LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing in connection with the above proposed development. I wish to object strongly to the building of houses in this location, below is list of my reasons.

1.Increased Traffic

The Development would generate a lot of extra traffic to the area ,leading to more congestion and parking on the side streets,Woodlea drive and Woodside Way already have enough problems with this without any further increase in vehicles.

There will also be a danger to pedestrians from vehicles leaving and entering the new site from Sharmans cross Rd, particularly during school pick up and drop off times.

2.Local Amenities
There will be increased demand on already oversubscribed Schools and Doctors surgeries.

3.Unsuitability
The development is totally out of Character with the area, and would be detrimental to trees and wildlife.

Yours faithfully

Re: LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I would like to object to the above application on the following grounds:

1.The severe overdevelopment of the site as per the plan is completely out of character for the area. In addition Sharmans Cross Road is too narrow to cope with the increased traffic resulting from such a development. Traffic is already reduced to single file when vehicles are parked on the road( and this will increase) and more congestion will mean more pollution.

2.The increased pollution will affect children walking to Sharmans Cross Junior school and other local schools as well as cyclists as the road is a designated cycle route. Congestion around the Junior School is already severe at the start and end of the school day.

3. When there is such a demand for sporting facilities in the area SMBC should not be exacerbating the problem. This sports ground is sorely needed and should be being used and SMBC has previously stated that sports grounds would only be used for sport. The sports grounds should therefore be excluded from the LDP.

4.It is irresponsible and short sighted of SMBC to be reducing sporting facilities when we need to be encouraging participation in sport from an early age. Good attitudes to sport and exercise are learned early in life and lead to a healthier adulthood. Unfortunately, we seem to be witnessing a decline in the health of much of the population that the country cannot afford. As well as weight problems profound Vitamin D deficiency is common in the UK. Solihull is woefully low in national league tables for sport participation according to Sport England and SMBC should be doing its utmost to remedy this.

LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you to express my strong objection to the proposed development of 100 houses on the rugby ground at Sharmans Cross Road, Solihull. My main objections are as follows:

1. In the past one application has already been refused by the Council, and a further was withdrawn. I understand that it was formally minuted in 2013 that the council would not sell the freehold. I would like the council to reaffirm its policy of the use of this land only for sport. Solihull needs more sporting facilities, not less.

2. The amount of extra traffic from the proposed development will only add to an increase in pollution (something that is very much in the news at the moment, with the relevant harm to health and the environment). Streetsbrook Road is already gridlocked morning and evening, and Sharman Cross Road is also a very busy road. There is also a huge inherent danger to cyclists as this is a designated cycle route.

3. There is also a cause for concern to me with the danger of increased road traffic in a road that contains a junior school. Lives will be put at increased risk as they are getting to and from school on foot. As a resident of the area I am very well aware of how difficult this situation is already.

4. Local schools and medical centres are already severely stretched and simply would not be able to accommodate this number of extra residents.

5. This proposed development is simply too big for the area. It is totally out of keeping with the surrounding roads and will cause problems with destroying trees and wildlife habitat. We should be mindful of these concerns now and in the future.

I urge you to consider these and all objections you receive, and refuse this totally unacceptable proposal that has been made once again. As far as I am aware, none of the reasons for the original refusals have changed.

Yours faithfully

Save Allocation 13

I am writing to express my concern over the proposed "developments" in Shirley, which will destroy our Green Belt, leading to a loss of wildlife and nature. It will impact upon schools and doctors and traffic on the road where we live. All the members of my household, are strongly opposed to this development. It will not be a development as such, as it will have a detrimental effect on our community.

I hope my views will be taken into account, I want to preserve the green belt and our area for future generations and for my children and I am opposed to the building of the proposed houses.

Yours faithfully,

Solihull Planning department- Allocation 13 proposals

Dear Sirs,

I have lived here for the last 35 years and I am writing to express my concerns over the proposal to flood the green-belt area of Shirley South with housing developments.

The following are a number of points that I would like to be considered before this proposal is considered in more detail:

* It is unfair for Solihull to be expected to shoulder the burden of the inability of Birmingham to provide new housing.
For instance one only has to look around the view from the train into the city to see that there are many brownfield sites that could be utilised for them to fulfil their quota.
Just two examples are land at Tyseley has been empty for the last 10 years at least and at Digbeth there are large ground-level car parks while the multi-stories lie unutilised.

Birmingham needs to be made to fulfil their quotas.

* If there are to be new housing developments then they need to be localised so that there is good and available access to communication routes.
Therefore it would seem logical to consider areas with good access to the motorway network and the proposed HS2 route.

The proposed developments do not do this.

* South Shirley does not have good infrastructure in either roads or social and health provision to support more housing.
You will be aware that the local Health trust have removed the A&E facility at Solihull Hospital and that major injuries now need to be routed elsewhere.
It would be logical to site new developments within a reasonably accessible time-frame from major health-care centres.
At peak times the roads around here are so busy that one often has to rely on the goodwill of drivers to cross roads such as Bill's Lane or Hasluck's Green Road to be able to safely cross them.

It is ridiculous to even contemplate that the area could even begin to cope with the numbers of proposed houses.


With Particular reference to Allocation 13:

* This is a hugely-valuable area of greenbelt land which currently separates the sprawl of Shirley with that of Dickens Heath.

* It is used and enjoyed by many for recreational walking/ jogging /cycling and dog-walking.
As a walker of dogs myself I have been aware over the years just how many people use this beautiful country area.
Indeed there are some people who come from afar to walk their dogs here and the numbers have certainly increased since the large area of Shirley Parkland was sold off for development.

* The area is rich in wildlife and it is a pleasure enjoyed by very many residents to get out into the country to hear birdsong and breathe the fresh air.
Furthermore it is a huge advantage to us all that we do not have to get into our cars to do this-it is just a short walk away for so many of us.


I believe that it would be criminal of Solihull Council (who are supposed to look after their residents to take this away from us and destroy this oasis of nature.

Yours sincerely

I wish to express my very strong objection to the proposed plans of 700 dwellings on a 41 hectare site to the West of Dickens Heath. Allocation 4.

The area concerned is green belt land which will be completely eroded to the Bromsgrove District border. This will result in there being no green belt buffer between the two council areas creating an urban sprawl. Building on the green belt should only be allowed 'in exceptional circumstances'. Under the government white paper it states " 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 do not believe the further expansion of Dickens Heath to be 'exceptional circumstances' as there are numerous options yet to be explored. I also understand that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses overspill from the Birmingham allocation. This seems unreasonable as there are numerous brownfield sites as well as public spaces and unused public buildings that should be considered first.

There will be a loss of ancient woodland, historic hedgerows, wildlife habitat and diverse ecosystems that can normally be found in such an area of green space. The loss of trees having a significant impact on air quality. Leisure facilities used by the community are also under threat.
The distance of the planned build from Dickens Heath village centre will encourage residents to use nearer facilities in neighbouring council areas and of course utilise their roads and infrastructure.

Majors Green has already taken a significant amount of additional traffic from the extension of Whitlocks End railway station car park. Those who cannot get in the car park are currently parking in our small roads and pavements in Majors Green. The planned further expansion of the car park is based on current useage, and this will encourage more cars to use the car park and subsequently more traffic through our 'village'.
We are currently struggling with the amount of traffic coming along Haslucks Green Road. The dangerous bend in Majors Green has seen over 30 accidents in 18 months. The recent addition of coloured tarmac is already buckling under the amount of cars using the road. Haslucks Green Road and surrounding roads are country lanes, they were not designed as a race through/cut through for fast cars from major urban developments. An additional 700 houses could mean an extra 1400 cars looking for a quick route out of Dickens Heath along roads across the boundary in Bromsgrove. There seems to be an encouragement by Solihull Council to direct traffic away from Dickens Heath village and on to surrounding country lanes, the majority of which travel down Tilehouse Lane and then Haslucks Green Road.
Surely encouragement should be given for people to walk to the station, provide proper wide footpaths and adequate safe street lighting instead of further polluting our countryside on a short journey to the station
Further building in Dickens Heath West will be detrimental to the area and put an intolerable strain on the already struggling doctors surgeries and schools.

Flooding will be an issue. Majors Green is regularly 'cut off' when we have heavy rain with flooding in Tilehouse Lane, Haslucks Green Road & Aqueduct Road. Further building will only exacerbate this situation

In summary, whilst we understand there is a need for more housing please give serious consideration to alternative sites such as those on the list of 'call for sites' submissions and Blythe Valley/M42 corridor. The plan appears disproportionate with 41% of the housing planned for 4 sites which neighbour our community. Having lived in Majors Green for 31 years we have seen and embraced many changes. We have invested in the local community and use the facilities that are currently under threat. Please do not take away the green space we enjoy regularly as walkers and for leisure. This will significantly impact on our quality of life. Please protect our green belt and the semi rural aspect of our area. To quote Bill Bryson , previous President of Campaign to Protect Rural England, "our countryside is the world's largest park .. all we have to do is look after it"...

Objections and Comments on Allocation 13 (without prejudice)

I write to register my objection to the development of Shirley South.
Allocation number 13.

The effect will completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.

Under the governments 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".

There are numerous options still yet to be explored exhausted and 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.

The addition of hundreds of new homes will compound congestion and traffic to a catastrophic level.

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 virtually impossible to get children into the secondary schools of 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.

The infrastructure won't allow for these additional families, lack of school places, unable even now to get a doctors appointment as it is. 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 become 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.

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. One 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 now part of it has been developed 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 built 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.

Please bear these valid points points when making your final decision.

Allocation 13

I wish to register my disgust at the proposal to build yet more residential properties on this much valued and beautiful part of Shirley.
We have suffered greatly with the development of Dickens Heath.
This piece of land is beautiful and is home to much valued wildlife and provides local people with a chance to walk and enjoy its peaceful surroundings.
This part of Shirley is already awash with people and cars and I fail to see how another 600 homes is going to be of any benefit to anyone apart from the developers.
Green belt means what is says and should not be ignored!

Development of 100 Houses on Sharmans Cross Road

Living in Solihull I do understand the importance of building new houses, but have concerns that the high intensity of a hundred new houses (for families many with young children) in the proposed area will cause problems with the already oversubscribed amenities, such as schools, health care, parking and more traffic congestion. Around Solihull these issues are already a growing problem.

Solihull Local Plan Review 2017 Proposed Housing Allocation 13

Dear Council Members
I am contacting you to register my alarm and dismay concerning the draft local plan for the proposed Housing Allocation 13 South of Shirley. I am pleased and impressed that even though you are not bound by requirement to consult with local residents that the opportunity is available to us. I also hope that you are sincere when you state that will listen to the strength of feeling and very real concerns that we have about the use of Allocation 13.
Firstly let me say that I acknowledge the growing need for new affordable housing and recognise obligation that Solihull MBC has to provide additional housing under current requirements. However I have strong objections concerning the proposals for the use of the land you have named Area 13 which I will expand upon.
The loss of this public amenity area would be a catastrophic loss for the residents of the local area. Local residents are using the field from 6.30 in the morning to 11:00 at night, I aware of this as my house is opposite the access gate. The use of Allocation 13 is varied people walk, run and exercise their dogs. We are encouraged daily from various sources to take exercise as it's important to healthy minds as well as healthy bodies. I regularly walk in the fields with friends and family members because it is a beautiful area and I have never been to the fields and not met another local resident walking and enjoying this spot. Local wildlife I have seen and heard includes cuckoos, voles, moles, bats, newts and muntjac deer. In your own leaflet 'Reviewing the Plan for Solihull's Future' it states that you want to maximise the benefit of HS2 whilst protecting our environment. Planning to build houses in Area 13 does not do this. As it stands currently Shirley does not have a good provision of open space and parkland. If Allocation 13 was built upon this would mean the loss of not just greenbelt fields but the loss of an open green space that is used and held in the hearts of the local people. I can't press this point enough. In addition under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states" 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 would press the planning department to look again at possible brownfield sites in the borough.
Living opposite the fields I would like to mention the very real surface water we experience year round on the grassed areas and in our gardens. I understand this is due to the local water table and the soil we have which has a high clay component. Further development would only exacerbate this existing problem.
Earlier in my comments I stated that I understand that there is a need for housing in the Solihull borough to this end I would ask that the new housing is not ie 41% centred on just the Shirley area. This would put further strain on the local infrastructure particularly the transport system around the four sites outlined for Shirley which would all feed into the same routes. This would increase travel delays, congestion and standing traffic at peak times which would exponentially increase the production of greenhouse gases and further impact on the environment.
In the Draft Local Plan the council asks for residents views to help Solihull to 'grow and develop into the place we would like it to be. ' Building on all four sites planned for south Shirley especially Allocation 13 I feel goes against this stated aim.
I wish for my objections and those of the many others that have contacted you in connection to Allocation 13 to be considered when the next version of the plan is produced.

LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to object to the proposal for the development on the site of sporting facilities in Sharmans Cross Road on the following grounds-

Loss of sporting facilities
The motivation for children to gain interest and participate in outdoor sports is directly related to the accessibility of appropriate facilities for themselves and their parents. Access to sport is of paramount importance for our children to ensure good immediate and long term health.The loss of these playing fields would be counter to a sensible policy of encouraging health and well being.
With respect to the proposal, the description of the playing fields as 'derelict' is misleading. The playing surfaces are in an immediately playable condition. A small covered stand does appear to be in disrepair but could easily be dismantled. However, the current leaseholders have chosen to leave this on site as an obvious attraction for vandals.
I am aware that the only reason that these playing fields are unused is the actions of the current leaseholders in failing to cooperate with interested parties or promote the use of the facilities as intended by SMBC.

Accessibility
It is my impression that the number of car parking spaces allocated to each of the proposed units is based on the premise that access to the station and other facilities are within the limits set for accessibility. This is not the case as the distances far exceed 'those suggested.

It is Important that these playing fields are maintained to ensure the health and well being of our children and the quality of life in our community.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Dear Sirs/Madams
I wish to object to the inclusion in the LDP of a development on the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road.
My principal concerns are as follows:
Loss of green, open space
The site is currently a welcome, open space in a pleasant, residential area, and should be used for recreation. In addition it is beneficial in being grassed as it can absorb some of the rainfall to reduce flooding. If this area is built on as planned, we will lose many things:

Permanent loss of sports ground - Solihull is already poorly supplied with sports facilities, and this site in particular is covenanted to be used for sports. This covenant alone should be sufficient reason not to ever consider development of this site. There are local clubs in need of grounds, but this one is not able to be used due to the developer's plans. The covenant should be honoured, and local clubs allowed use of the ground. Lack of facilities reduces the participation in sport of children and adults, impacting health and general well-being. Solihull's poor performance in this area could also negatively impact the attractiveness of the area.

The character of the area - Currently, the dwellings in this vicinity are predominantly widely spaced, two storey houses with large gardens and open space around. The planned development would need to be 5 times denser, so with less gardens and/or taller. They will thus be out of character with the area, and will impact on the right to light and privacy of existing homeowners. Solihull could lose its reputation as being a 'nice place to live' if developments are overcrowded like this.

Drainage - Gardens and land in this area already suffer from poor drainage and flooding. The significant increase in hard surfaces proposed for this site will increase flooding in the area, with many environmental and social impacts.


Traffic
Sharmans Cross Road is already an extremely busy road, and is particularly hazardous at either end of the school day when there are many children walking, scooting or cycling along and across the road. Both ends of this road are very congested with large queues attempting to access Streetsbrook Road or the roundabout at Prospect Lane. The addition of 100 dwellings will inevitably add to this congestion and increase the risk of death or serious injury to pedestrians and other road users. Any other point of egress from this site would not be any better, with Whitefields Road and Welcombe Grove not being suitable for any volume of traffic, and such traffic trying to access Streetsbrook Road or Blossomfield Road will still ultimately increase congestion near the town centre. In turn, this again impacts the attractiveness of the area to visitors, residents and businesses.

Pollution
Along with congestion on these roads, the increased queuing traffic will increase pollution on routes where children are walking to school, impacting their health. Such less desirable circumstances could also discourage children from walking to school when we should be doing all we can to increase this.

Parking
The parking for the Club will be insufficient at peak times, hence users will be forced to park on the road. This would exaceberate all the above points: congestion, risk to road users, and pollution. Also, parking for residents would be very limited due to the density of the proposed development. This would create further problems, including a possible clash between residents and club members over the use of club parking spaces.


I would also note that there are various errors and omissions in the document from Cerda proposing this site, including the following (section numbers shown in brackets).
(1.1) Arden Lawn Tennis Club Ltd have said they were not party to this instruction. For Cerda to imply such seems underhanded to say the least.
(1.3) The site is not immediately available: it is subject to a covenant to be used for sports only. Also, the freehold is owned by SMBC. As a council tax payer, I would object to the council selling freehold land at less than its true value, and giving up a covenant intended for the benefit of the community.
(2.8) The site is not 700m from the station: it is between 1000m & 1100m. It is therefore not an accessible site and more parking would be needed than is planned for. This exacerbates the points made above.
(5.8) There is not sufficient other provision for sport in the area as mentioned above.
(5.14) The proposed development could not be the same density as surrounding areas which can easily be seen from a map.
(5.21) The current use of the access for the Club is nowhere near representative of the amount of traffic that would be generated - especially at peak times - by a residential estate, particularly of 100 houses. There is therefore no evidence that the highways can safely accommodate such an increase.
This document is therefore highly misleading and should not be accepted.

Please consider these points and reject this proposal.

With reference to the consultation in respect of the draft Solihull Local Plan, I object to the inclusion of land identified as Ref 1, 2 and 3 in the Schedule of Allocated Housing Sites for the following reasons:

1. Green Belt - the land is within the existing Green Belt and whilst the NPPF indicates that Green Belt boundaries can be altered through the preparation and review of Local Plans, it also makes it clear that this is only in exceptional circumstances. In my submission, the circumstances here are not exceptional.
2. Alternative sites - I consider there to be suitable alternative sites elsewhere in the Borough that can accommodate a development of this scale. In particular, I am not convinced that the Borough Council has adequately addressed how it can maximise the use of previously developed land before then considering altering the Green Belt boundary. One of the purposes of Green Belt is to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict land. In my view, the Council is taking the easy option by seeking to allocate this site ahead of maximising brownfield sites
3. Countryside - one of the purposes of Green Belt is to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. A development of this scale and on these sites would have a significant adverse effect on the countryside setting of Balsall Common and would be contrary to the principles of Green Belt policy in the NPPF.
4. Infrastructure - any development for up to 800 houses in this location would put an unacceptable strain on local infrastructure. Roads, schools, GP's surgery etc are already at or near capacity and a development of this scale in this rural setting will have an unacceptable impact that is unlikely to be adequately mitigated.

For the above reasons, I urge the Council to reject the allocation of these sites.

I would like to be kept informed of progress with the Local Plan.

Sharmans Cross Rd Development

I would like to object to the proposed building of 90 houses on the sports facilities at Sharmans Cross Road. These Sports Facilities have been used by me, my family and friends for the past 40 years since I've lived in Solihull.

The increased volume of traffic onto Sharmans Cross Rd and Streetsbrook Rd plus any roads in the vicinity will be totally gridlocked and it is busy enough now.

These houses would increase the demand on our schools and medical centres which are already at breaking point. Any other access such as Welcombe Grove would be an extreme danger to householders and to children who are walking/cycling/skateboarding down the road.

This area of Solihull is a valued space containing many trees and bushes. There are families of Greater Spotted Woodpeckers and also Green Woodpeckers which nest in this area annually and if you remove the forestation these birds will no longer have nesting sites and a place to live.

As a keen Birdwatcher and sportsman I think any development would be a disaster for this area.

Kind regards

I would like to object to the proposed development plan Allocation 13.

I live opposite the fields and regularly walk and enjoy this very beautiful area threatened by the building of 600 homes on the fields.
I understand 41% of the proposed new homes will be built in the Shirley South area this seems unfair to the local community as well as the impact on local infrastructure. I have grave concerns on how this will affect the character and landscape of this well loved area.
Please consider my objection when the draft local plan is reviewed.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

As a resident of the area I wish to object to the above proposal. I have just moved to the above address but have lived in the area for over 14 years. I am against this proposal because the traffic along Sharmans Cross road particularly in the morning is always gridlocked. As I walk my daughter to Sharmans Cross School, I have encountered vehicles driving at excessive speed and using Woodside Way as a cut through to try and miss out the tail back on Streetsbrook Road. This proposal of an extra 100 houses will increase the traffic problem tenfold, putting children who walk to school at greater risk and increasing pollution in the atmosphere. As a parent, I like my children to walk to school safely but more parents may be reluctant to only to increase the traffic problem by driving children to school. As the SMBC are aware there are already parking issues around Sharmans Cross, Woodlea Drive at school times, which will only increase and causing more danger.

Is SMBC going to build more schools or increase funding for current schools to expand to accommodate these extra children? These schools are already over subscribed and already struggling to deal with the increase in the population. We cannot let the current high standards of our schools suffer without there being proper investment and longterm planning to accommodate more housing.

Just to reiterate, I strongly object to this proposal being passed by SMBC in this location or any other location the affects the green space we are fortunate to have in Solihull, which is the main reason I left living in a city.

Objection to the development of allocation 13 ( Shirley South ) without Prejudice

I'm writing to you to with a formal objection to the Solihull draft plan

The facts are that Solihull is a reasonable large Borough but 41% of the total housing proposal is earmarked for Shirley this is out of proportion and the allocations should be more evenly spread across the borough to befit all and the inevitable strain on already overloaded infrastructure more evenly distributed.
The large allocation in Shirley South does not benefit HS2 either as it's all located the opposite side of Solihull meaning the A34, A41 or M42 must be used to access this high speed rail link station.
The Federation of master builders study finds that smaller developments of around 100 houses are ensure variety and diversity

I also see no robust investigation of brownfield sites, other counsels across the UK have made much better use of these and should be considered as best practice.

Green belt
The Loss of Green space and amenity areas which has a direct impact on the welfare of people

I quote "Celebrating what is special about Solihull "
(Solihull council Green belt Strategy review 2014)

The housing minister Gavin Barwell has also gone a record
" building on Green belt is not the way to solve the shortage of homes "
(Evening standard 5th Feb 2017)


Road access & Infrastructure

Bills lane is narrow and constrained by houses on both sides with traffic calming already in place
which means Solihull council already recognise the road has safety issues with a 7.5T weigh limit.
The traffic pinch point at Burman road / Shakespeare drive junctions with constant ques at peak times
Tamworth lane is also grid lock now from early morning again with not many options to widen or improve traffic flow as this also constrained on both sides by houses and also has traffic calming
The plan has no details of what Infrastructure improvements if any would be made to address this very real issue. The comment of "details will be given at the next stage" is unsatisfactory
If as private residents were seeking planning for an extension we would not be permitted to supply half the information and expect planning to be granted


Parking at Train stations
Shirley and Whitlocks End stations are already beyond current capacity
Parking restrictions have already being put in place by Solihull council on surrounding side roads at Shirley due parking issues.

Increased Flooding

Seven Trent installed a large new storm water pump station in Neville road a few years to mitigate flooding risk
This will have a standard 10% flex the development proposal will be way above this allowance
A Flood Risk Analysis study should be conducted and results should be published
SFRA December 2014 P16 Sec 2.3.2 - LPA to ensue new developments do not increase the flood risk elsewhere

I feel the plan needs to be completed re done to allocate small sites across the whole borough, studying the call for sites there are plenty of options that have been ignored this may no suit the developers who what to "stack em high and sell em cheap ( ish ) "

I don't believe anybody underestimates the problem of housing but the counsel have duty to ensure we don't look back in years to come and regret the decisions that were made ( 1960's high rise flats )

We have been asked to suggest possible alternatives but for me it's the counsels role to find a fair solution that takes in the view of the people who voted them into office and pay Counsel tax

On that note one suggestion which has been discussed locally is to relocate Lighthall School to Dog kennel lane and then develop the old school site for housing.
On the face of it this looks sensible as it would allow easier access for the school runs as it lins directly to the A34 and take the congestion away from Hathaway Rd / Shakespeare drive

Site 16 Building plan

I wish to put my objection into for the planned building.

Lugtrout Lane and particularly Field Lane are ancient rural areas. Field Lane has badger sets, owls, hedgehogs that need protecting. Plus the sports fields which give pleasure to so many. All in the name of profit for the few builders. I had always hoped the area would become a conservation area to enjoy.

Land Rover to be allowed to take precious Land with ancient trees when acres of old industrial land lay waste is immoral.

The grand plan of the council to build on precious greenbelt not just here but swathes of land between Shirley and Dickens Heath proves that the council have no intention of keeping Solihull Urbs in Rure.

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I have concerns that the proposed "development" will lead to significant noise and air pollution due to increase in traffic that can have adverse health effects in a residential area not only to to those in their homes but also those engaged in walking or cycling for leisure/commute.

The increase in traffic will lead to congestion to existing residents commuting to and from work. As a doctor who frequently may get called out for emergencies this will add to my travel time.

I am also concerned about road safety due to increase in traffic. I have been signatory to a campaign which highlighted the death of an elderly gentleman. He was a family friend in Solihull where previous objections to traffic handling was raised by a family member about accidents to pedestrians. In a bizarre twist of fate the same family lost a loved one leading to a an ongoing campaign for road safety.

I will be very concerned if any objections which are legitimately raised now are ignored leading to any traffic related accidents on this stretch of the road due to what will be a marked increase in traffic

Proposed Housing Sharmans cross road

I am writing to strongly object about the proposed houses on the old rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road. The plans have been rejected in the past and here are my reasons why they should be rejected once again:

The schools and medical centres in the immediate area are both extremely oversubscribed. If you were to allow 100 more families onto the road this would lead to a degradation in services for us local residents.

Furthermore, this area of Solihull is highly valued for its environmental benefits. We have many mature trees with preservation orders and I'm worried that any development would destroy this space which we enjoy on a daily basis. I am deeply worried as to what will happen to all the wildlife in the area including badgers and bats that reside in this open area.

Solihull needs to keep these sporting facilities. There is a shortage of sports pitches in the area and I understand the council has a responsibility to ensure lost pitches are replaced with facilities of equivalent quality and accessibility.

The traffic on Sharmans Cross Road is already grid locked every morning. Cars queue all the way from one end of the road to the other meaning journey times are increased by a factor of 6. I.e. It takes 6 times longer to get out of Sharmans Cross Road than it would do when there is no traffic around. Adding 100 more houses to this will simply make matters much worse. How and where the traffic is meant to go getting out of the new development? It will take a very long time to get anywhere.

The road is already full of parked cars every day because of the school and medical centre and other sporting facilities - it will be very dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists to travel down this road with even more parked cars in the area.

Therefore I ask you that you do not allow this proposal to go ahead. We do not want it.

appeal to allocation 13

To whoever it may concern

I would like to make a formal appeal to the proposed development at allocation 13 Shirleys infrastructure is not able to cope with this proposal and disruption would be unacceptable. The fields are sacred to many people who walk dogs and walk through the wonderful fields I have 2 children and have spent hours in The fields at the back of our house ( 76 Binley Close, Shirley)

Objection to Site 4 Land west of Dickens Heath

To Whom it May Concern

Please acknowledge NOT just receipt BUT that you have read and understood my concerns about this development.


I understand that The Solihull Metropolitan BoroughCouncil need to allocate sufficient land for at least 6,522 net additional homes to ensure sufficient housing land supply to deliver 15,029 additional homes in the period 2014-2033 but I would like someone with authority, some degree of responsibility and a feeling of duty to the residents of Tibbury Green & Dickens Heath to read and consider the objections such as those listed in my letter.

Site 4 Land west of Dickens Heath

See link below:-
http://www.solihull.gov.uk/Portals/0/Planning/LPR/Draft_Local_Plan_05.12.16.pdf

As a resident of Tidbury Green and a ratepayer of Dickens Heath, I object this proposal in the Green Belt for the following reasons:-

1. Green Belt - Residents wish to preserve the green belt as much as possible to prevent merging with neighbouring settlements including Tidbury Green, Wythall, Chiswick Green, Tamworth In Arden, Blythe Valley.
2. Loss of woodland and trees, how do you feel about the adverse effect on the Local Wildlife Sites and loss of playing fields for your family & their children?
3. Traffic and congestion -everyone, be they a pedestrian, cyclist or just pulling your car out of a driveway knows how dangerous things are getting, must have a concern with traffic and congestion, which will only get significantly worse as a result of any further development. Generally, the entire road network around Dickens Heath, Tidbury Green, Chiswick Green, Hockley Heath & Tamworth in Arden is in a very poor state, both in terms of road surface and road safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Tidbury Green residents use Dickens Heath shops and facilities and the parking there is already inadequate without further development. More importantly, there doesn't appear to be any way to improve the parking situation in the village, making the new development proposals unsustainable because they are too far away for walking to the facilities in the village centre and would therefore increase car usage, resulting in further pressure on parking and further gridlock. This is the thin edge of the wedge before these roads become an arterial road! Can you imagine the noise? Goodbye tranquility. I personally have had to give up a my lifetime passion of cycling because of several near misses / accidents through speeding commuting traffic and HGVs!
4. There are also concerns about school places and the ability of the current medical services to cope. Tidbury Green School would have to be extended further.
5. The impact of the development would mean certain businesses closing down - you may not have enjoyed the fun of eating or visiting Akamba, but they have played an important role as an important local employer and facility.
6. We need the Site selection to distribute new housing fairly across the Borough to include extending existing urban areas to defendable boundaries while avoiding coalescence between rural villages. A case in points the concern over a disproportionate number of homes being proposed in the Blythe area.
7. The density of housing conflicts with the nature and characteristics of Tidbury Green. The closing gap between Wythall, Tidbury Green and Dickens Heath is contributing to the loss of identity of these historic communities.



In summary there are no exceptional circumstances for changing the boundary to allow 700 new houses on the land proposed on Site 4 west of Dickens Heath.


Finally, why is it yet again this part of the Borough which is being blighted by so much building, we have had more than our fair share over the past 20 years, with Dickens Heath, the addition to Cheswick Green , plus the two new developments in Tidbury Green. This whole area is changing so fast, all the smaller villages are loosing their identities, and being enveloped into one huge concrete jungle, where does it stop!

Could you at least do me the honour of acknowledging that you have read and understood these issues from a residents point of view, and not as a Council who just needs to fulfil its building quota.

Yours faithfully,

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Please can you register my objection to the above. I believe that Solihull is consuming too much green space and abandoning its claim to be a tree filled borough. Yet another sporting facility will be removed and more pressure put on already full schools and services in the area.

I write in reference to the inclusion of allocation 18 (Sharmans Cross Road) in the Solihull Local Development Plan.

I object strongly to this proposal on the following grounds:

1. It is an inappropriate development that will change the character of the area
The proposed development will be at least 5-6 times the density of housing in the immediate surrounding area (e.g. Winterbourne Road and Welcombe Grove). This will completely change the character of this well-established, high quality residential area, which is highly prized for its trees and green spaces. The inclusion of affordable housing (which will probably be met through social housing) is a complete change to the residential character of the immediate area.

2. Accessibility of development
I understand that the proposal for 100 homes includes one parking space per property. This requires that the site is defined as accessible according to Planning Policy P7, which in turn requires that the site must be within 800m of local amenities such as the station and town centre. The site is, in fact, at least 1000m from the station and approximately 1700m from the entrance to Touchwood Court, which therefore requires that two parking spaces per property must be provided. To satisfy this requirement for the proposed 100 properties will require multi-storey development which will be completely out of character with the 2-storey residential nature of the area.

3. Increased traffic levels
Traffic on Sharmans Cross Road and Streetsbrook Road is severely congested at peak times (7:45 - 9:00AM), typically with tailbacks along Streetsbrook Road from Lode Lane roundabout to Prospect Lane roundabout and for several hundred yards along Sharmans Cross Road. This development will add significantly to this congestion, potentially leading to total gridlock at peak times. No upgrade of the Sharmans Cross Road/Streetsbrook Road junction would alleviate the problem as traffic is already at saturation level at peak times.

4. Risk to the safety of schoolchildren, other pedestrians and cyclists
Sharmans Cross Road is a walking route for many local school children, both junior and secondary. It is also a walking route for pedestrians to Solihull town centre and station. The pavement on the side of the road of the proposed development is a designated cycle route. The proposed entrance to the development will force pedestrians and cyclists to cross a busy traffic flow, threatening their safety.

5. Parking chaos
Sharmans Cross Road suffers from chaotic parking during school drop-off and collection times and sporting fixtures. Woodside Way and the rugby club car park are used as daytime parking by Solihull workers and rail users. It is likely that Solihull Arden Club will lose around 75 parking spaces within the rugby club ground as a result of the development. This will lead to an untenable parking situation that will increase parking on all roads in the surrounding area, further adding to congestion and safety concerns.

6. Increased flooding
Sharmans Cross Road floods at times of peak rainfall, making the environment unpleasant and extremely dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. The increased storm flow resulting from the proposed development can only worsen this situation.

7. Insufficient local services
All local schools and primary healthcare services are already oversubscribed. The increased demand resulting from the proposed development will only worsen this situation, leading to an unacceptable degradation of their quality of services.

For these reasons, I conclude that allocation 18 is inappropriate and should be removed from the local plan.

Please acknowledge the receipt of this objection letter and keep me informed of the progress of this element of the LDP.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please accept this e-mail as an objection to the proposed plan for building houses at the rugby ground site on Sharmans Cross Road.

- The character and appearance of the said neighborhood will change forever, not to mention the increase in traffic and pollution on Sharmans Cross Road which will increase significantly if the suggested number of properties are built in such a small space.

- Sharmans Cross Road has been subjected to flooding when rain has been heavy so over developing here will only add to this existing issue.

- The Solihull council stated in 2013 that the grounds were to be used for sports only. This policy should be reaffirmed and any such development is NOT appropriate for inclusion in the local development plan.

- The traffic volume will increase which will cause further disruption to an already busy road and pose hazardous for children that attend Sharmans Cross Junior School. Parking will become more difficult if residents park on the streets and in front of other resident homes which is already a current problem.

- Solihull's green and leafy areas are under threat from these big building projects and not forgetting the wildlife that will be endangered also.

- Nearby Schools and medical centres are already oversubscribed in the local vicinity so further development will only put more strain on the services.

- Sporting facilities in the area will be lost for the local residents.

- The site will not be within walking distance to Solihull town centre or Solihull train station as stated which breaches policy of having local amenities within an 800m distance.

The development is far from benefiting this area and the council should take heed of this warning from local residents rather than the developers and reject this proposal outright.

Yours faithfully

Allocation 13

s a resident in Shirley I'm shocked and concerned about the amount of houses you are proposing to build on green belt.
Both my child walk to lighthall everyday confronted with an extremely large volume of traffic and the dangers of crossing bills lane, Haslucks green road ( rat run) and other roads. With the proposed houses i can't imagine what the roads will be like around those areas.
The local park has been reduced and is not really suitable for safe walking of a dog off lead and now more countryside and public land is going to be lost!!
I'm regular walker on the bridle way canal and the fields by woods farm were the proposed 600 houses are to be built. While walking there you could be in the middle of the countryside which is part of what Solihull is known for. The motto of Solihull is Urbs in Rure (Town in Country).
That will need to be changed !!!
Dickens Heath will be joined to Shirley as will majors green!!!

In 2013 voted the best place to live - again this will be the last time Solihull wins that- not only is it facilities its the closeness of the beautiful countryside that attracts people to live in Shirley.
The wildlife needs to be preserved for future generations to be able to hear the woodpeckers and see the other wildlife so close to your house is again one of the reason people love Shirley.
How come all the allocation for houses is in Shirley ?
Gps schools hospitals are already over stretched due to the increase in population will you be providing more money for them ? - especially our poorly funded schools that have to rely on parents raising money for sometimes normal things that the school can't afford!!
Please think carefully about our wildlife, children and public safety and the quality of life of the people that already live in Shirley.

I understand more houses need to be built but not on GREEN BELT - protect our green belt.
From a very concerned resident.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I wish to strongly object to the proposed development of 100 houses on the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road. There is already a high volume of traffic in this area which would only be exacerbated by more housing. At peak times there are long traffic queues on Streetsbrook Road and Sharmans Cross Road. The junction where Dorchester Road joins Streetsbrook Road is particularly dangerous and increased traffic volume will make this even more hazardous. There is also the safety of children attending Sharmans Cross School to consider. When parents are dropping children off at school the road is partially blocked by parked cars, as are adjoining side roads. We also have the additional problem of people parking along side roads in this area rather than pay to park in Solihull Town Centre or at the railway station.

Additional housing would also create problems in terms of schools and doctors surgeries in the area which are already oversubscribed.

I feel this land should be kept as an open space to be used for sport or leisure activities which would be of greater benefit to the existing community.

Yours faithfully,

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to register my objection to the proposed development of 100 houses on the rugby and tennis ground on Sharmans Cross Road.

I object for the following reasons:
1 proposed suitability
2 increased street parking
3 loss of public amenity

I have lived in Solihull all of my life. The proposed development is entirely out of keeping with the vicinity. The density of housing is incompatible with the rest of the area and such a cramped development will detract from our green and leafy Solihull. The proposal for significant affordable housing is also inconsistent with the street scene and social environment and will detract from the desirability of the area.

The street parking in the area is already causing unacceptable risks to pedestrians and road users alike. I know because our cul-de-sac is often used as an overspill car park for commuters who use Solihull train station one mile away. Proposing such a density of housing and reducing car parking facilities for the tennis club will drive even more parking onto the streets surrounding the development. The proposed entrance to the site is at a point in the road which is on a hill and at a narrow gauge.

We have many vibrant sporting clubs who could use the land as intended by the covenant. To lose yet another accessible local facility would be to the detriment of the residents and the prospective residents if the proposal were to succeed.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to register my objection to the proposed development of 100 houses on the rugby and tennis ground on Sharmans Cross Road.

I object for the following reasons:
1 destruction of local character
2 increased traffic
3 deterioration in availability of services

The proposed development will ruin the feel and character of our neighbourhood. To squeeze loads of houses onto such a plot is not in keeping with the traditional style homes with their well-proportioned appearance, beautiful gardens and adequate parking on-site to cater for today's mobile workers like myself. This development would inject an ugly concentration of buildings into a lovely green space. There is no objective way to argue that this development is consistent with the surrounding area.

I have to commute by car to work. Each morning I have to wait at the end of my cul-de-sac until a break in the traffic opens up. Between 7.30 am and 9.00 am the traffic is so jammed up along Streetsbrook Road heading towards Solihull that it can take 3 minutes to exit my road. The proposed car parking facilities on this proposed development will lead to more on-street car parking and load more traffic hitting Streetsbrook Road from Sharmans Cross Road. Most households that would be able to afford to rent or buy a property in this development will have at least one car and many will have more than one car. The development will increase an already overloaded road system, adding more delays to commute times and more danger to pedestrians and cyclists.

The new residents of the development will want access to the usual services such as education, medical and dental practices. Many of these services are already overloaded - I know from trying to get appointments at my own dentist and GP. The development will introduce even more pressure on the services locally and will result in the new residents having to use their cars to get to such services, further exacerbating the traffic problem I mention above.

Objection Allocation 13

I wish to register my objection to the proposed housing development on allocation 13 in South Shirley.

I feel strongly opposed to the building development as we have recently moved onto Shotteswell Road and our main reason for moving to the area was the close proximity of the green belt. We are dog owners and use the area on a daily basis to exercise our dog. It also provides much enjoyment for our young daughter. To think that this area could be taken up by housing is absolutely devastating and would drastically affect our lifestyle.

There is also the extra traffic that these developments will cause. It is already a nightmare to get down dog kennel lane & Tanworth lane during rush hour. The roads could not cope with more cars. Any through road down Shotteswell Road or Woodloes Road would cause major disruption to the residents.

Local services such as Schools and hospitals are already over stretched and building more houses in the area will only put further strain on this.

It seems pointless to have so many new homes this side of the borough when the HS2 development is the other side. Why not look at building near the NEC. I don't feel that other options have been considered. Why not build smaller developments in pockets of land or brownfield sites rather than green belt land.

I hope that the council reconsider the plans.