In response to the Draft Local Plan Review we would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my child/children at St George & St Teresa RC School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review we would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my child/children at St George & St Teresa RC School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstratesa need which should be addressed
I look forward to hearing your response.

Comments and representations of SMBC's draft Local Plan
This representation is made on behalf of Earlswood and Forshaw Heath Residents' Association which covers the northern area of the parish of Tanworth-in-Arden. There are approximately 1,600 residents in this area.

We wish to make representations as follows:

1. A significant number of the proposed developments are being built on Green Belt land. This is in direct contravention to the Conservative Election Manifesto of 2015. In particular:

P 53/84 Our commitment to you:
* give more people the chance to own their home by extending the Right to Buy to tenants of Housing Associations and create a Brownfield Fund to unlock homes on brownfield land;
* ensure local people have more control over planning and protect the Green Belt.

P 54/84 We will protect the Green Belt We have safeguarded national Green Belt protection and increased protection of important green spaces. We have abolished the Labour Government's top-down Regional Strategies which sought to delete the Green Belt in and around 30 towns and cities and introduced a new Local Green Space planning designation which allows councils and neighbourhood plans to give added protection to valuable local green spaces.

P 56/84 For Conservatives, Britain's 'green and pleasant land' is not some relic from a bygone era, to be mourned and missed: it's the living, breathing backdrop to our national life. Our moors and meadows, wildlife and nature, air and water are a crucial part of our national identity and make our country what it is. So we care about them deeply, want to protect them for everyone and pass them onto future generations.
Labour never understood this. Our rural communities fell further behind urban areas; biodiversity suffered, with important species and habitats declining under their watch; and they failed to protect the Green Belt.
Over the last five years, we have committed billions of pounds to reduce emissions from transport and clean up our rivers and seas. We have done more to protect our seas, safeguarded our Green Belt and planted 11 million trees. And we set out a comprehensive, long-term vision to protect our natural heritage in this country's first White Paper on the Natural Environment for 20 years.

We will protect the Green Belt, and maintain national protections for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and other environmental designations.

It is not clear to us how these proposed developments can be effected and still comply with the Government's commitment to protect the Green Belt when the Government hasn't announced any material changes to its Green Belt policies and would therefore oppose these developments as a consequence;

2. Again, for a number of SMBC's proposed development schemes outlined in the draft Local Plan that is out for review, there doesn't appear to have been any cross-boundary consultation or discussion. We cannot find any evidence of consultation or co-operation with Stratford upon Avon District Council. We understand that the duty to cooperate was created in the Localism Act 2011. It amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils in England and public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local and Marine Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters. As a number of these proposed developments have a heavy impact on the infrastructure and quality of life on the residents in our area, we would have expected some form of consultation. We refer in particular to proposed developments 4, 11, 12, 13 and the proposed alterations to Blythe Valley Business Park to substitute around 600 houses for business units, a purpose for which the development land designated as Blythe Valley Business Park was never granted.

As SMBC has not complied with the current planning legislation, we would reject your proposed developments on this ground too;

3. As a consequence of developments already undertaken by SMBC, the quality of life in our rural parish has changed dramatically over the past 20 years and none of it has been for the better. SMBC's developments have really increased the use of the infrastructure in our area and don't seem prepared to ever recompense SDC for this. We have been told that SMBC has deliberately designed its larger developments over the past number of years so that the traffic flows are diverted away from the centre of Solihull. This may or may not be true but it certainly seems that there are larger volumes of traffic coming from the north and east through our B road infrastructure as each development matures. We are therefore opposed in principle to SMBC pushing more traffic towards us without entering into some compensation scheme to recompense SDC for fair wear and tear of our infrastructure. Such recompense could be actioned under the Section 106 legislation or, simply, agreed between SMBC and SDC along the same lines.

We therefore see two legal challenges to your proposed future developments and one challenge, assuming that the two legal challenges fail, on the grounds of equity and decency.

see Arden Academy Questionnaire and email comment
Knowle Ref Site 9 South of Knowle

I would be in favour of houses being built if there is also a new Arden Academy school built, as I think this would be of great value to the local community in many ways.

I live very close to the current school site- on the turning circle of Milverton Road- and my main reservations are the concentration of buildings (and their height) packed into the Arden school footprint, the proximity of the new homes to current residents' gardens, and the maintenance of a cul-de-sac rather than a through road in Milverton.

It would be a mark of respect for the current residents, many longstanding of over 45 years, if the planning department could somehow incorporate a clause in the design of the new houses to be built so they do not overlook the gardens/ houses of adjacent neighbours, given that there will be so much land to be innovative with in the design.

I would also expect consideration of another GP surgery due to the numbers of extra patients, and as a local GP myself I know that the GP services are already straining under the load, particularly given the ageing population.

I would also like safe cycle routes to the new school incorporated, and maintenance of the MIND garden, possibly with local social prescribing as an option (particularly related to gardening- allotments are currently a 2-3 year wait- could there be any new ways of utilising space which might otherwise be poor building land? Could parts of allotments be sub-let to people keen to get involved who have little other opportunity?)

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I am writing to object to the proposed application as above for the following reasons:
1, Over crowding of houses, 100 house on that site will destroy the character of the neighbourhood as the houses will have to be build close together and small. If affordable housing is to be provided, then you have the problem of more the two stories in height, leading to loss of light, ,loss of privacy and overshadowing.
2 School and Medical centres. These are all oversubscribed already and this development will just put more pressure on them.
3 flooding. Sharmans Cross road is known for its flooding in heavy rain, the development will worsen this problem.
4 To go with point no 3 increase in traffic and associated pollution, the road is already a bad road especially as there is a school, so it will have a serious effect on highway safety, danger to pedestrians, Children, cyclists and all round parking for the amentities.
5 Permanent loss of sporting facilities. We should be getting our children and ourselves more active and I know it is one of the councils biggest campaigns, so why are you taking away areas that can be used for sports events to build houses that will just cause more problems.
6 Environmental: you will have to cut down trees which have tree preservation orders, which in turn will destroy the wildlife. We have badgers and bats.
7 Parking at Solihull Arden Club, loss of parking at the club would have a massive in packed. If people can't park they will not come and you have people that run there own business from the club. Like running there own class. So this will take from local business, which you should be trying to help.
8 One previous application for this site has been refused and another withdrawn for some of the reasons above.
As a result, the proposed development should be refused.

Firstly can I please say how difficult the process of forwarding a response on the above plan has proved to be. I am certain that most people will have given up trying to use the online portal and the complexity of all the items which have been included in the draft, far too many items for us all to digest and give appropriate responses to.

However, in my case I would like to address the possibility of the release of green belt land to the west of Dickens Heath, Site No 4, but would also add that some of my comments apply to the whole of the proposed developments within Blythe ward.

Whilst I am aware that Solihull Council are looking for sites for some 15,000+ houses, it would appear that a great deal of this housing is being 'patched' onto existing settlements, what I do not understand is why when roads throughout Solihull are full to bursting with traffic, do we not look to create a new village with all the infrastructure, close to or with good roads to access motorway. If this was built somewhere along the M42 - whilst I appreciate it would most likely have to come from greenbelt, at least there would not be such significant impact on existing roads and factilities. Also with sufficient space for extending this new village should the future require even further housing. When you look at how much countryside/greenbelt in large swathes we have within this borough, surely a stand alone village is the way to move forward. I am sure most people would rather a new village than continual erosion of the greenbelt that protects our villages and their character.

If this is option is not viable then surely any further housing should have direct access to Motorway or main/major arterial roads, in order to eliminate further congestion on our minor roads.

The site which has my most concern is No 4, west of Dickens Heath - Birchy Leasowes, Tileshouse Lane, Tythebarn Lane with the possibility of 700+ houses. Firstly this site which has scored a high 7-8 in greenbelt analysis, does not fall into the exceptional circumstances as directed by the government for releasing from greenbelt, you have had many other sites offered for development of which do not have 7-8 greenbelt rating. This site protects the urban sprawl from Whitlocks End, Tidbury Green and Shirley and is the natural boundary for Dickens Heath, it should be protected. Any development of this site would mean further strain on the existing gridlock around Dickens Heath, and also would not provide easy access to the Dickens Heath amenities, so residents would have to drive to the library, school, shops etc. Although I appreciate there is some assumption that most of the residents would use the train????????? most homes now have 2 cars and not everyone works in Birmingham, infact most people I know actually head for the M42, which is the other way.

Dickens Heath as a village cannot sustain any further development, our facilities cannot cope at present, so a further 700 houses is unbeleivable, particularly this site as it does not have any direct access to major arterial roads, and the roads surrounding the site cannot cope at present.

Dickens Heath will completely lose its identity and become an urban sprawl, which is against the guidelines which the government states.

Notwithstanding the fact that Blythe ward is being made to take a disproportionate amount of housing.

Lastly, as a resident of Dickens Heath, site No 4 was given greenbelt status in order to protect the 'new village' how can you therefore substantiate releasing it for development?

Please see attached the following submission to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation.

We have produced the following documents to form part of our submission:

* Solihull Draft Local Plan Representations (Framptons, February 2017)
* Appendix A - Green Belt, Landscape and Masterplanning Report (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix B - A Vision for Tidbury Green (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix C - Review of SDLPR Sustainability Appraisal - (JAM Consult Ltd, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 1 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 2 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Figures (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix E - Infrastructure and Utilities Note (WSP, February 2017)

On behalf of the forum, I am submitting the attached document as the considered view of the Neighbourhood Forum members in response to the consultation to Solihull Council's Draft Local Plan. The response relates in particular to the implications for the KDBH area.

In order to capture and then reflect the views of forum members and residents, the forum has held three public meetings; in December 2016 and January and February of this year. Feedback has been gathered on each occasion and we have also invited and received comments via e-mail.

We also have a body of evidence that reflects residents' general views, concerns and aspirations for the area from the residents survey conducted in 2016.

In addition, we have reviewed the proposed housing allocations, for the KDBH area as outlined in the draft plan against the Council's published methodologies and evidence base to try to understand how they were determined.

We believe that the document is a balance and objective representation of the Forum member's views.

We have also encourage members to submit their own individual responses, following the instructions on your website. This should ensure that you have the full spectrum of views.

see letter

Challenges
1. Do you agree that we've identified the right challenges facing the Borough? If not why not? Are there any additional challenges that should be addressed?
Vision

No.
Challenge C - Balsall Common village centre suffers from many of the challenges listed for Solihull, Shirley, and Chelmsley Wood Centres.

2. Do you agree with the Borough Vision we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
The vision seems to rely on increasing transport dependency. It implies that employment growth will necessitate people travelling from outside the area to work within Solihull, and Solihull residents travelling long distances outside the Borough to go to work. A better strategy would be to focus on creating local employment, with the transport growth aimed at transporting materials and goods. Transport of people for employment purposes could be reduced by improved broadband network infrastructure and tele-working.
the spatial strategy seems to run counter to the wish in para 74 for preserving the environment.
There doesn't seem to be any proposals to meet the aspiration in para 75 to reduce carbon emissions.
In para 86 it's said growth will occur on the edge of settlements which will inevitably increase traffic and transport need, and runs counter to the aspirations in paras 72 and 75. A bypass for Balsall Common is proposed without consideration of the impact on the viability of the village centre, the environment, or existing residents.

Spatial Strategy
3. Do you agree with the spatial strategy we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Sustainable Economic Growth

No.
The proposed significant expansion of rural settlements is in conflict with the stated preference and national policy of giving preference to brown field sites, and does not recognise the absence of high frequency public transport in most of the Borough.
Given the shortage of housing land to meet the Government's housing targets, it is essential that all new development is to a high density to reduce the land-take.

4. Do you agree with Policy P1? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
There doesn't seem any plan to mitigate the increased traffic, congestion, carbon emissions, air quality degradation, and noise disturbance. The land should not be developed until after the aggregate resources have been extracted. Renaming the area as Arden Cross is simply tacky and tasteless. It already has a name, Middle Bickenhill.

7. Do you agree with Policy P2? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
Balsall Common centre has suffered from the loss of business premises, the loss of the Health Centre to a greenfield site on the edge of the village, inadequate parking, the lack of a bus station, and now a proposal to divert through-traffic. A comprehensive development plan is required to address all these issues.

Providing Homes for All
11. Do you agree with Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
The shortage of land and the need for housing means that there should be a significant increase in density and the provision of smaller homes.

12. Do you agree with the level of affordable housing being sought in Policy P4? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

No.
The affordable housing provision should be greater than 50% for all sites - which would require development of an individual house to be "affordable".

14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?

No.
The housing target should just meet local needs. Excess requirements should be met in the rural expanses in neighbouring counties, who are expected to have a "duty to cooperate". Solihull should not cater for Birmingham overspill. Solihull Borough has essentially reached capacity in terms of housing provision, and a Predict and Provide policy will lead to a continuous decline in the quality of the environment and to the detriment of residents.

15. Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?

No.
The planning objectives of re-using previously-developed land and creating new settlements have been ignored. Areas such as Balsall Common are being encouraged to sprawl in contravention of accessibility, sustainability, and Green Gelt policies. The Green Belt analysis has not been conducted in line with the NPPF as non-defensible boundaries have been used. The scores attached to preserving the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap are too low and irrational. Balsall Common seems to have been singled out for concentrated and disproportionate expansion, in contrast to areas such as Dorridge, which has far better public transport. In particular, sites 1 and 3 appear to have been chosen for administrative convenience rather than compliance with local and national policies.
Preference should be given to developing brown-field sites and to raising the housing density generally.

16. Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are they?

No.
With regard to Site 1, the proposed highway access is completely unsuitable and will put traffic onto residential roads. No "bypass" is proposed, but with the lack of funding the proposals are likely to create a rat-run that will cause further environmental harm for residents. There is no strategy to deliver bus service and school provision. With regard to Site 3, it is far too distant from the village centre to benefit from the quoted infrastructure improvements.

18. Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
Para 267 is incorrect, the HS2 Environmental Impact has been assessed on the basis that no road improvements would be needed south of the A45. It is highly unlikely that people will travel from south of Balsall Common to HS2 at Middle Bickenhill when there are nearer and more convenient alternatives at Warwick. In addition, the current railway is available to feed the new station via the People Mover. The additional housing proposed for Balsall Common is wrongly sited if it creates additional commuting traffic. There are alternative sites to the north of Balsall Common that would have good access to new employment sites and would not require road improvements.
One reason for abandoning the bypass for Balsall Common was the need to maintain the vitality of the village centre retail options. The proposed new housing would be too far from the centre to offset any loss of through-custom. The A452 only becomes congested when there are problems on the motorway network, and there is no identified need for improved capacity. Much of the traffic is generated within the village. Capacity is limited by the traffic lights at the south of the village, and improvements to that junction should be the first to be considered if demand increases.
There doesn't seem to be any justification for expensive projects like Metro and Sprint (Policy 8A). The passenger demand should first be proven by running bus services. The main factors limiting greater use of public transport are: service interval; unreliability; lack of real-time information; primitive or non-existent waiting shelters; absence of evening services; difficult access for the less agile. Berkswell Station has an irregular service with 40 minute waiting times, and has had a marked reduction in the quality of the waiting facilities. It is difficult for the disabled to board the trains due to the platform gap.
The service interval target (Policy P7) has been increased from 15 minutes between busses and 20 minutes between trains. Rail services have been dropped from the policy, and should be specificed with the same targets as for busses. The previous target intervals were too long for many users, but the proposed 30 minute wait is far too long. The rural area generally has only an hourly service, and few dwellings are within 400 metres of a stop, so Policy P7 is hugely optimistic and unrealistic.

Protecting and Enhancing our Environment
19. Do you agree with the policies for protecting the environment? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
There should be a clear policy for requiring solar PV on all new buildings, and prohibiting green-field solar farms. In addition, policies should encourage use of solar PV in paved areas etc. There should be clear architectural/design standards for all solar PV installations.

Promoting Quality of Place
20. Do you agree with the policies for quality of place? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Health and Supporting Local Communities

No.
Policy P16 should be expanded to include requirements to identify unrecognised archaeological remains during any development. A more integrated approach should be adopted to finding traces of early settlement in the area. All works in new areas should be preceded by geophysical surveys.
Policy P17 should specify Balsall Common as inset in the Green Belt and protected like the other named settlements.

21. Do you agree with the policies health and supporting communities? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
Policy P20 does not provide sufficient long-term protection for public open space. All such areas should be designated as Village Greens, and green spaces in new developments should be dedicated as Village Greens by the developers.

Delivery and Monitoring
22. Do you agree with the Policy P21? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

No.
Policy P21 should be clearer about spending all "planning gain" within the affected communities. In addition, all new developments should only be approved following agreement of a detailed strategic site plan agreed within the community.
**********************************************

Allocation 13

Hello, I am already worried about school places. How on earth am I going to get my now 1 year old into a school with all of these houses being built?

Are there going to be new schools being built too? Because with this amount of houses there needs to be serious consideration on how school places are going to be affected.
(Baxters green resident)

see 3 separate letters
1) Land to the rear of Meriden C of E Primary School, Fillongley Road, Meriden
2) Land Hampton Lane, Solihull
3) Land Windmill Lane / Kenilworth Rd, Balsall Common

joint submission by Arden Academy & Mr Ved Goswami re: Arden Triangle site 9 Knowle
see attached documents

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I would like to object strongly to the proposed building of about 100 houses on the land off Sharmans Cross Road.

As an Olympian, I am distressed to see more sports areas being turned over for housing. In my opinion, and backed up by Sport England, we need more facilities in the Borough, not less. I understand there is already a shortage of pitches around the Solihull area. I believe any sporting pitches/facilities which are turned to other use must be replaced.

I am also concerned about the inadequate local facilities in the area with reference to schools and medical care. Not too long ago, a school in Sharmans Cross Road was closed down and houses built on that site. If additional housing was built on the proposed site, there would be even more children in the region, and Schools in the area are already full. Likewise , the medical surgeries are also full. This would lead to a drop in the standards in these amenities. For instance, larger classes in Schools and longer waiting times at surgeries.

Finally the extra traffic in the area would aggravate the flow on an already busy road and cause more danger to the children walking to Sharmans Cross School.

LDP - DEVELOPMENT OF RUGBY GROUND/SHARMANS CROSS ROAD (Proposed Housing Allocation 18)
LDP - RUGBY GROUND/SHARMANS CROSS ROAD/HOUSING ALLOCATION 18

I would like to oppose the above proposed development on the following grounds:-

1. POW GROVE: I am particularly concerned that the mixed broad leaf wood (SINC) known as Pow Grove (Grid Ref. SP136795) and owned by SMBC should be protected from any possible erosion that a housing development threatens. There is also a right of way from Welcombe Grove through the wood and I am concerned about how this would be managed?

2. LOSS OF PITCHES: As the LDP also identifies other sites in central Solihull for possible development the need for pitches for the increased population should be a consideration.

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I am writing to register my objection to the proposed development of 100 houses on the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road as part of the Local Development Plan.
There are a number of reasons why I feel this proposed development is inappropriate and list the main ones below -

- the loss of valuable sports ground at a time when participation in team sports and physical activity are are important for health and wellbeing
- loss of a green space including mature trees enjoyed by local residents
- inadequate facilities such as schools and doctor surgeries
- existing traffic density in Sharmans Cross Road and adjoining roads is very high already - this development would only make it worse
- Flooding is a problem in Sharmans Cross Road - this proposed development would only make it worse
- my understanding is that Solihull Council own the freehold and designated it for use as a sport ground and therefore it should not be use for housing

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I am writing to express my multiple concerns in relation to the proposed housing development on Sharmans Cross Road. As a home owner of 42 Winterbourne Road, we back onto the site. My objections are as follow:-

1) Local Amenities - As a mother of 2 young children (aged 11 & 10), I am concerned about the lack of amenities to service an increased community/population as a result of 100 houses being built i.e. school & college places, doctor, hospitals etc.

2) Flooding -We already experience issues with flooding on Sharmans Cross Road and in the gardens running along Beaminster Road. The drainage systems are not equipped to cope with additional usage from an additional 100 families.

3) Additional traffic and issues with parking - I am concerned from a safety perspective (my children walking to school) and also the increase congestion and gridlock in the morning and evening.

4) Sporting Facilities - I understand the Rugby pitch has a stipulation which requires the site to be used for sporting purpose. I also understand that there have been multiple enquiries to lease holders to use the site for sport e.g. football training. The holders either do not take the enquiries, or price the site unrealistically, so as to avoid the use. This really seems to be an underhanded approach by the holders. I understand with this stipulation that these grounds are inappropriate for inclusion in the LDP.
My son plays for Solihull Moors (under 10's) and my concern is that grounds for sport will disappear with these plans for building. We really need to invest in our youth to ensure a healthy lifestyle. Taking away facilities does not support this philosophy.

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.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I reside at 59 Sharmans Cross Road and write to express my objections to this proposal.

Suitability - the proposal will result in the overdevelopment of this site, destroying the character of the neighbourhood. The proposed density well exceeds that of existing properties in the area, in the case of Winterbourne Road by five times.

Increased traffic and pollution - there already exists an issue with traffic volumes in the area and these affect all roads around the proposed site; the development can only add to the volume and exacerbate the existing issue.
The increased traffic will be a danger to pedestrians and to cyclists; this is a designated cycling route.
Pollution from traffic is a recognised negative on the health of everyone and increased traffic will further add to the pollution of the area.

Parking - Sharmans Cross Road is a bus route and in general a busy road. When it is drop off or pick up time at the school or their is any kind of extra curricular activity parking is heavy. Sports fixtures have the same affect. The completion of this proposal will exacerbate the parking issue.

Flooding - this is already a problem and can only worsen if the site is built upon.

Permanent loss of a sports facility- at a time when obesity is a national concern and there is a need for all to be more active, the loss of this sports pitch facility is unacceptable. Solihull is in the 3rd quartile nationally for participation in sport by those over 16.

Design and appearance - this area is a known habitat for birds, badgers and bats; disturbing the habitat will be detrimental, as will the destruction of mature trees, some of which have preservation orders. Trees assist with countering pollution and should not be removed.

Schools and medical centres - these are already oversubscribed in this location and additional residential properties will further, adversely affect the service to existing local residents.

Sustainability- the National Planning Policy Framework requires developments to have access to local amenities within 800 metres or a ten minute walk whereas this proposal would be 1700 meters from Solihull Town centre and 1000 meters from Solihull Station. The criteria is therefor not met.

Use of land - SMBC minuted in 2013 that their policy with regard to this land, which is the subject of a covenant, should be for the use of sport only and further that the freehold would not be sold. I am aware that one previous development application has been refused and a second withdrawn. I would like SMBC to reaffirm the policy stated in 2013 to be reaffirmed.

LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation . 18

I hereby object to the proposed building of 100 houses on rugby grounds on shamans cross road.
My objections are listed below in priority order:
1) Availability of over subscribed schooling for those 100 houses and for the local area. It is overly apparent that local amenities are being stretched by the invasive developments and burgeoning housing market of Solihull, to which there has been little effort to balance the necessary schooling which is so admired by other borough's. increased Any further development will add to this issue.
2) Traffic Volume increased.
The traffic during mornings and evenings is excessive (7:45 to 9:00 takes approx 10min to travel 0.5 miles) and with a development that has no other means of access other than an already overloaded shamans cross /danford lane / streets Brook Road will increase this leads to:
-increased accidents
-Increased Air and Noise pollution
-Danger to Cyclists

Further housing Dickens heath

Would like to raise our concerns about further housing proposals
1.Infra structure of roads ,drainage ,land etc will not be able to cope with further traffic, houses.
2.not enough shops doctors, schools solihull hospital not big enough a& e closing at times & not open to children.
3. What's happened to our green belt.?
4. Why can't you build where nobody is living i.e. blythe valley? Or is it if you build there council will not make as much profit as in our highly desirable area
4.DICKENS HEATH HAD VILLAGE STATUS what happens to that ? Do you care
5.where do you live ?
6.Where are our green spaces going to be . Our small back gardens is that it.?

I was very disappointed to discover there are plans to build new houses on Sharmans Cross Road.

The potential new builds will add to higher levels of pollution, due to an increase in traffic. If every household has two cars, this may result in 200+ extra vehicles (plus visitors). As a person who suffers from asthma, added road pollution is very worrying, not only for myself, but for local wildlife, too.

This also adds to another related concern of road safety. I currently cycle down Sharmans Cross road and the road can at times be quite perilous (especially as this road is a designated cycle route). I worry that with added properties of the scale being discussed, that the road will become very dangerous and render me unable to enjoyable and safely cycle down Sharmans Cross Road.

This point also affects school children at Sharmans Cross Junior School. Whilst this does not directly affect me, I worry that the school children's safety will be greatly jeopardised. Adding more properties (on the scale being discussed), will inevitably add to loss of school children's safety.

Finally, it is my understanding that, under law, developments must have access to local amenities within 800 meters. I gather the potential new site is 1,700 metres from the town centre and over 1,000 metres from the nearest train station, so technically plans to build on this site are unlawful.

I hope these points reach you well.

LDP- Proposed Housing Allocation 18

A development of 100 houses on the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road

I am writing with regard to the above planning proposal by Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC). I live close to the proposed site and know the area very well. I have lived in Solihull for almost 20 years and at my current address for almost 4 years. My son attends Solihull Arden Club once a week for squash lessons and has a paper round that covers the surrounding roads. I wish to object strongly to the development of these houses in this location.

Already, with the expansion of the Touchwood shopping centre and three large secondary schools in close proximity, the volume of traffic around this area is considerable. Long queues of traffic form along Streetsbrook Road and it can be extremely hazardous at the junction of Streetsbrook Road- Sharmans Cross Road -Dorchester Road - Stonor Park Road. Adding 100 additional houses will, without doubt, mean the addition of over 100 cars competing for road space in an already congested area. Traffic is particularly bad at the obvious peak rush hour times (8-9am/ 5-6:30pm) but is also congested at the end of the school day (3-4pm) and Saturdays, due to shoppers heading to Touchwood.
The increased traffic is also a danger to children making their way on foot to and from school and for many, like my son, making their way to the Arden Club.

Squeezing 100 houses into this site is out-of-scale with the surrounding roads and this overdevelopment will mean it is less likely for local residents to enjoy their outdoor space. People will be less likely to cycle around the area; I would be reluctant to allow my children to continue to cycle on the roads if traffic further increased.

I hope that my objection is considered by the Planning Department when this application is decided.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I was so disappointed to hear that such a proposal is even being considered at this time.

I travel daily on sharmans cross road and the traffic is regularly gridlocked in the morning, with parents bringing their children to school in sometimes dangerous circumstances. To add more traffic to this area is really quite ludicrous.

As a parent the availability of medical centre appointments for my children are often near impossible to secure, and they complain of over subscribement. I can't imagine how poor the service will become if numbers increase.

Such a development will no doubt destroy the character of our beautiful neighbourhood too. Loss of light and loss of privacy come hand in hand with these types of build.

And finally I understood that SMBCs policy in recent years was that the land was only for sport and that the freehold would not be sold. So surely such a proposal is inappropriate anyway?

I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail and that these development plans will be swiftly and appropriately discarded.

Dog kennel lane plans

I am writing in regards to the plan to build houses within the Dog Kennel lane Shirley area. I live on the Stratford road opposite the Audi garage. I am very concerned about the extra traffic etc this will have on Shirley. I drive to work each morning and it takes me at least 20minutes to get from one side of the Stratford road outside my properly to the other side due to excessive traffic. I think building these properties would have a negative effect on the Shirley area as it is very built up already.

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.

In relation to the above subject I am writing formally to object on a number of issues related to the Housing Development being proposed.
1. It is my understanding that this proposed development goes against SMBC planning policy where formal minutes in 2013 (supported by all political parties) clarify that in this case the land is used for sport only and SMBC would not sell the freehold or lift the covenant whereby the ground should only be used for sporting purposes. This implies the proposed housing development is totally inappropriate. So why is this development included in this LDP?
2. Such a planning development will generate the serious loss of sporting facilities, when there is already a shortage of pitches in Solihull. I believe SMBC has a statutory duty to ensure lost pitches are replaced with facilities of equivalent accessibility and quality.
3. The Oakmoor/Cerda proposal has indicated access from/to Sharman's Cross Road. The site is at least 1.7km from Solihull town centre and 1.0km from the station. This flies in the face of the National Planning Policy Framework where there is a requirement for such developments to have access to local amenities within 0.5km/10 minutes walk. On those grounds alone the proposal is not appropriate.
4. The Oakmoor/Cerda representation filed an application in 2016 for the whole of the Rugby Club/Solihull Arden Club site to be included in the LDP for Solihull. Yet SAC Directors and members are incensed about such a proposal as they knew nothing about it. I understand that the SAC Management have made it clear to SMBC they were not party to the application. This application therefore has no legal standing and should be refused on those grounds alone.
5. How can such a proposed development from SMBC include within it the land and established buildings of a successful private tennis/racquets club? It should not have been based on the assumption of the Oakmoor/Cerda "kite flying" plans going ahead. Such a proposal should not have been placed in the public domain as this has caused unnecessary distress and serious concern for both club members and neighbours. The proposal should be withdrawn by SMBC at this stage and not until the Solihull Arden Club management ever give it their formal approval.
6. Such a development is unrealistic as it would increase volumes of traffic (moving in/out of the site onto Sharman's Cross Road) on what is already a heavily congested road with local school traffic and general traffic to and from Solihull town centre at peak times. Consequently this would have a serious impact on highway safety, pedestrian safety (including unaccompanied children walking to/from surrounding schools) and cyclist safety on what is a designated cycle route.
7. The proposed development of 100 houses will effectively destroy the character of the whole neighbour of Sharmans Cross Road, Welcombe Grove and Winterbourne Road. The density of housing proposed looks to be at least 5 times the density of adjoining residences. This is a totally inappropriate over development and completely out of scale and character with the area - inevitably with such density level buildings will be more than 2 storeys high leading to overshadowing and a lack of privacy of existing properties.

see attached letter

see letter

see letter