Proposed development of 100 houses on Sharmans Cross Road

I am writing to express my objection to the proposed development of new houses. My primary concerns are

1) The inevitable increase in traffic - The area is already gridlocked in the weekday mornings and this will cause a further increase in traffic. I've also seen a number of accidents on the junction with Streetsbook Road and this will pose a further risk. How do you propose to deal with this?
2) The availability of medical help - At Northbrook Group Practice, I have to book an appointment three weeks in advance and the increase in population will lead to further contention. How do you propose to alleviate this?

Proposed development of new houses on Sharmans Cross Road

I am writing to express my objection to the proposed development of new houses on Sharmans Cross Road. My primary concerns are

1) Schools - My son attends Oak Cottage school which in a lovely small school and there will be an increased demand on the school which will lead to changing the character of school. Also, it will be more difficult for my son to get into a local secondary school.
2) Increased traffic - The junction of Sharmans Cross Road and Streetsbrook Road is gridlocked in the mornings and this will cause a further increase in traffic. It will make it more dangerous to pedestrians.
3) Increased wait for doctors appointments - At Northbrook Group Practice, my husband recently had to book an appointment three weeks in advance. The increase in population will lead to further contention and lead to an increased waiting time.

Objection to LDP -Proposed Housing Allocation 18

In regards to the inclusion of the former Sharman's Cross Road rugby grounds into the Solihull long term development plan for housing development I have four main objections:-

1) Use of the ground for sporting and recreational purposes
The former site of the Birmingham and Solihull rugby pitches were and still should be an intrinsic part of sports activities in Solihull. Before the Rugby club moved over to their current site at Portway, both my sons played mini and junior rugby on the pitches and along with the club house became both a sporting and social centre. It was accessible to all, and being relatively close to the centre of Solihull, both players and supporters related to it as being part of Solihull. It was Solihull's Rugby Club. With the shortage of both pitches, for both Rugby and Football, it is essential that it should be reverted back to its original purpose, encouraging active sport to both young and old, close to the heart of Solihull. Many local football clubs are really desperate for more pitches to bring on their junior teams and would only be too grateful to maintain and develop the site. I think it has been disgraceful that such a much wanted amenity has been denied to the local sport community for too long and that the local council have not stood up and allowed then to use it. Let's hear the sound of supporters cheering on their local sides every Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning.

2) Local traffic infrastructure
Solihull's road infrastructure is already approaching gridlock around the town centre every morning and afternoon. The junction and Sharman's Cross Road and Streetsbrook Road comes to a standstill every morning and increasing every evening. The junction is not capable of accommodating a further 100 to 200 vehicles every morning between 7:30 and 9:00. Converting the junction to a roundabout will not improve the situation, as the problem occurs further down Streetsbrook Road, at the traffic lights close the Fire Station. Not only will it cause increased delays to local buses, which need promoting for environmental reasons, it will also cause delays to the emergency services, police ambulance and fire service with dire consequences. At present the queues on Sharman's Cross Road are approaching Sharman's Cross Junior School every the morning and any increase will have severe effects on the safety of children attending the school. Also am very concerned about the increased pollution levels exposed to the children walking to school from all those idling cars. By the way most of these cars are local and have driven less than one mile; and this is when they are most polluting as they are warming up and before 'stop start' systems have started operating.

3) Road Safety
Sharman's Cross Road in a main arterial pedestrian and cyclist route into the centre of Solihull from the west of the town and as such the pavement on the southern side of the road has been designated a cycleway. The footpath is also a major route for children attending Sharman's Cross Junior School. Across this pavement will now be a further 100 - 200 vehicles travelling every morning. Unfortunately this will be an accident waiting to happen, in which a young child is going to be seriously injured or killed. As a resident on the south side of Sharman's Cross Road I know you have to be extremely careful and constantly on the lookout for children running, on scooters and bicycles, using the pavement, who do not expect cars coming out of their drives.

4) Community Infrastructure
Any new development should be attracting young families with children, which need adequate local schools and doctors surgeries. In terms of local infant schools, Oak Cottage, Streetsbrook and Blossomfield are already full to capacity with no further space for development. I know this as I was a parent governor for two of the schools. The schools are also outside walking distance for young children so this means more traffic on the local roads during the school rush hour; causing even more congestion. So what will happen to these children? Is a new infant school part of this development? There are also no local GP surgeries, with the nearest over a mile away. This means increased parking will be required at these surgeries and more GP's and associated nursing staff.

Therefore this proposed development will remove a much needed amenity for the local community and the whole of Solihull, increase the amount of traffic in an already congested area, have significant safety concerns and inappropriate amenities for young families. As such it should be removed from the Local development Plan.

I am a Balsall Common resident Kelsey Lane.

I believe the Residents of Balsall common have already been subjected to a significant loss of our Greenery from the slow and drip like infill of the recent years. We are experiencing a significant increase in traffic from the general developments of the area more recently the Kenilworth road. My road, Kelsey lane used to have a very gentle rural flow of traffic and is now regularly at a complete gridlock. Both myself and husband are doctors who are required on-call to get to our hospitals within 25minutes for trauma cases - within the last 6months the traffic has increased so that on occasion we have been unable to exit our own driveway. The traffic flow this end of town particularly at rush hour times is not coping with the current flow. To increase this volume would be madness.

Furthermore:

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

My wife and I strongly object to your proposals for housing development in Knowle and support the contents and sentiments of the attached document prepared by KDBH Neigbourhood Forum

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to make my opinion known it that I agree with the response of the Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Health Neighbourhood Forum.

see email and KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

email and copy of KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

Letter of Objection to House building in Balsall Common

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:
"Do you believe we are planning to build 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?"
I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.
The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.
1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".
2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.
3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.
4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.
5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".
6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties
7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.
8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.
9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.
10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."
In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:
1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport
2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then a holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots
3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2
4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged
6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

On a personal note any development on the site adjacent to the "Doctors Surgery" located on Hall meadow Lane / Riddings Hill will result in a significant decrease to the already low levels of light available in my North Facing property and would therefore have a detrimental impact on my families right to light and general well-being.
I refer you again to the previously mentioned point 3 which states:
3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.
Yours sincerely,

see attached letter

Objection to site 3 in Balsall Common (Windmill Lane)

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build 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?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative. Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

The reasons for my objection are below.

The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated. If Balsall Common must be subjected to yet more unwanted development, it seems ridiculous that greenbelt can be released when there are so many other brownfield sites available.

Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

Buses to and from the village are infrequent (1 an hour) and there is such heavy demand for the train service from Berkswell station that trains are often full to capacity. The inadequate parking at the train station results in neighbouring roads being used as car parks for the full day and over night having a negative impact on movement around the edge of the village.

Within Balsall Common itself, roads are often grid locked, particularly at rush hours and school run times or when a nearby major road has issues and traffic diverts through the village. Parking in the village is extremely limited and it is difficult to actually get to the amenities due to volume of traffic.

The addition of new housing on the Kenilworth Road has resulted in traffic jams and extra pressure on an already burdened infrastructure. To add to this on this side of the village seems absurd. The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to main employment centres.

The local primary school has already had to expand to take in more students and is already oversubscribed and bursting at its seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing.Traffic around the school is a huge danger to the young children. Cars park all the way down Alder Lane towards the traffic lights, down Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Gypsy Lane and throughout all of the housing estate near the school, resulting in cars being damaged and grid locked roads. There is often no crossing patrol and to cross the Kenilworth Road and Holly Road as an adult, you take your life into your own hands!

As site 3 is a considerable distance from the schools and amenities, there would undoubtedly be a huge increase in volume of traffic as it would be considered too far to walk.

Balsall Common is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run". The volume of traffic already using Windmill Lane as a cut through is high and the speed of this traffic is also already dangerous. Living where I do, each week, I witness near misses on this road and I have been concerned with the increase of large lorries now using it as a main access to and from the A452. Lorries coming in different directions often have to mount the verge or pavement to squeeze past each other, creating a huge danger to walkers, cyclists and other road users. The development of site 3 will increase this many fold.

Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

Since moving from Coventry, I have been appalled at the lack of provision and access to the NHS at our local doctors. To get an appointment within a week is virtually unheard of and getting care for my three children has been extremely difficult. The difference in accessibility to this care in comparison to Coventry has been eye opening. My parents were turned away from Balsall Common doctors when my one year old daughter became lifeless and drowsy as they were told there were no appointments and they would be taking up a valuable emergency appointment for someone else. It was suggested that they visited a walk in centre with her instead to alleviate pressure at her own doctors. On arrival at Coventry walk in centre, she was rushed to Walsgrave and then to Birmingham Children's Hospital where she underwent 3 major stomach operations and spent the next five weeks hospitalised. Her consultant explained that the delay could well have been fatal and they spent several hours stabilising her before she could be operated on. Whilst in hospital caring for her, my middle daughter got a chronic ear infection and my parents were again refused an appointment as there were none available. From my experience, this is not a doctors with capacity to expand as they are unable to treat the patients that they have got.

I live two fields away from the current development on the A452 and have been astounded by the constant noise from the construction. The vibrations from the pile drilling can be felt and heard in the house with the windows closed and I can only imagine what this noise would be like if it was right next door. The quality of life for my family through this proposed building period would be greatly damaged.

Since I moved here 4 years ago, I have had the pleasure of being able to show my children all kinds of different wildlife. The field is constantly used by a range of birds of prey, owls, herons, deers, a family of foxes, rabbits and bats along with many others that we haven't been privileged enough to see, I am sure. It is both disappointing and outrageous to hear that the developers are informing potential buyers that the conditions of planning to protect the Great Crested Newts on the current Kenilworth Rd development no longer need to be adhered to as they have made a financial arrangement with the Council. This makes a mockery of the planning process and laws surrounding protected species. The abundant wildlife in site 3 will be damaged under this proposal.

The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

Expanding Balsall Common this much will result in an increase in factors detrimental to our health and quality of life, with increased traffic, road noise and poorer air quality. The beauty of the village with its open countryside and fantastic greenbelt would be destroyed by these proposals.

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

Much of the appeal of living in Wellfield Close, is the open countryside views and feeling of space and tranquility that one gets at the edge of the village. Having the field next door was a huge attraction to us when we purchased the house and we were pleased to learn that it was protected greenbelt. I chose a house that wasn't overlooked or part of a housing estate to give ourselves and our three young children the best quality of life growing up. Building houses right next door would greatly affect our way of life. Our house is situated so close to the boundary hedgerow that the new houses would be in close proximity to us. Whilst I really hope that you remove site 3 from these current proposals, should the council choose to ignore the protection of greenbelt and the views/knowledge of the local community and go ahead with building work at site 3, then I hope that you would consider greatly reducing the impact of these buildings on our home and be open to discuss possible strategies that might alleviate our concerns.

Objection to site 3 in Balsall Common (Windmill Lane)

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build 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?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative. Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

The reasons for my objection are below.

The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated. If Balsall Common must be subjected to yet more unwanted development, it seems ridiculous that greenbelt can be released when there are so many other brownfield sites available.

Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

Buses to and from the village are infrequent (1 an hour) and there is such heavy demand for the train service from Berkswell station that trains are often full to capacity. The inadequate parking at the train station results in neighbouring roads being used as car parks for the full day and over night having a negative impact on movement around the edge of the village.

Within Balsall Common itself, roads are often grid locked, particularly at rush hours and school run times or when a nearby major road has issues and traffic diverts through the village. Parking in the village is extremely limited and it is difficult to actually get to the amenities due to volume of traffic.

The addition of new housing on the Kenilworth Road has resulted in traffic jams and extra pressure on an already burdened infrastructure. To add to this on this side of the village seems absurd. The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to main employment centres.

The local primary school has already had to expand to take in more students and is already oversubscribed and bursting at its seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing.Traffic around the school is a huge danger to the young children. Cars park all the way down Alder Lane towards the traffic lights, down Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Gypsy Lane and throughout all of the housing estate near the school, resulting in cars being damaged and grid locked roads. There is often no crossing patrol and to cross the Kenilworth Road and Holly Road as an adult, you take your life into your own hands!

As site 3 is a considerable distance from the schools and amenities, there would undoubtedly be a huge increase in volume of traffic as it would be considered too far to walk.

Balsall Common is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run". The volume of traffic already using Windmill Lane as a cut through is high and the speed of this traffic is also already dangerous. Living where I do, each week, I witness near misses on this road and I have been concerned with the increase of large lorries now using it as a main access to and from the A452. Lorries coming in different directions often have to mount the verge or pavement to squeeze past each other, creating a huge danger to walkers, cyclists and other road users. The development of site 3 will increase this many fold.

Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

Since moving from Coventry, I have been appalled at the lack of provision and access to the NHS at our local doctors. To get an appointment within a week is virtually unheard of and getting care for my three children has been extremely difficult. The difference in accessibility to this care in comparison to Coventry has been eye opening. My parents were turned away from Balsall Common doctors when my one year old daughter became lifeless and drowsy as they were told there were no appointments and they would be taking up a valuable emergency appointment for someone else. It was suggested that they visited a walk in centre with her instead to alleviate pressure at her own doctors. On arrival at Coventry walk in centre, she was rushed to Walsgrave and then to Birmingham Children's Hospital where she underwent 3 major stomach operations and spent the next five weeks hospitalised. Her consultant explained that the delay could well have been fatal and they spent several hours stabilising her before she could be operated on. Whilst in hospital caring for her, my middle daughter got a chronic ear infection and my parents were again refused an appointment as there were none available. From my experience, this is not a doctors with capacity to expand as they are unable to treat the patients that they have got.

I live two fields away from the current development on the A452 and have been astounded by the constant noise from the construction. The vibrations from the pile drilling can be felt and heard in the house with the windows closed and I can only imagine what this noise would be like if it was right next door. The quality of life for my family through this proposed building period would be greatly damaged.

Since I moved here 4 years ago, I have had the pleasure of being able to show my children all kinds of different wildlife. The field is constantly used by a range of birds of prey, owls, herons, deers, a family of foxes, rabbits and bats along with many others that we haven't been privileged enough to see, I am sure. It is both disappointing and outrageous to hear that the developers are informing potential buyers that the conditions of planning to protect the Great Crested Newts on the current Kenilworth Rd development no longer need to be adhered to as they have made a financial arrangement with the Council. This makes a mockery of the planning process and laws surrounding protected species. The abundant wildlife in site 3 will be damaged under this proposal.

The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

Expanding Balsall Common this much will result in an increase in factors detrimental to our health and quality of life, with increased traffic, road noise and poorer air quality. The beauty of the village with its open countryside and fantastic greenbelt would be destroyed by these proposals.

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

Much of the appeal of living in Wellfield Close, is the open countryside views and feeling of space and tranquility that one gets at the edge of the village. Having the field next door was a huge attraction to us when we purchased the house and we were pleased to learn that it was protected greenbelt. I chose a house that wasn't overlooked or part of a housing estate to give ourselves and our three young children the best quality of life growing up. Building houses right next door would greatly affect our way of life. Our house is situated so close to the boundary hedgerow that the new houses would be in close proximity to us. Whilst I really hope that you remove site 3 from these current proposals, should the council choose to ignore the protection of greenbelt and the views/knowledge of the local community and go ahead with building work at site 3, then I hope that you would consider greatly reducing the impact of these buildings on our home and be open to discuss possible strategies that might alleviate our concerns

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

Site 3

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build 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?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGEaction group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the"very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

Site 3

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build 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?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGEaction group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.


1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the"very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.


8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.


9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport


2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development


5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

Objection site 3, Kenilworth Rd / Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build 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?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located,with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

proposed Housing allocation 18

We wish to raise an objection to the housing development on the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road

There are several reasons on why the above proposal is a disaster for the local community

- 100 houses is overdevelopment in an area which will not provide sufficient basic amenities and will lead to over subscription of schooling, healthcare and recreational facilities. This is not sustainable in the long run.

- the loss of existing sporting grounds which will not be replaced. I was under the impression that there is a covenant on the land which only allows the use of the grounds for sport (formally minuted in 2013 by SMBC) How is it possible for this development to happen?

-There is also loss of greenery and habitat for wildlife such as bats and badgers. More houses leads to more pollution and a higher risk of flooding within the local area

- most importantly, the increase in traffic and lack of parking which will effect the local school and pre existing residents. This will also have a direct impact on the safety of pedestrians and cyclists


We understand the good intentions of the council to provide housing. However this development will have a negative impact on the local population as a whole and should therefore be halted

Thank you for your time.

see attached documents

see attached documents

see attached - site 12 land south Dog Kennel Lane

Allocation 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I am a doctor by profession and hereby want to draw ur urgent attention to this grave matter.

This development project has many potential detrimental effects in the locality as well as the community at large.

Most importantly, this is unacceptable overdevelopment of the site, and the buildings will be more than 2 stories leading to loss of light, loss of privacy and overshadowing.

It will result in
Increased traffic and associated pollution.

The development will have a serious effect on highway safety and the convenience of road users as well as pedestrians.

Increased volumes of traffic moving in/out of new site, especially those turning right out of site towards town.

Danger to pedestrians, in particular unaccompanied children going to/from Sharmans Cross Junior School.

Please stop this stressful development plan to proceed ahead.

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

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

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

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

Development of Green Belt for housing - Shirley

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish to formally register my objections to the latest draft version of the local plan.

Whilst recognising the urgent need for additional housing due to the failure of successive central governments to ensure sufficient housing was built to meet the needs of a growing population and the ever changing demographic make up of the population and the additional demands this places on the national housing stock, your latest draft plan appears to be ill thought through in respect of local infrastructure and the ability to develop roads, hospitals etc which would be required to support a greatly increased local population. The plan is also widely biased in respect of building on green belt land. This potential "over development" of the green belt also appears to be contrary to the latest indicators being given by central government.

The proposed support to Birmingham City Council does not to me appear to be justified based on the vast swathes of derelict and undeveloped land within the City of Birmingham which could be regenerated to provide a modern living environment within the inner city and other ex industrial areas.

The focus on building on the Solihull green belt appears to be the "soft option" for both planners and developers.

My key objections are as follows:

1. The plan appears to be disproportionate across the borough with approximately 41% of the proposed new builds being in the Shirley/Dickens Heath locality

2. The plan does not align itself to the latest guidance from Central Government as reported in the national press. Solihull has a lot of large properties occupied by older residents who could be encouraged to down size releasing large properties free to be converted to multiple dwellings. Solihull as a whole offers numerous opportunities for "infilling". Whilst each development is possibly considered small a challenging overall target could be adopted. My perception is as a council you have resisted such developments in the past. Such developments also offer a more balanced impact on the local infrastructure and facilities.

3. Whilst I acknowledge your detailed plan for infrastructure improvements are not yet developed it is obvious to the "layman" that the local roads and other facilities are already at peak capacity at certain times and the availability of parking at local railway stations is already insufficient before several thousand new houses are built.

4. Logically the 2000+ houses proposed for the Shirley/Dickens Heath area are likely to equate to at least 3000 additional cars using the local roads (I acknowledge the potentially improved roads) which will all result in a reduction of our air quality. Great emphasis is placed by the medical profession on the need for fresh unpolluted air, recreational space and the participation in sport and leisure activities. Your proposals will severely impact the lives of many local residents by reducing recreational and public amenity space, the destruction of many popular countryside walks, the loss of up to nine sports pitches used by all age groups and the destruction of the local Christmas tree farm which presently benefits the local area by naturally absorbing carbon dioxide and purifying the air we breathe.

5. All of the existing open green belt land also supports a variety of wildlife some of which I believe to be protected species (bats and voles to my knowledge). Your plan does not address this issue. Your plan also includes land where there are numerous well established oak trees, which also form part of the hedgerow, and offer homes to other wildlife species. I cannot find any detailed reference to this in your proposals and surely as planners you have duties in this respect.

6. Your plan, and observations from meetings I have attended, appears to make great play of HS2 and the benefits this will bring to both the region and the locality. It has been stated that we need to seize the opportunities and the additional housing forms part of this strategy. However, your plan does not reflect on the practicalities regarding the limitations of the existing local infrastructure and any potential improvements you can make. The journey to the HS2 terminal area is already a "nightmare" and can only get worse with further development. The M42 between junctions 4 and 6 is already at capacity for large parts of the day and I believe one of the busiest stretches of motorway on the national network which is unlikely to be further widened. Additional housing feeding this stretch of motorway can only result in further gridlock and will adversely impact on the image of Solihull as a place to come and do business.

To sum up my objections in a few words your proposals will have a significant adverse impact on the quality of my, my families and all other residents lives in terms of:

- our health and well being both physical and mental due to reduced air quality and increased noise pollution
- loss of amenity space
- extreme impact upon the local environment
-making Solihull, and in particular Shirley, a less attractive place to live, visit and promote due to the plan disproportionately focusing on Shirley/Dickens Heath

I would also like to make the following observations:

1. The land which it is proposed to build on in allocations 4, 11 and 13 is generally of poor "agricultural" quality. However, that in allocation 12 is of a better quality and is presently used to grow crops. How can this change of use be justified?

2. Most of the land in allocation 13 is presently used by the local Christmas tree farm. Whilst this is a relatively recent development as a resident of Langcomb Road, backing onto this site, the growth of the trees has significantly improved the historic flooding situation we used to have in our back gardens. The building of houses on this site will undoubtedly impact us and result in the flooding returning.

3. South Solihull is at the higher end of the housing costs range. Many local young adults wishing to get a place on the property ladder have to move away being unable to afford the local prices. I note that a number of other councils make provisions in their plans and planning approvals process that a significant proportion of new build houses must be both affordable and allocated to those presently on the councils electoral roll (at least one of the buyers). I can not see reference to this in your plan ( I believe it may bring you more support). Is this something you intend to address?

I strongly recommend your proposals are revisited focusing on:

-A more balanced allocation of development across all areas of Solihull
- Recognise that Birmingham Council has the ability, admittedly through hard work and the investment of more time, to address their own issues without Solihull being called upon to "bail them out".
- More focus on the impact the size of the proposed developments will have on existing inhabitants in particular their physical and mental health
- Recognising that some times the more difficult options (brownfield and infilling) should be tackled rather that the soft green belt
- Recognition of the recent well publisised guidance from key central government figures about building on green belt

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on your proposals.

Draft Local Development Plan- South Shirley

As residents of Blackford Road we are concerned about the draft consultation proposals in this and surrounding areas.

In recent years this area has already seen the development of Dickens Heath and at present the two phases at Cheswick Place. During the morning & evening rush hours, Blackford Road has become very busy with Tamworth Lane and Dog Kennel Lane all now regularly having tailbacks of traffic. Stratford Road is also almost at a standstill in the morning, from Cranmore Road to Monkspath Hall Road.

The proposed further development of 2550 houses will only serve to increase the strain on the infrastructure causing other problems including air and sound pollution.

This area should not loose anymore green space which benefits the community and our health. The green corridor with access to the canal and countryside beyond should be retained.There should also be green belt between South Shirley and the built area of Dickens Heath.

It would be preferable to see a fairer distribution across the Borough rather than 2550 houses, in addition to those already in the process of construction, being built in such close proximity to Shirley South.

LDP Proposed Housing Development objection to Cerda Planning

I am writing to register my objection to this site being included in the LDP, the submission from Cerda Planning/Oakmoor. This planning application was previously refused and should not be allowed to go ahead.
My grounds for objections are as follows and documented in previous correspondence in the public domain:-
Potential access road that might be introduced into or near by Winterbourne Road from the new development and the traffic congestion and noise this will create.
Loss of open space and sporting facilities - Solihull has seen a huge loss of open spaces and sports facilities located within the local communities over the last thirty years or so, during which time its population has grown rapidly. Its level of recreational open space and sporting facilities is now critically low, and this proposal will destroy yet another treasured open space whilst increasing the localities population. In terms of availability, a key point is that the majority of the site is covenanted for sporting use, and SMBC formally minuted in 2013 its policy with regard to the use of the grounds only for sport and that they would not sell the freehold. So why is it repeatedly being put forward for development when its availability has already been debated, decided and refused.
Loss of a nature rich site -The site also hosts diverse flora fauna with natural areas of vegetation adjacent to a woodland providing homes for a wide variety of wildlife. The area is also home to many species of wild birds including those that are not so common which I have seen regularly, such as woodpeckers, hawks and falcons. The area is also home to bats which are a delight to observe on a summer evening.
The scale of the intrusion of building works is sure to alarm and displace this wildlife , and the encroachment of this intense development will have a serious negative impact on the bio-diversity of the area.
Suitability and density of development - The development will destroy the residential character of the neighbourhood. The one hundred houses proposed is effectively 5 times the density of surrounding properties on Sharmans Cross, Winterbourne and Welcombe Grove. This is unacceptable overdevelopment of the site, and will be both out-of-scale and out-of-character in its appearance compared to existing development in the vicinity.
Access and traffic issues - the increase in traffic generated by the development will cause serious overloading of the already busy junctions of Sharmans Cross Road, giving increased queue lengths at rush hour both at the grid locked Solihull Road Junction and the Prospect Lane Island. The level of pollution for residents on these main roads will also increase.
The additional junction is almost opposite Woodside Way, so the added complexity in the traffic flow at this point increases accident risk.
The road includes a junior school and there will be a significant increase in risk to the pupils and parents making their way to school, particularly those on foot or cycling.
Complete lack of adequate parking - the development will give rise at a conservative estimate to an additional 160-180 additional vehicles. The development itself is unlikely to provide enough parking capacity and cars will inevitably line the roads of the development and spill onto Sharmans Cross road itself, again adding another increment to the traffic dangers. The area also already has to cope with day long parking for Solihull workers.
Also the existing site provides overflow for Solihull Arden Tennis club, and the loss of overflow parking for the Tennis Club will add hugely to the parking problem, with residents and club users being put at loggerheads fighting for parking space.
Drainage and Flooding - Sharmans Cross road does suffer from an inadequate drainage, and is prone to flooding. The drainage requirements of these additional dwellings will add to the overload the drainage systems.
The residence in this area are behind the objection and will take actions legally to prevent the development of this land which is designated for sporting use.

Proposed Housing Development objection to Cerda Planning

I am writing to register my objection to this site being included in the LDP, the submission from Cerda Planning/Oakmoor. This planning application was previously refused and should not be allowed to go ahead.
My grounds for objections are as follows:-
* Potential access road that might be introduced into or near by Winterbourne Road from the new development and the traffic congestion and noise this will create.
* Loss of open space and sporting facilities
* Loss of a nature rich site
* Suitability and density of development
* Access and traffic issues
* Complete lack of adequate parking
* Drainage and Flooding