Objection to proposed plans for Shirley
Dear Sir/Madam

We strongly object to the proposed development between Bills Lane and Tamworth Lane:
This area is extremely rich in wildlife, which any building development would destroy forever. There are several ponds here, which contain great-crested newts, that are a protected species. Plus they provide breeding habitats for dragon flies, damsel flies etc.
The meadows are abundant with wildflowers in the spring and summer. Plus the hedgerows are ancient hedgerows, which is evident from the variety of species growing within them. Furthermore there are many mature oak trees that provide much needed habitats for hundreds of insect species.

We have sighted many important bird species in this green area that are in decline in much of Britain. These include cuckoos, which we hear every spring; lapwings; ravens; barn owls; starlings etc. We have also seen and heard tawny owls, bramblings, red wings, buzzards and kestrels, with greater spotted woodpeckers and green woodpeckers also nesting in the trunks of the mature oak trees.

Of course these meadows provide a valuable and much needed home for foxes, badgers( with their setts protected by law), hedgehogs (that are becoming scarce) and muntjac deer. This green belt land is also an essential ecological link, or wildlife corridor between existing green spaces in Solihull to the countryside to the south. To build on these meadows would have a catastrophic impact on the wildlife that I have mentioned and resulting in their disappearance forever!

We go running several times a week along the canal towpath (where we see kingfishers) and we run around the meadows. So we are able to see first hand what a significant site that this is for wildlife. It is also of paramount importance to other Shirley residents like us, who enjoy this green belt land for walking, running, dog walking, bird watching, family outings etc.

Of course there would be horrendous transport problems too: As we live just off Bills Lane we know how busy, particularly at rush hour time, Bills Lane can be. It is dangerous for me when I cycle to and from work ( in Monkspath Hall Road) as there is so much traffic. The pavements are also dangerous to walk on as they are particularly narrow on the section of Bills Lane that we live near. By building over 1,500 houses here could well mean 2000 more cars in our local vicinity! This would cause complete chaos and disruption to these already extremely busy roads.

Furthermore this proposed development would be a massive impact upon our local services, for example our doctor surgeries, schools and hospitals, by having several thousand more residents needing to use them. All of which are over stretched as it is.

Lastly Solihull council seem to be determined to destroy the green belt around the Shirley and Tidbury Green area. Solihull Council definitely need to rethink and find suitable alternative sites, not wipe out forever this well loved and well used green belt area that we local Shirley people are fighting to protect.

I write regarding the planned development from the current edge of Dickens Heath to Whitlocks End and express my concern about the potential increase in traffic on the surrounding roads.

Over the past 14 years of living in Major's Green, we seen a significant increase in the volume of traffic and a change in the behaviour of drivers who use the roads of Major's Green in a way they were not designed for. In our end of Peterbrook Road, both our opposite neighbours and ourselves have had drivers lose control of their vehicles and enter our gardens. I know there are several others in adjoining roads who have experienced the same. Crossing our own road is not something we feel safe in doing and in the next few years, our children will need to walk themselves to school, which is quite terrifying.

Expanding the Dickens Heath development can only make things worse as people commute out of the area to work in Birmingham and elsewhere - the roads as they are just cannot sustain a significant further increase in the amount of traffic that is using it.

I am also completely dismayed by the plan to build on the football pitches at the end of Tythe Barn Lane. Our children have few enough opportunities to get sufficient physical exercise and the football clubs provide an ideal way for both boys and girls to play together and learn to work as a team. Even if alternative pitches are provided further afield, it will be more difficult for people to get there.

We love living in our area and really don't want to take that opportunity away from others, but I hope you will think very carefully about the surrounding roads and other infrastructure before approving so many more homes to be built on this green space.

Allocation 13

My worries concerning the building of all these new houses are..
More cars
Overcrowded schools
Drs surgeries unable to cope
Loss of greenbelt
Loss of playing fields
Loss of nature
There are probably many more reasons against but I can't see a reason to support the building of so many houses.

Development on Allocation 13

I am a resident of Neville Road and am very distressed about the draft local development plan between Whitlock's End Farm and Dickens Heath Road, Allocation 13.

Having a young family who thrive off outdoor life, enjoying nature and educating our young, as well as healthy living through both exercising and walking, I am deeply concerned for the large amount of development being concentrated in our local countryside and the loss of Green Belt in the Shirley area and the narrow strip of open space that will separate Shirley from Dickens Heath which is also extending towards Shirley. I am a regular dog walker and keen runner and use the local fields and bridal path for all purposes to exercise and walk the dog on a very regular basis, as well as enjoying our weekly family walks from Neville Road to the proposed allocation 13, having our very own green belt land to enjoy, was the very reason why we bought our house.

We have lived in this area for many years and are a regular user of the walkway from Bills Lane crossing into the fields behind Langcomb Road and the Woodlands Estate and know this has been extensively used by many residents in the area for recreation purposes throughout the year. We have a beautiful chocolate Labrador who we socialise on a regular basis in this area with many other dog walkers, who also do the same.

I understand that the council have to find housing sites but feel very strongly that it would be wrong to build on the area of public amenity land and its access corridor that is currently fenced off and request that this area is retained for the benefit of existing and future local residents.

Shirley is already heavily built up and has a low level of open space that is usable and convenient for public recreation and I'm very concerned about how the large number of new homes will add to existing traffic congestion, plus noise pollution that comes with it and a massive increase co2 emissions, of which as a nation we are trying to reduce, not increase. Our doctors and local schools are already filled to capacity, access to these are already tight, how on earth would they be able to cope with a massive influx of people you are proposing to bring to the area? It would only outstretch services even more than what they are currently, which would surely drop standards of care all round.

There is also the factor of losing valuable green areas for wildlife live in this area so of which are quiet rare. This would truly be a great loss to the community and town that we all call home.

Please can you keep me informed with any future developments regard this matter.

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

In response to Government requirements to deliver affordable housing, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) is including in its Local Development Plan (LDP), a development of 100 houses on the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road.

As a lifelong Solihull resident and member of Solihull Arden Club I find it extremely worrying that the council are yet again considering developing the former Solihull Bees ground in Sharmans Cross Road.

I object to the proposal on the following grounds;

1. Suitability - As a resident of Winterbourne Road (No 39) the development will destroy the character of the neighbourhood. The previous proposed development 6 years ago at 80 homes was too much. 100 houses is effectively 5 times the density of property on Winterbourne Rd. This is totally unacceptable and an over development of the site. This will be both out-of-scale and out-of-character in its appearance compared to existing development in the area I live. As this is an increase on previous development proposals I believe that any plan will have to include properties in excess of 3 stories which is unacceptable and would be clearly visible from my property above the houses opposite.
2. Permanent loss of sporting facilities - I personally and my family have benefited from the facilities on the current grounds. This is one of five sports grounds at risk in the LDP. My understanding is that Solihull, SMBC has a statutory requirement to ensure lost pitches are replaced with facilities of equivalent quality and accessibility. It is difficult to see how this will be achieved when nearly all of the 10 proposed sites occupy sports land.

Planning Policy P7 stipulates that accessibility is a key issue. For a site to be defined as 'accessible' it has to have certain criteria met which means car dependency is reduced. Oakmore are suggesting that they are meeting this criteria but in order to do so they would need to create an access to the site off Winterbourne Road which would be in the IMMEDIATE vicinity of my property. I find this approach is less than transparent.

Please confirm receipt of my objection BEFORE the deadline on Friday 17th February 2017.

Draft local plan (Knowle & Dorridge)

As a residents of Solihull in the ward of Dorridge and Hockley Heath we would like to confirm our support for the KDBH Forum's response to the draft local plan. We have recently moved from B91 in Solihull as we consider Solihull has now become part of Birmingham and we wanted to live in a village. If this plan goes ahead in its current form Knowle will no longer be a village and its character and identity lost, in effect it will be part of the Solihull/ Birmingham conurbation. Furthermore the roads around Knowle and Dorridge cannot support the proposed housing density however much they are improved. Knowle High street will be a constant pinch point as there is no obvious by pass route.

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

I have lived in Shirley for ten and a half years and enjoy the semi-rural location of my home and fear that with this proposed development of Allocation 13, along with Allocations 4, 11 and 12, we will be losing important green spaces which not only enhance the area but provide open space for residents to enjoy.

The proposed development of 600 houses for Allocation 13 will leave a huge detrimental effect on the local area such as follows:-

There are 4 proposed development sites that border Shirley - surely any developments should be spread across the borough rather than having 41% in one area.

The loss of vital green space - this is a benefit to the local community and provides health benefits such as green open space, ie a vital lung to the area. Allocation 13 is used for both leisure and dog walking and gives access to local countryside and nearby canal. This area is also home to our local wildlife such as owls, bats, muntjac deer and foxes.

Congestion - The A34 Stratford Road, M42 and surrounding routes are already heavily congested and the proposed 600 homes for Allocation 13 will add an unbelievable amount of extra traffic, not to mention pollution which could lead to an increase in respiratory illnesses. I live off Bills Lane and during morning rush hour I could be waiting on occasions for a minimum of 20 cars to go past before I could pull out onto the main road. With the additional traffic this will be even worse and will just lead to tail backs on all surrounding roads. As anyone who uses this road already knows there is always congestion around the junctions where Burman Road and Shakespeare Drive meet Bills Lane. Though no doubt you will probably conduct a traffic survey at a much quieter time during mid-morning and come to the conclusion there is no such problem. I would ask that any traffic survey of roads near to the proposed site take place during rush hour to see exactly how much traffic there is at present and you will see that we will end up with roads that won't be able to cope with the extra vehicles that will result from the additional homes.

Transport links - There is already an unreliable bus service to this area of Shirley and adding extra homes will just result in an increase in traffic. Although there are two railway stations nearby - Shirley and Whitlocks End - neither of them have sufficient car parking spaces for the current number of users so how will they cope with additional users.

Pedestrians - If Allocation 13 goes ahead and the access road does join Bills Lane this will be dangerous for pedestrians as there are several points along that road where there is only footpath on one side which is also very narrow in places. Additional traffic from the new homes will be dangerous for anyone trying to cross the road, especially on winter evenings which surely must be a health and safety issue.

Health and Education - Local schools, nurseries, doctors surgeries and our local hospital at Lode Lane are already unable to cope with the number of residents in the area and with this additional residential population our vital services will be at breaking point. Solihull hospital only has a Minor Injuries unit and due to downgrades in services there we have to use Heartlands hospital which is already over-stretched. We would need to see an increase in services at Solihull in order to keep up with local demand from these new homes. Additional schools and doctors surgeries will be required because existing facilities are already full.

Unfortunately, it really feels like Shirley has previously been the forgotten area of Solihull with funds preferring to be used in poorer areas such as the north of the Borough, however, we now just appear to be a dumping ground for developers to ruin our area.

Can I please ask that you seriously reconsider the proposed development areas and look at other options which have better transport links with more direct access to the motorway and the A34.

I wish to register my objection to the mass building of new houses in the south of Shirley and in particular building on Allocation 13.

I have been living in Shotteswell Road for the last 20 years and the traffic over this time has got worse and worse. The congestion in the morning is ridiculous and a half hour journey takes over an hour. The constant stream of traffic from Dickens Heath means it is very difficult to even leave Tanworth Lane! All these new houses will presumably have cars and the roads will just not be able to cope with the increase in traffic. Also more cars means more pollution which will affect the health of people living in this area.

Another reason for my objection is the already over stretched health care system. Getting an appointment at the GP has become increasingly difficult. Recently I tried to be seen by the doctor and rang at 8.00 am on two consecutive days only to be told all appointments had gone. This is why A and E departments are flooded with people. How are doctors surgeries going to accommodate all the extra patients that new housing will produce?

My particular objection to building on Allocation 13 is that this is an area rich in wildlife. We regularly see owls, foxes, bats, sparrow hawks, jays, woodpeckers and many different types of finches in our back garden. It would be absolutely criminal to destroy all their natural habitat. The residents around this area have enjoyed having this wildlife in their gardens for years and they do not deserve to have it taken away from them. Many people use this area for walking, exercising and walking their dogs. We are told to get out and be more healthy but you plan to take this beautiful area away from them. It essential to the health and wellbeing of Shirley residents. The motto of Solihull is 'Urbs in Rure'. We will have no rural area left if this plan goes ahead.

I urge you to look at other areas to build on or at least to scale down the development to a more reasonable level. You will be ruining a beautiful area that people have enjoyed living in for many years.

Proposed Housing Allocation 18 (objection to)

I would like to object to the proposed housing allocation 18.The reasons for my objections are as follows.

(1) Increased traffic movement on a road (Sharmans Cross Road) that is already over crowded.Even now,any parking on this road reduces it to one lane.
It is obvious, More cars More pollution.

(2) Harm to wildlife from any development close to wooded area adjacent.

(3) At this time there is a lack of sporting facilities in the Solihull area and building on this plot would only reduce those facilities even more.

(4) This area can not cope with any extra demand on Hospitals/GPservices/Schools.


Solihull resident.

I appreciate the need to increase the number of homes in the borough however I have grave misgivings at the loss of rural land which will Lead to SMB loosing its town in the countryside appearance and becoming connected to other surrounding urban areas
In particular I can comment on the area I know best which adjoins where I live and is designated site 16 By proposing development of this site SMBC are breaching one of its own objectives which is protecting key gaps between urban areas and rural settlements Local facilities are already under pressure and there appears no provision to increase these Even by upgrading the surrounding roads the development will exacerbate the already severe traffic problems caused by the increase development at JLR. The councils own policy is not to support developments that will increase delay to vehicles. Also upgrading Field Lane & Lugtrout Lane it will destroy forever the rural nature of the area. There is also a potential loss of a listed building at Field farm,Field Lane Finally there is the loss of prime agricultural land on the edge of the borough and the destruction of our natural heritage as these fields support a large number of birds and other wildlife and wildflowers which are already under threat as urban development continues to expand
There is also potential for irrevocable damage to the centuries old wild flower meadow which lies on the opposite site of field lane to Fileld farm.
SMB has enough sites which can be developed without causing the problem a refer to and my comments which also refer to all the proposed development that will impinge on the green belt which surrounds Solihull

Kdbh response

I wish to support the proposals made by the KDBH Neighbour Forum . Houses built on the proposed site of Arden School will completely gridlock the already traffic problems in Knowle .y

SOLIHULL DRAFT LOCAL PLAN REVIEW.

Solihull Council has identified two sites in Knowle for development in the future.
If these sites are developed they will provide over 1000 new homes, a new school and a sports complex, focusing on moving Knowle Football Club to a new location and creating better facilities.

These new homes will massively increase the size of the village.

I object to the loss of so much Green Belt.

The so called Arden Triangle site will comprise of 750 houses and a new school, all to be built on existing Green Belt.

The Hampton Road site will comprise initially of 250 homes, followed by a sports complex. On completion of the new football facilities the old Knowle football ground will provide land for further housing. The Hampton Road site will all be on Green Belt. This site will push the Green Belt boundary out considerably towards Hampton-in-Arden.

The Department for Communities and Local Government have insisted that Ministers were "committed to preserving the Green Belt". This Department has further stated that "only in exceptional circumstances may Councils alter Green Belt boundaries, after consulting local people and submitting the revised local plan for examination".

Ministers have further stated that the Government is committed to "strong protection of the Green Belt".

Green Belt land should be treated as a special case because that is what protects us from the urban sprawl. It also exists to prevent neighbouring villages merging into one another, to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the regeneration of derelict and other urban land.

Reluctantly I would have to agree that providing a new Arden School could be argued as being exceptional providing that the old facility is not fit for purpose as the school maintains. I would like to see the evidence for this. Many millions of pounds have been spent on improving and expanding Arden School in recent years only to be demolished.

The development of this site will take many years to complete causing a great deal of disruption to village life.

Should this site be developed then the housing build should be maximised. Land identified for "housing in the future" should be developed at the same time. All the housing needed could be built within this triangle. The homes within this site are within walking distance of the shops and railway station in Dorridge and Knowle village centre. The Hampton Road development is not.

There is no need to push the boundaries of the Green belt out in two directions.

The closest station to the Hampton Road site is Hampton-in Arden. It is not possible to walk to this station safely as there are no pavements or lighting. The parking facilities are at capacity, as indeed they are at Dorridge and Widney Manor stations. It is a two mile walk/drive to Dorridge station from where I live in Chantry Heath Crescent.

Should the Arden Triangle be developed then it is infilling a triangle of land.

The relatively small development at Arden Fields took over two years to complete causing traffic chaos, noise and mess, primarily mud on the surrounding roads. The end result is not attractive.

The Hampton Road development focuses around the relocation of Knowle FC to the north east of the site to cater for "local demand". I assume local demand to mean Knowle FC and its members, 291 in total.

The results of the Knowle Forum's residents survey indicated there was more interest in the provision of more allotments than in improving football facilities. Until recently there was a five year waiting list for an allotment in Knowle.

Knowle FC has been in existence for 90 years and in that time it has been unable to maintain and improve on its facilities.
I have lived in Knowle for 36 years and I have not seen any improvement to either the pitches or the club facilities.

Knowle FC have obtained permission to install floodlights at their existing ground. They complained for many years that the lack of floodlighting prevent them playing in various leagues. They have not installed floodlights because they cannot afford to.

The club is not financially sound.

In the proposal document for Knowle FC it is stated that it runs approximately 20 football teams, the majority of which are 5 and 7 aside teams of juniors, both boys and girls.

There are many facilities and areas in and around Knowle where football can be played and training undertaken, both indoor and outdoor. Examples are Arden School, the Old Silhills, the Children's Field in Kixley Lane, Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath parks.

Every year Knowle FC put signs at the entrance seeking new junior players. Why do this if they cannot provide adequate facilities?

My three daughters all played for Knowle FC. My two youngest daughters' team was made up primarily of girls from Yardley who were obviously prepared to travel and not local children..

The proposed facility would be for the benefit of a minority of people who are interested in football. Other sports facilities alluded to may never materialise.

The precise composition of the new facility is vague to say the least. Some of the rumours indicate a new cricket pitch is also possible. Does this mean that the cricket pitch behind Knowle FC will also be developed?

This new sports facility would adjoin the canal, which is a haven for wildlife. It is a peaceful place enjoyed by a significant number of local people including fishermen, dog walkers, people just out for a quiet stroll, canoeists and canal boat users.

This quiet haven will be destroyed by the noise and foul four letter language frequently generated by the adult football matches on a Saturday and Sunday. Sound travels a considerable distance and with clarity.

The area that the houses will be built on is also a haven for wildlife including bats, badgers, foxes, deer and birds of prey including buzzards, sparrow hawks and kestrels. Are we certain there are no newts, crested or otherwise in the pond on the site?

The developer has stated that it will "retain and where possible enhance connecting wildlife corridors". It would be interesting to see how they could achieve this in amongst all the houses, football pitches, flood lighting and any other sports facilities that may be built.

The developer also intends to retain views to and from the Grand Union canal. I cannot see how this can be achieved, unless of course you stand on top of a flood light gantry.

The developer makes many unrealistic promises for the benefit of the wider community. This includes "with the support of Sports England the sports hub could become a community meeting place" We have an abundance of meeting places in the centres of Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath and do not need another one on the north eastern edge of the village. All these meeting places are well used by the community.

There are excellent athletics facilities in Solihull, which do not need to be rivalled.

This site has been rejected in the past because of the topography and the impact on the skyline. As far as I can see, nothing has changed.

Objection to allocation 4 and 13

I am registering my objection to the proposed housing development. The loss of 9 football pitches and 2 rugby pitches is disgusting. The loss of our only direct access to countryside. We may as well live in Birmingham City Centre, what will be the difference? We chose to live in Shirley for a reason. where will our children play? where will the numerous football clubs re-allocate sensibly to? Where will our children ride their bikes? Where will we walk our dogs? Where will the wildlife go?

Having lived in Shirley for over 30 years I have witnessed many areas of greenbelt swallowed up - this is our only bit left!

The impact of these proposed houses will have a huge detrimental effect on Shirley and Dickens Heath and our intolerable strain on local services, Schools, Doctors and increase the already congested reads in the area.

Please re-visit the potential other areas in the borough that 'can' absorb some of this capacity. Surely Shirley cannot be the only area possible for 41% of the new housing that the borough has to build? Why lump it all in one small place that is already bursting at the seams?

If approved this will devastate a tranquil area and will bring misery to many families, and not just local families as for many years this area and Bridle Pathway has become recognised as a tranquil place of Beauty and a nature walk. Not to mention the cyclists, dog walkers, horse riders, etc...

Finally - and very worryingly - the many football clubs and rugby clubs that will simply be demolished leaving our children without clubs or open spaces or fitness. I believe they are all to be moved to the nearby 'Shirley Town' - which is laughable, considering we already struggle to fit in training and matches with the already overstretched population of children in Shirley. I cannot see a way in which you can extend Shirley Town and with the proposed amount of extra housing coming to the area, it will only bring with it more children. It will NOT work. Our children will definitely suffer if this goes ahead. The future of Shirley will change If this goes ahead, and certainly not for the better.

Yours sincerely

Objection to LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I would like to put forward my objections to the above Proposed Housing Allocation 18. The reasons being:

1. Over Development: The proposed development of 100 houses is completely out of character with the surrounding area - roads such as Sharmans Cross Road, Winterbourne Road and Welcombe Grove.
The proposal of 100 houses is 15% MORE than the 87 houses proposed by Oakmoor developers 6 years ago, which the council turned down.
The 100 houses or dwellings would inevitably be accomplished by using buildings of multiple floors which is completely out of character with the surrounding area.

2. Traffic Congestion: 100 houses would inevitably lead to increased traffic and congestion on an already very busy road. Some owners / occupiers may have no cars; many will have more than one.

3. Increased Dangers to Pedestrians and Cyclists: The greatly increased volume of traffic will create additional dangers for pedestrians and cyclists (who use the designated cycle route), including the many young school children who walk and cycle to the nearby Sharmans Cross Junior school. The Council's Road Safety Team has been working with the school to promote walking and cycling to school. The development would increase the dangers to the children.

4. Parking Congestion: The very high density of housing proposed would lead to parking congestion on site and nearby roads. New developments lack sufficient provision for owner or visitor parking. This will lead to vehicles being parked on adjacent roads such as Sharmans Cross Road, Woodside Way, Dorchester Road and Winterbourne Road.
The proposal means the Solihull Arden Tennis Club could lose 75 parking spaces which would also increase congestion and parking problems.

5. Environment: The area is a well-established green space with many mature trees and areas of wildlife, including bats and badgers. I regularly see bats flying around my garden.

6. Sports Facilities: The site has a long history of being used for sports and activities. The Council should be encouraging this not abandoning its own commitments. In 2013 the Council minuted its policy for the use of sports grounds for sports. The Council should be promoting the use of sports venues and facilities as Sport England has found Solihull falls into the 3rd quarter for adult participation in sports.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I am writing as both a resident based at 1 Welcombe Grove, B91 1PD and also as a member of Solihull Arden Tennis Club to object to the proposed development on the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road.

The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The development will ruin the character of the neighbourhood. 100 houses is out of scale with the existing housing and character of the neighbourhood. The buildings will almost certainly be more than 2 stories high which is going to lead to a complete change of character and will also lead to loss of light, loss of privacy and crowding.

2. Sharmans Cross Road is already an extremely busy road. The additional houses will cause enormous increased traffic together with the associated pollution. It is currently very difficult to drive down Sharmans Cross Road at times when the children are coming in and out of school and with so many additional houses, potentially serious accidents to pedestrians seem almost inevitable. Further this is a designated cycle route which again could become very dangerous for any cyclists trying to use it as such.

3. Increased traffic is bound to cause more traffic problems particularly at the very busy junction with the Streetsbrook Road which sees gridlock at rush hour times.

4. The area has significant environmental benefits and contains many mature trees with Tree Preservation Orders and some Woodland Protection Orders. The significant amount of building that has already been approved on Alderbrook Road and associated roads has led to a loss of environment for wildlife including badgers, bats and foxes. Converting such a large area of land to more intense housing will lead to further impact on the environment in both terms of loss of space for children and residents to enjoy as well as even more loss of habitat for wildlife.

5. The area was previously used by the Solihull Rugby Club. If the land is now used for housing this will be a permanent loss of sporting facilities. Once this ground is lost it can never be regained. There is already a shortage of pitches in Solihull and hence it seems more sensible to consider using this land for sport or recreational purposes for the benefit of the whole community particularly given that the structure for sporting facilities is already there.

6. The parking for the new development will inevitably be very cramped and is likely to lead to more cars being parked on Sharmans Cross Road causing more traffic chaos. In addition this Solihull Arden Tennis Club will lose a considerable number of car parking spaces. The car park at Solihull Arden is full most evenings and loss of spaces to park at the club will mean club members will have to park in Sharmans Cross Road causing traffic congestion and difficulties for residents in that road.

7. The schools and surgeries close by are already oversubscribed. Creating more housing without increasing the facilities available is going to put more pressure on already overstretched services. No doubt local residents with suffer.

8. I understand the National Planning Policy Framework requires developments to have access to local amenities within 800m/10 minutes walk. The site is 1000m from Solihull Station and 1700m from Solihull town centre and so these criteria are not met.

9. SMBC formally minuted in 2013 its policy with regard to use of the grounds only for sport and that they would not sell the freehold. I would like reaffirmation of this policy which implies that this development is inappropriate for including in the LDP. One previous application for this site has been refused and another withdrawn.

I would be grateful if you could take note of the above objections when considering the proposal.

Subject: LDP- proposed Housing Allocation 18
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am emailing my objections to the proposed building of 100 houses on Sharmans Cross Road. I am a local resident and I have been a member of Arden Tennis Club for a number of years.

My reasons are outlined below:

1. The loss of sporting facilities.
a. The grounds have been owned by the Arden Club for many years and been used by many in the area for years. The facilities in which many rely on as part of the daily routine to exercise and support their lifestyle. There is already a shortage of sporting facilities which includes Tennis facilitates. The facilities in the other venues are already packed and constantly busy. So this would put more pressure on existing facilities.
b. This space which many want to use for sport and exercise, but have been unable to proceed to develop this because of barriers put in their way to prevent them. The use of land was also deemed in 2013 to be use for sport only - yet this seems to be under threat.
c. The developer has prevented use of this land for sports use to by charging exorbitant rates. This would be unaffordable to local football and rugby clubs who are dependent upon modest subscriptions. There is no incentive for the developer who leases the Rugby club land to maintain the rugby field suitable state for sports to be played, as his vested interest is to build on the land. It also suits the builders narrative if the land falls into poor state of repair as there would be less resistance in using the land for housing.
d. The builder who leases the land should ensure it is kept properly maintained i.e. Grass cut, Facilities maintained to ensure no alternative motive is being used to acquire the land.

2. Loss of Green spaces for Nature in urban environment.
a. The loss of green land would have a major impact on the overall area and the wildlife in which it contains. Currently the range of birds and wildlife in the area enhance this living environment for many .It has provided an nature corridor for many & the range of different birds we received in this area has increased. The building work would destroy the natural environment - loss of trees and green and space and would completely destroy the character in which has developed over the years.

3. Increased Traffic would also be an issue.
a. It's already busy on the Streetsbrook Road during peak time and the Sharman's Cross Junction with Streetsbrook Road yet this development would lead to huge traffic disruption for all in the vicinity. The traffic caused by lorries and extra cars and if building was to commence the infrastructure would change completely.
b. If alternative routes are used for access to the proposed site, like Winterbourne Road, then the roads supporting this are not suitable for the volume of traffic using winterbourne and Beaminster Road.

These are not exhaustive reasons but highlight some of my concerns.

Kind Regards

LDP- proposed allocation 18
I am a local resident writing to object to the proposed development of 100 houses on the current rugby ground located on Sharmanscross road.

Firstly, having lived in this area for the last 9 years I have seen the growing congestion in and around the sharmanscross area (sharmanscross road, Dorchester road and streetsbrook road).
As you are aware sharmanscross road is the main road coming into Solihull from Shirley, and this is the main route for those working in the centre of Solihull/touchwood In addition, there is also a school on the road which further adds to the grid lock of traffic in the morning for commuters between the hours of 07:45 to 09:00 as I am currently experiencing myself when dropping my children to school in Birmingham, which-roughly takes me 20-25 mins there and back to sharmanscross road and from sharmanscross travelling straight to work to Solihull hospital is currently taking me 30-40 minutes!
This development will further add to the current traffic problems residents are experiencing, furthermore this will also cause serious effect on highway safety and will cause danger to pedestrians-especially children walking to/ from sharmanscross junior school and local secondary schools unaccompanied by adults.

My second concern is the suitability of the site and accessibility to local amenities, as you can appreciate 100 houses are equivalent to the whole of sharmanscross road or neighbouring Dorchester road the site is not suitable from a scale and portion base to accommodate for that scale of development as it will destroy the current character of the neighbourhood.
Can I emphasise again the proposed 100 houses will overdevelop the site as 100 houses is effectively five times the density of the existing neighbouring properties on winterbourne road, which will cause it to be out-of-scale and out-of-character and very congested in simple plain words it will ruin our neighbourhood.
Thirdly the site is not meeting the criteria as an accessible site for local amenities, Oakmoore have stated in there planning that Solihull train/Solihull town centre is 700m as an actual fact it is 1000-1100m walking distance, as my house backs onto the site so I am well aware of the distance to Solihull train station and town centre.
Furthermore the site also fails to provide suitable public transport as the local bus services currently operating are every half hour Monday to Saturday and only one service running on Sunday hourly. In addition other facilities such as GP surgeries and local primary schools are some what 1500m away from the site with no direct local bus links operating and the local junior school is over subscribed.

This purpose development is deeply concerning for me and my family and is effecting my health as I can not sleep at night with worry, as our house backs directly onto the car park of the rugby club and if the planning is approved it will not only cause a huge stress to me and my family but will also affect the value of my property both rental and sale.

Finally I would like SMBC to confirm that the covenant of the leasehold for the rugby ground to be used for sports purposes only and the freehold land to be used as a ancillary to sports ground as car park and changing rooms/pavilion is this covenant still in place?
As this is the only public sports ground we have in our local vicinity as school playing fields are not for public use.

LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation 18
With regards to the above I feel I must make my objection on the following grounds:

I am most concerned that Solihull will be losing more sporting facilities despite Solihull Council minuting in 2013 that they would not sell the freehold on any land used exclusively for sport.

Not only is that being ignored but the proposed development - especially the density - is totally out of keeping with the area. The impact of this density of building will increase greatly the volume of traffic in the area - using the area, Shermans Cross Road in particular, often to visit our son - I know from experience the area is already often gridlocked and getting to and from his house difficult, often very difficult. 100 houses so maybe over 200 extra vehicles entering and exiting into the road will cause extra major traffic problems - not on to drivers but pedestrians (including children and their way to and from school) and cyclists.

While primarily concerned with the above I feel I should also mention the impact of this density of houses will have on local schools, doctors etc. and that is without any reference to wildlife in the area.

Has any of the above been taken into account? Looking at the proposed development, no - I don't think so.

Local Development Plan - Proposed Housing Allocation !8

I wish to lodge my strong objections to the proposal to build 100 houses on the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road.
This is an unsuitable, overly dense development, which would be totally out of character with the surrounding area.
It would cause traffic chaos on Sharmans Cross Road, which is already subject to severe problems, particularly in the morning when people are going to work and school.
Pedestrians would inevitably be placed at further risk, especially children going to the local schools. It is already a nightmare in the morning and evening rush hours trying to cross the junction of Sharmans Cross Road where it meets Streetsbrook Road.
Above all, it would lead to the unacceptable loss of a sporting amenity for the benefit of the residents of Solihull. I am aware of the demand to use the pitches on the site by local clubs and it would appear that their requests to do so are being ignored. This is very worrying and should be investigated further. The Council must seek to safeguard accessible facilities for the Borough. We do not have enough of them and it make no sense to ruin the ones that do exist and could be put to good use immediately.
I ask that the site be excluded from the development plan

Ref: LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
(100 houses on rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road)

Dear Sirs,

I am, with my wife, owner of, and resident in, the property and land at 30 Winterbourne Road, Solihull. The proposed housing allocation for 100 houses on the rugby ground (and what is currently Arden Tennis Club land) situated close to Sharmans Cross Road is immediately to the rear of my home.

My first concerns relate to the likely impact on the character and ambience of Winterbourne Road and the surrounding area.

* I notice that in the plans there is no reference in the "Restraints and Conditions" column, to the tree preservation order No. 174 (dated 31st March 1989) which encompasses mature trees in the Arden Tennis Club adjacent to the gardens of houses on Winterbourne Road. What assurances can be given that this order will be fully respected and that construction work will not threaten the viability of these trees?

* These trees, and others in the area are what remains of the old Maidens Bower Woods and they contribute to a habitat rich in bird and wildlife. We frequently see woodpeckers, nuthatches and owls as well as finches, jays and tits, and there are bats, badgers and foxes in the immediate environs. The loss of such a habitat should not be easily sanctioned. As well as the impact on wildlife, there would certainly be a change to the whole character of the area.

* I note that the provision of 100 houses means that in this new development the density of houses will be 5 times the density of properties in Winterbourne Road and that the provision of 50 affordable homes will, in all probibility, mean buildings of more than two storeys. The proposed development appears likely to be out of scale and out of character with the area as it now is.

My second set of concerns relate to the impact of these proposals on the provision of sports facilities.

* In April, 2013, SMBC resolved that "Oakmoor and any other party with an interest in the land at Sharmans Cross be informed that the Council does not wish to dispose of its freehold interest or vary the lease." In the supporting argument for this resolution it was noted that "the lease restricts use of the Council freehold land to a private sports club but does not require Oakmoor to ensure the ground is in actual use. As a result, they may not actively attempt to let the ground or utilise the asset within the terms of the lease..." It seems that Oakmoor has not only not attempted to let or use the ground within the terms of the lease but that it has, at the very least, not encouraged such use leading to the point where it can be asserted in the planning application that the "Sports ground is currently unused". Previous assessments by SMBC of playing fields provision identified a shortfall within St Alphege and Silhill wards and I would argue that the provision of local (as opposed to "edge-of-town") facilities is the only way to encourage regular participation in sports activities.which have both health and social benefits. I note that Sport England has found that Solihull is in the 3rd quartile nationally for over-16 participation in sport 3 times per week and that it continues to fall in the national league tables.

* The Arden Tennis Club is, however, an active and viable sports club. It seems from the plans that the current proposals encroach on the Club's present provision. I think that nothing should be done that will diminish the viability of that active club. Moving the Arden Club from freehold to leasehold land is likely to be to its detriment and it seems that they would have reduced parking. Difficulties in parking and increased congestion on Sharmans Cross Road could well make users less inclined to use the Arden Club.

There are numerous other points which could be made, including the increased likelihood of flooding with reduced surface area for the absorbtion of rainfall but I conclude by referring you to the Government's Guidance for Local Plans (May, 2016) which states "Local Plans set out a vision and a framework for the future development of the area, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and infrastructure - as well as a basis for safeguarding the environment, adapting to climate change and securing good design."

I do not think that this proposal meets those requirements when they are taken as a whole,.

Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I am writing to object to the proposed development off Sharmans cross road. My reasons are:

1. The development is not suitable for this area and will destroy the character of the neighbourhood. We would be concerned on the affordable housing and what this would attract to an area of expensive housing.
2. Traffic is already bad on Sharmans cross road at peak times and this would increase volume and cause even more gridlock. It is also near to a school and on a cycle route so the increase in traffic could cause danger to children.
3. Parking is already bad at peak times and when sport matches are on at Silhill and this would make it more chaotic.
4. More people on this land would mean more people accessing the schools and medical centres which are hard enough to get into.
5. I was under the impression that this land could only be used for sport so why destroy yet another sports area with housing.

proposed housing allocation 18

I live at Beaminster Road, having moved here with my young family in the past year.

I am very alarmed to hear about the proposed housing allocation 18 for 100 houses on Sharmans Cross Road.

I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons:

1. Increased Traffic
The roads around the proposed site are already struggling to cope with current traffic levels, and will not cope with further traffic, both construction and then ongoing increased traffic from the new houses (this could be over 200 cars if 100 houses are built!).
It is impossible to turn right from Sharmans Cross Road and Dorchester Road onto Streetsbrook Road at most times of day, and the tailback of traffic into Solihull along Streetsbrook Road is often slow and extending way past Sharmans Cross Road. I have witnessed accidents at these junctions, and fear an increase volume of traffic will increase the risk of further accidents. My oldest child is at Sharmans Cross School, and despite having crossing attendants, the danger for children as they walk to school and cross surrounding roads (even with their parents) is already higher than a lot of other Solihull primary schools. Increasing the traffic volume so close to this school will put these still very young children (often with even younger siblings on a tight time frame to get to and from the two nearby linked infant schools on time) at even greater risk I feel.

2. Loss of sporting facilities
My older children are members of Arden tennis club, and play tennis here with lots of friends from local schools. My youngest attends music classes here. The facilities serve our local community very well, getting children involved in more sports that are not offered everywhere (for example squash). I feel the playing fields next to the courts could also be utilised by the local community for sporting and other leisure events. I understand that several local groups have tried to use the grounds and would support this in the future. I realise the plans include relocating some of the facilities but it is my view the whole site should be maintained for local recreation. Once it has been developed the decision can not be reversed at what I feel would be a big loss to the local area.

3. Children's Safety.
As mentioned above, I feel a construction site followed by increased traffic will put local children's safety at risk. As over the next few years we face our children reaching the scary transition from being dropped at school to making their own way, we chose Beaminster Road because we felt it offers as safe an area as possible for them to do this. However I fear for their safety (both with an adult and as they start to walk alone) with the increase in traffic proposed, and the access roads for this large development being bottle necks onto already busy road systems.

4. Increased pressure on local resources.
As a local school governor, and a GP, I am fully aware of the pressure on local amenities. As I understand, no increased capacity is being made for health or education provisions in our area, so I am concerned that our already busy schools and Health care will not be able to cope with up to 100 families moving into the area.

I appreciate there is a need for new housing in Solihull, but I feel this site is completely unsuitable. I ask that you reject this site as a proposal.

I ask you confirm receipt of my objection before 17 February 2017.

Yours faithfully

Balsall Common - Frog Lane development proposal

Dear PSP and SMBC planning team,

I am writing to you to regarding the proposed development plans for Balsall Common and in particular the Frog Lane proposal.While I understand there is a need for additional housing in Solihull area, I strongly urge the SMBC to select a more suitable plot to Frog Lane and to consider the following issues;

* Frog Lane site is on green belt land and has been chosen in favour of brown field sites and extending existing developments. Green Belt should only be developed on in exceptional circumstances according to planning guidances
* The development proposals do not include the provision of infrastructure and would put increased pressure on school places, at both primary and secondary level;
o Balsall Common Primary has been pressurised to accommodate an additional 4th reception class for the last two years running and is already operating at full capacity
o As stated in the LA regulations introduced in 2015, Balsall Common Primary schools 'free space' is not sufficient to accommodate their current pupil numbers and will only be further impacted by these additional homes
* The Frog Lane and Windmill developments are on the wrong side of the village and too far away from the railway station and the village shops, increasing congestion around the primary and secondary school. There have been several incidences reported to the school in 2016/17 of children having near fatal accidents while walking to school. I strongly urge SMBC to visit these areas during peak times and to consider the safety/lives of children in their bid to fill their housing quota.
* The development proposals are on Green Field sites on the outskirts of the village so approving planning permission will set a precedent and promote additional erosion of the green belt.
* Frog lane is a small development - it will not solve the housing shortage problems in the village and only add to the infrastructure challenges we already face (congestion, oversubscribed schools, doctors)
* Frog lane proposes to include the development of the local recreational land owned by the council, and suggests this proposal has been put forward for commercial/ profiteering reasons over protection of green belt and local green spaces

Based on the comments above, I would urge SMBC to select a more suitable alternative plot to Frog Lane and Windmill Lane that will benefit both SMBC and the Balsall Common residents and to consider ;
* One large development with vital infrastructure needed to accommodate the expansion included (shops, gym, community centre etc) funded by the developers
* Develop a site that is near to the railway station and existing amenities so people can walk to the station and shops, reducing congestion in the village
* Consider alternative brownfield sites available/long term strategy planning. Development plans on greenbelt are negatively impacting the countryside long term and once gone the damage can not be reserved

The selection of a single large site based on the criteria above will keep SMBC and the Balsall Common residents happy and satisfy the need for additional housing whilst minimising the negative impact on the existing residents of the village.

I urge you to reconsider the Frog Lane and Windmill lane proposals on this basis.

Best regards

Allocation 13 - 600 houses

I am writing in regards to the housing building plan set by local Government. Though I understand the need to more housing, it is not acceptable that over 40% of the planned building are going to be in our area - already suffering from massive increase in traffic and transport in particular. My surgery on Stratford road already is stretched to the limit and it was hard for me to find school for my daughter as schools around the area are over subscribed.
As you are certainly aware this area suffers immensely from lack of government funds for our schools and the situation is taking its tool as children like my daughter who has different needs no being able to get what they need from their school - increasing the number of pupils will have a detrimental impact on our local schools.

As for the benefits mentioned on the Review, it is hard to see any benefit to HS2 as Shirley will be one of the worse places in the borough to get to the new station, when it eventually be ready. Till then A34 and M42 areas will be even more congested.

I hope other people have something to say and this time it won't be like the Parkside development when we woke up to see our Shirley Park destroyed and our beautiful 300 years old Oak trees cut off in such a snick way. More clarity is needed and the council needs to make sure the community around here is fully aware of the reality and impact of the council's plans.

I am looking forward to your comments,

Draft Local Plan LPR ref Site 16

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to the above site and write to raise my concerns over its suitability for development. Its inclusion in the schedule breaches one of the LDP's own objectives. In particular I would like to highlight the following issues:

1. Policy P19 Range and quality of Local Services promotes developments will need to be sensitive to local character and enhance public realm. This proposed development does not meet this criteria and is excessive in size for the locality.

2. Schools and local surgeries are already over subscribed. There is no guarantee that increased provision will be provided even though it is recognised that schools, public transport and health services will need to be increased. There is already an issue with the funding of existing services.

3. Loss of prime agricultural land.

4. By allocating the site for development Solihull MBC is breaching its own objectives namely that shown on page 21 Challenge E Protecting key gaps between urban areas and rural settlements. The field you have selected is 1 of 2 that separate the settlement of Catherine de Barnes from Solihull. By allocating this site the distance between Solihull and C de B is eroded by 50%.

5. Potential loss of listed building at Field Farm.

6. The field is within the Meriden Gap an area that has been recognised by Solihull MBC as being under considerable development threat and to be protected where possible. The local authority's commitment to housing can be met without using this site.

7. Both Lugtrout Lane and Field Lane will have to be upgraded significantly thus completely changing the character of the rural local area.

8. There will be a loss of accessible recreational sports facilities which is not in line with Challenge J Improving health and wellbeing for everyone. Sports facilities are already limited in the area.

9. Although it is stated that most of the bordering roads will need to be upgraded this will not alleviate the constant traffic issues that this area is subjected to. Hampton Lane and Damson Parkway are at a standstill at peak times and even worse when there are problems on the motorway. Adding to this volume of traffic with more housing will only increase this problem. Widening the roads will not reduce traffic. The continual expansion of JLR will also result in an increase in traffic add to this a site of 650 dwellings and it can be seen what impact this will have on an already congested area.

In summary this site is unsuitable for development and SMBC should review its intention to include it in the plan.

Yours sincerely

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Dear Sirs,

With reference to the above I wish to make the following comments with specific reference to traffic congestion.

If the proposed development of 100 houses occur to the playing fields on Sharmans Cross Road then the additional traffic impact loads will severely, and adversely, effect the existing infrastructure which currently is under huge strain especially at peak times.

The current status of traffic congestion and "log jam" in and around Sharmans Cross Road, Woodside Way, Streetsbrook Road and surrounding areas especially at the time of rush hour not only leads to safety concerns of road users and members of the public but also to huge frustration, loss of productivity, and pollution to the environment in this urban location. These roads and the flow of traffic are also adversely affected by people leaving their cars in side roads and then walking into Solihull to avoid car parking charges, rather than using public transport. This factor does not allow the free flow of traffic in these areas and may not be reflected in any traffic modelling analysis to date?

As a result of the above, I would request that the following questions are considered and addressed as part of this consultation process;

1. Has a detailed "traffic impact study" been undertaken to reflect the additional traffic loads that will be imposed on existing infrastructure as a result of this proposed developed?

2. What are the new access and egress routes to the proposed development and how is this to be reflected in an updated modelling analysis?

3. What measures are proposed to mitigate the above effects upon the existing infrastructure?

4. What measures are the Council taking with consideration to side road parking and its effect upon current and possible future traffic flows.

These factors are MOST IMPORTANT and are worthy of your full review and consideration during your consultation process.

I would be grateful for your response in due course.

Allocation 13

I would like to object in the strongest possible terms to this allocation of 600 houses.
Firstly I do not appreciate a card from the council was only posted through my letterbox on Thursday February 10th, had the council only just decided on this location?
I live and work in the local area the traffic is already impossible.
Again Solihull council feel the need to wipe away any green land there is locally.
What about the wild life?
I work in Dog Kennel Lane the traffic in peak times is impossible, are the council planning to widen all the roads in this area?
Are pedestrian crossings going to be put in?
How is the sewage system going to cope?
What about drainage?
Why is this area being targeted with so many homes?
A development of this size will spoil the local area.

It's disgusting why don't you build these houses in Solihull park?

Object object object!!!

Sharmans Cross Road development

Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed building of 100 houses on the recreational land on Sharmans Cross Road. My main concern as a local resident is the increase in traffic, which at times is already hazardous for young school attendees. As a mother with young children I am especially aware of this being on maternity leave and am eager to minimise any dramatic increases in traffic. I hope you will consider the potential impact this will have on those that not only commute but also live in the area.
Kind regards,

Allocation 13
Dear sir/madam,
Please be aware that I strongly object to your plans for allocation 13. I don't think the roads will support any of the planned estates and there won't be enough school places to supports the extra families. The doctors struggle now to give you an appointment so what will happen if this proposal goes ahead!?? It's ludicrous! It won't be affordable it'll be over priced just like dickins Heath.
Not happy

Objection to Sharmans Cross Road Development

I am writing to object to the plans to build 100 houses on the site of the Solihull Arden Tennis Club on Sharmans Cross Road.

As a member of the tennis club and a parent whose children walk to school via this route everyday I strongly object due to the increase in the amount of traffic and my deep concerns for children's safety. Sharmans Cross Road especially by the entrance to the Squash Club is a terrible spot for traffic issues already - I walk past this every morning on my way to Sharmans Cross School. I really think not only will there be an increase in traffic but also a risk to pedestrians.

My children go to Sharmans Cross School which is already over subscribed, this is going to have a major effect on school places and their availability with local residents having to travel even further for schools (hence more increased traffic and pollution)

Such a terrible shame that a well loved sporting area is going to taken up by more houses and the local children are going to be put at risk with the increase of traffic.

Regards