only cause further pollution to the area but also make the surrounding roadways hazardous to children of residents and attendees to nearby schools.

Local Doctors surgeries will be overrun adding to the already increasing problems within NHS doctors surgeries and meaning that current patients will have to endure even longer periods of time before we can even make a doctors appointment.

When Dickens Heath was originally built (To solve the housing problem in Solihull) It was agreed that there should be a Green-Belt Buffer between Shirley and Dickens Heath which would keep the village separate and protect our ever disappearing Green Belt areas. How long before even more targets are set for housing and the rest completely disappears????

Green belt areas are created to protect what little countryside we still have yet it seems this is completely being disregarded by a council and government which I voted in??? There are plenty of other sites which can be redeveloped within the current solihull boundaries without the necessity to overspill into the green belt

I welcome your comments and hope that as my MP I am represented fully both at Commons and Council levels!

Dear Sir to whom it may concern.
I am emailing at my disappointment at seeing the proposal to build far too many houses at the back of where I live. I have lived on this estate since 1975. And rode my ponies many times at the bridle path just off Bills Lane. At back of my house.

I understand the need of extra housing but this is ridiculous as at the moment the traffic is horrendous in the morning and evening. We all use the fields and bridlepath to walk and to walk through to Dickens Heath in The summer months. I have chosen to stay this side of Stratford Road for this reason. We can't loose anymore of our greenery.

Not only that Bills Lane is too busy to take more traffic as Dickens Heath traffic is already causing traffic jams in morning all the way down Shakespeare drive and Tamworth Lane. It took me 20min the other day to get my car to crossroads garage.
If there is an emergency in Shirley already the fire engines and police and ambulance drivers can't get through. There is no way the cars can get out of way for them to pass.

They need to build houses where they can make roads wider which is not rocket science. It's not possible to accommodate all theses houses and people. Parts of Earlswood have more space. We have already got Dickens Heath to cope with traffic wise and we have lost all those fields. I think we have had our share. Build some in Knowledge or Dorridge they have bigger wider roads

Development of Green Belt for housing - Shirley

My husband and I, long term residents of Shirley are most concerned to see the possible sites for housing in the Draft Local Development Plan.
It would be such a retrograde step to build houses on the fields in this area.
Dickens Heath and Shirley would merge into one huge suburb, which wasn't the vision for Dickens Heath 'village.' There is considerable development there already threatening the gaps between Dickens Heath, Wythall and Earlswood.
The Dickens Heath development has greatly increased traffic on Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive and Haslucks Green road. The roads would not be able to cope with the increased traffic these developments would bring.
The green spaces are so important for everyones wellbeing, we need to keep them and look for brown field sites.
We hope that there better sites that can be used that won't have such an impact on our lives.

I was very concerned to hear about the amount of new housing planned for around the Shirley area. It is a hugh number of houses to be built on our very precious green belt, which we seem to be looseing at an alarming rate.

The proposed 600 homes adjacent to the Woodlands and Badgers Estate is especially concerning, as many people including myself walk over those fields. I have seen Buzzards and Kestrels there, also cows grazing at certain times of the year, it is very peaceful there, an oasis from the busy roads surrounding Shirley.

Dickens Heath is growing at a tremendous rate, houses now being built down Cleobury and Braggs Farm Lanes, certainly not a village anymore.

We need our 'green lungs' to escape from the urban sprawl, and general racket of modern day life. The roads around Tidbury Green(more houses being built there) and the Earlswood area are in a bad state at the moment and will only get worse if all this extra building goes ahead.

Once we have lost our precious green fields, they have gone for ever.