see letter

additional letter submission

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

Objection to allocation 13

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

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

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

Shirley South site 13

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

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

Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I strongly object to the proposed development of 100 new houses on the rugby ground in Sharmans Cross Road.

Traffic congestion
Every working morning I already struggle to drive out of my own road due to the traffic at a standstill down Streetsbrook Road and the adjoining roads, including Sharmans Cross. Added traffic due to new homes would not only increase this gridlock and frustration, but add to the associated pollution and road pothole damage. I'm also concerned for pedestrian safety as my own daughter must cross these roads on her way to school, as do many other primary and secondary school children.

Deterioration of the character of Solihull
This high density housing plan is completely unsuitable and out of characher with the Solihull surroundings. Building 100 homes on a site of this size is up to 5 times as dense as current adjacent properties.
Loss of sports ground and use of its land
There are not enough sports grounds in the area for us to lose this one! Plus SMBC's own policy (minuted formally in 2013) is to use the grounds only for sport, and not to sell the freehold.
More parking issues
Driving down Sharmans Cross is already precarious at times, due to the volume of cars parked by the side of the road. More housing, and therefore traffic, will exacerbate these problems, as will the loss of parking spaces at the Arden Club.
Flooding
Sharman Cross road floods after heavy rainfall. Covering land close by with even more concrete can only make this worse.
Please do not allow this application to proceed.

Objection to Allocation 13

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

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

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

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

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I would like to make objections and observations re the Solihull LDP Proposed Housing Allocation 18 Sharmans Cross Road, Rugby Club Ground

Increased number of vehicles
Proposed 100 properties would have a great impact on the increased number of vehicles using Sharmans Cross Road - at all times, not just 7.30am/9 30 am and again
at the school finish times or peak evening travel times.

As the proposed access/exit onto Sharmans Cross Road , particularly when turning RIGHT towards Streetsbrook Road and again turning RIGHT
towards Solihull town centre will cause major traffic congestion. This traffic problem is already very noticeable at peak traffic times.

Parking
Many side roads around this development already has many cars parked all day, with many workers parking and walking into Solihull.
Some even get bikes out of the boot and ride off.

What additional no parking restrictions would be placed on Sharmans Cross Road to alleviate one way traffic at busy times
Red Double Lines would be the answer.

Would the Police or Traffic Wardens or PCSO's be patrolling to enforce this?

Additional Infrastructure Required
What additional infrastructure is planned by SEVERN TRENT for this increased volume of residential properties.

Flooding
Sharmans Cross Road already has flooding during heavy rain causing manholes to lift and sewerage to flow along paths opposite the existing entrance to old rugby club.
(walk my dog (whatever the weather) and have seen this on several occasions !!!!!)

During heavy rain, the drains outside Sharmans Cross School are unable to cope with flood water volume and the road is completely under water

Permanent Loss of Sporting Facilities
Has Sport England agreed or been informed of this change of use.

Required - Additional Education Places and local access to Medical Facilities
Sharmans Cross Junior School/ Streetsbrook Infant School was deemed to be FULL and unable to take any further pupils either on the waiting list or start school
When my grandson returned from abroad March 2016 Solihull Education Department informed us Jack would have to seek a school placement OUTSIDE SOLIHULL
We live within walking distance of both these school.

100 residential properties - 50 suggested to be affordable housing - what additional local school places are planned locally for this development
Affordable housing (to me) suggests younger families requiring education and additional medical facilities.

I await with interest the outcome of Solihull PDP Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Please note my objection to the proposed development of 100 new houses in Sharmans Cross Road


Parking is already very disruptive in Sharman's Cross Road - this proposed development will affect safety and congestion.

We have too few sporting facilities already this will lead to a further loss. Sprite England have noted Solihull's very poor position in the rankings.

Traffic in that area is already gridlocked at certain times of the day with resultant high pollution. This will have a detrimental effect on highway safety and a real danger to pedestrians.

The density of the proposed development will destroy the character of the neighbourhood leading to a loss of light and privacy

Flooding is already a real issue for Sharman's Cross road. Clearly the development will make this worse.

We need to protect the many mature trees with Tree Preservation Orders.

Our schools and medical centres are already over subscribed and this will lead to reduced service for existing residents.


Listen to your residents and do not allow this application to proceed.

Solihull Housing Plan for Balsall Common

To contemplate building 1350 houses in Balsall Common beggars belief .The impact on the Village of what could be 4000 extra residents and 2700 cars is just so ridiculous that if someone had said it' s April 1st ,you could understand the joke.
The Roads and Lanes around the Village are so noticeably busier over the last 2 years as some small sites have been built(These 200 or so houses) and residents are bracing themselves for the impact of the two current builds on the Kenilworth Rd by Kelsey Lane . These 2 Sites pale into insignificance on their impact on the village
when the Borough are talking about not 200 house but 1350.!!
Everyone you speak to at mtgs like Councillors ,employees at the Council are saying quietly 'don't quote me but i agree it is ridiculous to think the Village of Balsall Common can absorb numbers on this scale.'
They even utter observations that 'it would not be allowed to proceed even to this stage in Knowle of heaven forbid Dorridge where the MP lives.'
If Housing has to be found but not on the scale of 1350, there are other areas on the outskirts of the Village eg Oak Farm area where housing could be sited ,still on bus routes etc.

To declare my interest ,i live on Meeting House Lane .It is a LANE with no pavements on the bottom half so for any body to seriously consider building homes in this vicinity which will result in Meeting House lane becoming a thoroughfare to and from the Village is either choosing to shut their eyes to the known impact or someone that is deliberately not considering the impact on existing residents and road /lane capacities.
In all my life and i am 69 ,i have never read about such a ridiculous idea to build 1350 homes in Balsall Common .The village has grown enormously over the last 10 ten years and is starting to show signs of maximum capacity .As i said earlier with the current developments on the Kenilworth Rd ,we are bracing ourselves to the detrimental impact this will have on the Village environs. BUT no-one is listening or choosing not to listen.What are the chances of anyone listening to the impact of a further 1350 ,sadly very little . I hope my faith in human nature will be restored and some common sense will come to the fore by the Planners.

Thank you and please take this letter and its points seriously in your considerations.

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

To whom it concerns:

I recently attended a meeting of the Sharmans Cross Action Group and was amazed to learn
that developers are again applying for planning permission to build 100 new homes on the
land formerly used by the Bees rugby club just off Sharmans Cross road.

I should like to object to this application on several grounds, firstly I was under the impression
that this land is covenanted in that it should only be used for sporting purposes; I was therefore
very surprised that developers had acquired the land. If as I understand that SMBC are the
leaseholders of this land why are they even contemplating such a venture. Since the developers
first acquired the land they have been approached several times by local football groups wanting
to rent a pitch on this land. The developers have requested an astronomical fee for such useage
therefore denying the use of the land for sporting purposes. It would seem their plan is to say that
since they acquired the land that it has not been used for sporting purposes, that is because they
have out-priced all the local clubs which seems very underhand to me.

I think that Solihull needs this land to be used for sporting purposes as there is a shortage of
pitches in Solihull. Sport England has found that Solihull is very much under represented nationally
for over-16 participation and continues to fall in the national league tables.

The area around Sharmans Cross road is already very heavily congested and the addition of
100 new homes would be a tremendous burden in view of the extra traffic this would involve. There
is a junior school near to the proposed development and this would be an added safety problem
during going to and from school for the pupils and their parents. This road is also a designated cycle
route and therefore cyclists would be more at risk with the extra traffic

Schools and medical centres in this area are already over-subscribed and the increase in further
demand would lead to a degradation of services for local residents. Furthermore the proposed
development is 1700 metres from Solihull town centre and 1000 metres from the railway station
which is in excess of the access requirements as out-lined by the National Planning Policy
Framework.

I submit this e-mail in the hope that my objections will be noted.

LPD Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I wish to place on record my objection to the proposed redevelopment of the Rugby Ground on Sharman's Cross Road. My reasons are:

1. The loss of a leisure amenity at a time of when facilities of this kind are in decline. It would be lost forever. The greater the population with more leisure time, the greater the need.
2. Increased traffic on the road which serves a nearby Junior School. The junction with Streetsbrook Road is highly dangerous with current usage.
3. The proposal ignores the pressure placed on the intake at the school which would need to expand losing some of the play areas.

I therefore do not thing this is a good idea.

LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation18

I write to express my objection to the proposed housing development on the rugby ground at Sharmans Cross Road for the following reasons.

The area currently bounding this proposal is regarded as being of a very high standard both for the spaciousness around all the dwellings and the abundance of trees many of which have TPO's instigated by this Council to protect for the future .

It is utterly hypocritical therefore to encourage crushing new houses into tightly packed areas and in so doing create a lifeless oasis which with the loss of trees and habitats of our fauna will ruin the overall area completely..

The other serious aspect must be the effect on traffic volumes and with it increased safety risks for all roads adjacent and especially to the junior school in Sharmans Cross.
Access and egress from this development will create additional traffic chaos especially at rush hour and during school times.

Building on this green field site should not be allowed.

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I object to the proposed development of 100 new houses in Sharmans Cross Road.

There are already too few sporting facilities so this will result in further loss. Sport England indicated Solihull is very poor position in the rankings.

Traffic and parking are already huge problems at certain times in Sharman's Cross Road - this proposed development will make it worse impacting safety and causing even more congestion.

The character of the neighbourhood will be deteriorated leading to a loss of light and privacy. Trees under TPOs must be protected.

Flooding is a problem - Clearly the development will make this worse.

Please do not allow this application to proceed.

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I have strong objections to the proposed development of 100 new houses in Sharmans Cross Road.

Solihull's neighbourhood character will be adversely impacted resulting in a loss of light and privacy. Trees under TPOs must be protected.

Flooding in the road is already an issue - the development will simply make this worse.

We need more sporting facilities, not less, do not let this development result in further loss. Sport England indicated Solihull is very poor position in the rankings.

It is already dangerous for pedestrians at times in Sharman's Cross Road - traffic and parking causing chaos - this proposed development will make it even more dangerous.


This application must not proceed.

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I wish to register my opposition to the inclusion in your Local Development Plan (LDP) of a proposed development of 100 houses on the rugby ground located off Sharmans Cross Road.

As a local Solihull resident, I believe this development would be inappropriate for the following reasons:

1. Unsuitability. The scale and density of the proposed development are wholly inappropriate for this neighbourhood of mature, single dwelling family homes and will most certainly negatively impact residents through an unacceptable increase in:

a) noise, traffic and pollution in already busy local residential streets resulting in increased danger to pedestrians, cyclists and road users alike.
b) parking chaos as a result of insufficient provisioning and compounded by demand from members of Solihull Arden Club and local schools pickup and dropoff and sporting fixtures.
c) overlooking and lack of privacy for existing residents.

All of the above factors will have a direct and negative impact on quality of life, safety and well-being of local residents as well as users of the existing sporting facilities. Additionally, I do not believe local amenities would adequately support this size of development.

2. Use of land. As a taxpayer and long-term resident, I find it objectionable that Solihull Council would renege on promises that the rugby ground would continue to be designated for sporting use only and that the freehold would not be sold. Solihull residents need sporting facilities and the current leaseholder, Oakmoor, has acted reprehensively in not allowing local area sports teams to access the sporting ground. I believe the Council would not be acting in the best interests of the residents in allowing a development of this scale on this particular site leading to a permanent loss of sporting facilities.

3. Flooding. I believe there are already issues with flooding on Sharman Cross Road and a large development of 100 houses will surely worsen this problem for adjacent properties.

In conclusion, I wish to be kept apprised of any further discussions/meetings regarding this application in order to be given the opportunity to reiterate my opposition to it progressing through the planning stages.

Solihull Draft Local Plan - Arden Triangle

I would like to respond to the proposals for the Arden Triangle site.

I have lived at Barn End, 98 Grove Road, B93 0PL for the last 30 years. My home is a grade two listed and converted field barn, circa 1680, and is currently approximately ¼ mile from the nearest property. It is tiny, one bedroom, and positioned just a few feet from Grove Road and it originally served the surrounding fields as a milking parlour and dairy with hayloft above. The conversion was sympathetically carried out by myself, and given a SMBC design award in 1990. The surrounding fields in our ownership, approximately 4 acres, have been preserved and enhanced, ie the original wildflower meadow has been retained, the hedges laid and maintained, the central ditch cleared, and trees, now maturing, planted on the boundary with Norton Green Lane, thanks to a Council tree grant.

The land is a through route for wildlife, from the land to the west of Barn End, down to the corner opposite Rotten Row Farm, from there, over Grove Road to the fields of Landsdowne Farm, Cuttle Brook, and probably as far Station Road. There is plenty of evidence, and I have seen badgers, foxes, muntjac, roe (I think!) deer, barn, tawny and little owls, bats, nesting buzzards and grass snakes, to name a few.

The Arden Triangle stretches from residential in the north to decidedly rural in the south, it is wrong to consider the whole parcel as one lot, the extremes of the site should be considered differently. In my view the southern extremity is far too remote from Knowle village and should be retained as farmland. Coming from Warwick on the A4141 the Landsdowne fields open up to view at the Rotten Row corner, the planting on the road verge is sparse in winter, so the land, rising up to the north, is clearly visible, and if built on, will present an unpleasant inclined plain mounded with houses on the approach to Knowle.

The rural nature of Grove Road will also be lost. Grove Road and Barn End are much lower than the Landsdowne fields, the barn is only 1 1/2 storeys, so 2 storey (or even 3?)dwellings, will tower above, and destroy its historic setting.

Only recently have I learned about the Mind site off Station Road, Knowle. This is an extremely valuable resource which serves many in the Solihull area. They have very much kept themselves to themselves over the 20 - 25 years they have been there, so their presence is not widely known, but it would be disastrous if the site was lost in the redevelopment of the school. As well as the benefits to the service users, it is also of benefit to the environment, and surely, with the increase in population across the borough, it's services will be in even more demand. It is a gem that should be retained, the Council who I believe own the site, would be seen in a very poor light if it was lost.

What is the justification for building 750 houses? Is it to warrant the rebuilding of the school? The number of houses proposed has risen over the months, I don't feel that Knowle residents should be made to pay, in the loss of their existing way of life, for the construction of a brand new school. It's too high a price to pay, there must be a more modest way of updating the school to bring it to what they feel they need. Your proposals state 50% affordable housing, I feel this is too high a percentage for a rural location and don't understand how this proportion has been arrived at. If that is the percentage required, you have the wrong location! The density for the site is quoted as 16 dwellings/ha, whereas other sites are 36 dwellings/ha. How has this been calculated, has the school and Mind site, together with the open areas around the lake and brook been included in the area for calculation, thereby making the figure look better than it actually is? If so, the density does not reflect the existing properties in the surrounding area, and the development will look incongruous.

Enough has been said about the impact on the local infrastructure, but is the capacity of the sewage treatment facility in Norton Green Lane capable of servicing another possible 1000 homes? The additional houses on the Middlefield site will be connected soon, and there is already impact in the vicinity from emissions, which can be quite offensive if there's a south easterly, have existing pollution levels been measured, how will this be addressed in the future?

I realise that new houses are urgently required, but Knowle is being asked to take a disproportionately large quota, which will completely destroy the character of our village and it's rural surroundings, I respectfully ask you to reconsider the number of houses proposed, and thereby the impact on our community.

proposed housing allocation 18.

I am writing to express my concerns and dismay regarding the proposed development of 100 houses on Sharmans Cross Road.

I am concerned that these new houses will be out of character for the area and I understand that 100 houses is effectively five times the density of houses currently present in this area. There will be an increased amount of traffic and I am particularly concerned regarding danger to cyclists and pedestrians, especially given the fact that there is a Junior school on Sharmans Cross Road. With more houses comes more cars and the need for parking in an already congested area especially near the school - we already feel the effects of this on our road - which is several roads away. With more houses also comes more people, which will put pressure on already oversubscribed schools and medical facilities. My son currently attends Streetsbrook nursery and although it is our catchment school, we have concerns he will not get into reception and can imagine this situation will only worsen if this development proceeds.

Finally I will be very disappointed if SMBC reneges on its 2013 policy with regard to the use of the grounds only for sport and in which it was stated that they would not sell the freehold. I feel that this policy should be reaffirmed which would therefore imply that this development is inappropriate for inclusion in the LDP.

Proposed Housing Application 18

I am writing in connection with the proposed development plan on the Sharmans Cross Site which I believe will have an adverse and serious affect on the area in which I,my family and others happily live. (my family residence is 37, Arley Rd , Solihull, B91 1NJ).
I have sought information about the proposals for this area whichI understand includes the provision of a large number of private dwellings (100 approx has been mentioned).
My deep concerns are set in the context of my personal background which is as follows:-

a) I and my family have resided in the Borough since 1981 so I am very familiar with all areas of Solihull and the growth of the Borough in that time. I understand that development is necessary for progress - but not where, as here, it is to the detriment of the whole.

b) I, and my family, have also obviously grown up in the Borough and used all its facilities over that 35 yrs period and are acutely aware of the need to provide sporting areas within any residential area as well as green open spaces, which we currently enjoy on this site. My 3 children were (and still are)all keen sportsmen (as am I) and we have all used the sporting facilities available here over the years in one capacity or another.

c) I have been a practising lawyer since 1979 and my eldest son likewise(since 2010) and I am not naive enough to not appreciate the pressures currently placed on local Councils to find and provide additional and affordable housing.
BUT I wish to raise a number of objections to this development as below:-

1) Only today am I reminded of the huge traffic problems already affecting this area of the Borough particularly on the Streetsbrook Rd and Blossomfield Rd approaches to the town centre (and associated roads) as I have tried to carry out a short journey involving a navigation of the town centre and its envirens. The queues are incessant (even on a weekday) and to, (at a stroke), add another 200 cars approximately as a minimum in that same area would be madness and detrimental to all those using the roads and other facilities/services in the area.

i) There are a number of local schools and colleges already well established in this area with a large number concentrated in Blossomfield Rd and Sharmans Cross Rd.

ii) There are already well established cycle routes likewise in the same area the users of which would be adverselty affected.

iii) Large numbers of pedestrians use these amenities in addition to the nearby very popular Touchwood Shopping Centre (currently being further expanded).
Not only would all these parties be adversely affected but the assocoiated increased pollution levels would be of further detriment to the appeal of the area and to the use of the area by residents and visitors alike.

2) The current sporting facilities in the Borough are at a premium and under constant threat of being lost. This must not be underestimated as once lost they are "forever lost". There is a large demand for such facilities in Solihull and to my knowledge these are not currently being met by the Council.
Here there are currently unused facilities. I have made enquiry and this reveals that applications to use the football/rugby pitch facilities have been rejected/blocked by the present owner of the land which is quite frankly obscene when this is clearly being done, not for the good of the Borough and its residents, but to satisfy the personal financial ambitions of the developer, by thwarting any Sport England involvement, influence or effect.

I feel very strongly about this as Sport England's very existence in this country, and their remit, was to prevent just this sort of abuse and reduction of our sporting facilities taking place and I would not like to think that the democratically elected members of my local council, there to protect the interests of the Borough and its residents in the broadest sense, are, or could be, in any way complicit in this.
A permanent loss of such an important sporting facility particularly in such an otherwise well populated residential area would be a serious "assault" upon, and yet further diminution of, an already insufficient amenity within the Borough.

3) Solihull's current amenities and service provision for its residents is under pressure (I refer to the pressure on medical centres and schools) due to its popularity as a place to live. A further introduction of so many additional users on one site would be unsustainable.

4) The development would be "out of kilter" with the present design and appearance of the area in that the present housing is well established in a well vegetated, tree orientated area with low density housing and open spaces. This development would be too intensive and unnecessary in that context.

5) I have, finally, serious personal concerns over the drainage in the area and the consequential risk of flooding. This could affect my own residence as well as others nearby.
The soil is of a very high clay content and doesn't drain well. I have just had some work undertaken in my rear garden and was advised that due to the area being particularly low and having a high water retention, I should have additional land drains put in which I have.
This is without taking into account the huge concrete content of new buildings which would clearly only exacerbate this problem being only a few hundred yards away "as the crow flies".
I would be grateful for acknowledgement of my representations and objections and in the light of my serious concerns please keep me advised as to developments in connection with this LDP and any applications in respect thereof.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Dear Sir I am writing to lodge my objection to proposed SMBC development of 100 houses on Sharmans Cross road . I and my family feel to build on that site would change the area that we have lived in for over twenty years .It would bring with it yet more congestion with traffic on an already busy road and around the local area . Our home is now in a quiet area yet close to solihull amenities but schools are already over subscribed , doctors and hospitals already stretched to the limit .We as a family are totally against this development and strongly object to this application as the road often floods during bad weather and to build would only create more problems . We await news on planning application with great concern .

Ref: LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
(100 houses on rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road)
* * I was dismayed to see no mention in the plan of the Tree Preservation Order No 174 (dated 1989) on the hatched area of the plan. We have many woodland birds in the area such as green woodpeckers and jays as well as bats. As bats are protected by law I would suggest that a bat survey should be carried out to ensure their habitat is not adversely affected.
* * In their application the developers (Oak moor) have sought to suggest that the rugby club ground is not being used. Young football players in the area are being denied the use of these pitches because Oakmoor refuses to speak to interested parties. I can only assume that this is a ploy to make out that there is no call for pitches in the area when this is clearly not the case. Provision for sports pitches and changing facilities in Solihull is already poor compared to other parts of the country. By building more houses there will be an even greater need for these facilities in the future.
* * I am concerned that access via the Sharmans Cross site is already congested especially at times when Sharmans Cross Junior School pupils are arriving and departing. Any further traffic would just add to the danger for pupils at the school.
* * Parking is already an issue at previously mentioned school times and the density of housing proposed on the site would increase this problem as most households have at least one car. This would be compounded by the loss of parking spaces for the Arden Tennis Club.
* * The plans do not make clear the height of the proposed development. I would have concerns about privacy if the height was greater than the height of the surrounding houses. This would clearly be inappropriate and unsuitable.

The National Policy Framework states that "sustainable development means change for the better" and that decisions should "plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (it names Sports Venues) and other local services are able to develop and modernise in a way that is sustainable and retained for the benefit of the community" If the tennis club were to move as proposed by Oakmoor from freehold to leasehold land then they would not be able to raise the money for any future developments. This is clearly in contravention of the National Policy Framework.
In my opinion the whole site is better suited to providing much needed football and rugby pitches with proper changing facilities and parking to meet the needs of the area as well as keeping the existing Arden Tennis Club in its current position. This is in line with the National Policy Framework which states that "Local planning authorities should..take account of the needs of the local population(such as for sport)".

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation18
There is a lot of concern about this proposal by residents living in the area. My particular concerns are as follows:-
I gather that the developers are hoping to have an additional access to the new estate from Winterbourne Road. This I consider to be undesirable because it would cause increased traffic along Beaminster Road and Winterbourne Road. Both of these roads are quite narrow and unsuitable for construction vehicles. When the development is finished, a lot more private vehicles would use these roads for going to and from Solihull. Because of the narrow widths of the roads, parked vehicles on them will prevent simultaneous two-way traffic and may result in traffic accidents. In addition, resident's cars which are emerging from drives present a further hazard. These roads are not designed for through traffic.
Another concern I have is that that the main drainage system may not cope with the extra load. Some years ago, an expensive pumping station was installed at the Beaminster Road/Dorchester Road junction to prevent houses in Arley Road becoming flooded with sewage. Extra loading on the existing drainage system may have some undesirable consequences that could take years to sort out.

Building on the green belt in Shirley

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

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

LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation 18

With this email, my wife and I would formally like to OBJECT to the proposed development of housing on the Rugby Field. Our objection is based on th following grounds

1, Safety and Highways. With the already congested roads, especially around Sharmanas cross junior school, this development will only worsen the traffic issue we face each morning and with young children crossing the roads, we see a potential of a serious incident
2, Rugby in the heart of solihull is essential to the sporting aspirations of many children who live here. We should not loose this facility 3, Whilst we understand the need for affordable housing, this area is a premium location. Any such housing will only be sold very quickly to private landlords so this will not in the long term benefit the people it is intended to.
4, planning should instead be granted for affordable housing nearer to bickenhill. This area would be more appropriate.

Objections and Comments on Allocation 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

Received 17th feb


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

Allocation 13

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

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I live at 77 Sharmans Cross Road and i am writing to object to the inclusion of the former rugby club playing fields in the SMBC Local Development Plan at allocation 18. I have objected to development on this site twice previously in 2009. i set out my objections below and add that the current proposal is for a greater number of dwellings than the proposals which were refused planning permission in 2009.

My objections are as follows:

Loss of playing fields - prior to Oakmoor taking over the land my sons were able to play rugby on the grounds on Sundays. During the time Oakmoor has owned the site they have prevented sports teams for using the playing fields by seeking to charge rent that is vastly higher than amateur clubs can afford. There are though clubs that would like to play there and this would be in line with the covenant that exists in the freehold/leasehold of the land. i do not understand why the council has not enforced this requirement. It is simply not acceptable that when there is a shortage of pitches in the borough, the LDP includes a proposal that reduces availability further. The longer term health of children in the borough should be a much higher priority than cramming in houses with no amenity space.

Density of development - the proposed density of development is far greater than the rest of the local area. It was i think 87 houses last time planning consent was refused and now the proposal is to build 100 houses. At this density it is highly likely that the properties will be three storeys and this will mean there is a loss of light and privacy to nearby residents. The proposed development will change the character of the area and is highly likely to destroy mature trees and wildlife habitat.

Having lived here for nearly 20 years i have seen an increase in traffic volume such that in the morning between 8 and 9 am cars are queuing along Sharmans Cross Road to get onto Streetsbrook Road. My house is half way along Sharmans Cross Road and cars are often queuing back this far. it would simply be impossible to envisage how an additional 100 cars from the proposed development could be accommodated. They will be trying to turn right to join the traffic queue and this is going to lead to greater congestion, to accidents and potential fatalities given that a lot of Sharmans Cross Junior School pupils walk, bike and use their scooters on the pavement to get to school each morning. This is also a cycle route so any any time of day there will be increased danger to cyclists. And the pollution will no doubt increase considerably.

i do not understand why Arden club would put its name to plans which rob it of its freehold and reduce parking spaces for club members. Whilst i can see that is matter for them, i do consider it a significant problem for local residents from an increase in on street parking due to the reduction in on site parking for the club. This increase in on street parking will be dangerous for children, cyclists and for residents who are trying to get out of their drives onto Shamans Cross road. it is already a problem at the end of the school day and during football matches, but this development will make it much less safe. i have seen buses come face to face with cars coming the other way because on street parking has reduced Sharmans Cross Road to one lane. Cars also block the pavements, particularly near the terraced houses near the club entrance and when the wheelie bins have been emptied it is like an obstacle course walking to the station. It will get much worse with over 100 new properties.

We already suffer from flooding near to Sharmans Cross Junior School during heavy rainfall and we have had local blockages to the sewers which Severn Trent have had to unblock. The sewage and drainage infrastructure on this road will not be able to cope with an additional 100 or even 50 dwellings.

i believe that there are not sufficient local school places or vacancies in GP surgeries to accommodate additional residents to this extent. This can only result in a degradation of services to existing local residents.

i recall reading that Solihull was one of the best places to live in England and that this was due to local amenities and the character of the town. This development will destroy that character and will be the thin end of the wedge for apartment buildings and other out of character housing in this locality.

So in summary i object to the inclusion of allocation 18 in the LDF. it is profiteering by a company that has had no regard to access to local amenity land for the past 7 plus years. SMBC should put a stop to this and enforce the use of the land for community sporting activity. SMBC should not include a development in the LDF that undermines the covenant on the land.