Re allocation 13

To who it may concern

I am writing to you with my objections to you building on the beautiful land that is allocation 13.
Me and my family use this often and are devastated at the thought of loosing it.
We have had so many happy times here and hoped for many more.
There is too much nature here and beauty to concrete over.

We moved here in 2010 to appreciate the rural Solihull and feel that all this will disappear.

I suggest that allocation 13 be turned into a community park managed by the community linking Shirley, Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green.

Yours faithfully

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
Dear Sir/Madam

I object strongly to the proposed development of some 100 dwellings on the site of my old rugby club on Sharmans Cross Road.

Suitability and lack of fit
Solihull is a popular residential town. A key reason for remaining so popular has been the attractiveness of the sensibly laid out traditional housing plots, its mature trees and green surrounds and its provision of recreational space close to residential areas. The claims that this is a suitable development make no sense. The proposed density is several times higher that the housing that surrounds this neighbourhood. The proposal to have some 50 affordable homes is also inconsistent with the nature of the properties in the surrounding streets.

Pressure on public amenity
The introduction of such a dense development will introduce a significant increase in pressure on our roads, schools hospitals/clinics. The increase in street parking is already causing inconvenience to other residents and frankly it is increasing the danger to children and the infirm who use the pavements and to cyclists who play roulette when passing stationery cars. Add to that the detrimental impact on our visual amenity as a popular place for recreation (not just rugby but also dog-walkers, joggers, etc) is replaced with a skyline of higher storey blocks of flats and this development makes no sense.

"Urbs in rure" - Stick to the Policy
When learning Latin in school we were reminded of the Council's motto - a 'town in the country'. I also am reminded of the Council's policy from 2013 that the site would not be sold and would continue to be available for recreational use. What has changed that would lead the planners to breach their own policy from only 3 years ago and also to go completely against what Solihull stands for. By removing our green spaces and increasing the dwelling density, the development runs counter to the essence of what makes Solihull such a great place to live.

Yours sincerely

Allocation 13 - Shirley

I am writing to object the plans to use the above land to build new homes.

I moved to Shirley 6 years ago, previously living in Oxfordshire, believing that it was close to both busy town centres and rural areas.

I am concerned that the wildlife on the land you plan to allow building work to happen on will be affected.

The community will be affected. Many walkers, dog walkers, runners, nature lovers and children use the land for pleasure and exercise.

I am concerned that local services will be affected. My son is at shirley heath and already in a class of 32 children. I try and make an appointment with my GPS and am referred to a walk in surgery at sparkhill because there are no appointments as they are snowed under, and the Solihull walk in centre has closed down.

I suggest if some of the land must be used for housing, then some of it be kept as a park or nature reserve and ensure that new schools and surgeries are built to cover the increase in demand that has happened even before any houses have been built.

Thank you for listening

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I would like to object to the proposed new development on the rugby ground, off Sharmans Cross Road.

I am extremely concerned about the further increase in traffic pollution and congestion at both ends of Sharmans Cross Road. I live at the Streetsbrook Road end of Shatmans across.

Every morning and evening there is a horrendous back log of traffic at both ends of the road. I always have to turn left out of my drive and have to make detour to get to work because there is such a big delay when attempting to drive out on to Streetsbrook Road due to the build up of traffic.

There is black soot on the plants and shrubs in the front garden from the pollution deposited by the build up of traffic. This will only increase with more houses built in the road.

Please also think of the amount of people that will be populating one relatively small area. Problems arise with overcrowding, environmental pollution, noise pollution, problems with people parking etc. All resulting in neighbour disputes and conflict which may have you dealt with by local Authority. It is already nearly impossible to get a GP appointment. How will local amenities cope with additional numbers of residents.

I would be grateful if you could take my comments in to consideration when making your decision.

Yours sincerely

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I write to notify you of my objection to this proposed plan to build 100 houses on the Sharmans Cross Road rugby ground.

I moved from Wales to live in Solihull 26 years ago. I always remember the huge impact that the lovely trees and hedges had on me, and my family whenever they visited me. I have lived on Sharmans Cross Road for seven years before moving round the corner. I do not see how the proposed development is in keeping with the local houses. It will erode the feel and look of the environment to have such dense housing and blocks of apartments. It will increase the danger to residents through increased on-street parking on Sharmans Cross Road and the roads and cul-de-sacs in the surrounding vicinity. The development is simply not suitable for an area and plot such as the rugby ground.

The damage to the local trees and wildlife will be inevitable notwithstanding the sometimes spurious claims of planners and developers. in addition, the Sharmans Cross Road area is already susceptible to flooding and a development of this size in such a small place will lead to further rainwater flooding. And the increase in the use of cars by the new occupiers will add to the pollution in the area thereby creating additional invisible dangers to all but especially our children and the elderly, of which we are blessed with any in the area.

The development is not suitable. The development is not a sustainable one. The development will increase the danger to residents.

Yours sincerely

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I wish to object to the proposed Local Development Plan of a development of 100 houses on the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road. My reasons are as follow:

i. Suitability - The proposed development is unsuitable and will destroy the character of the neighbourhood. It is out-of-scale, out-of-character and inappropriate. It is likely that buildings will be more than 2 stories resulting in loss of privacy, loss of light and overshadowing.
ii. Increased pollution and traffic - Sharmans Cross Road already struggles with traffic problems at peak times, but a development of this scale will escalate the situation and increase the danger to pedestrians and cyclists
iii. Parking -is already chaotic during peak times, school drop-off and pick up times and when the football club has major fixtures. Also local business and railway station users use the present rugby club ground for parking. The loos of this area together with the proposed new development will cause very major problems for the area
iv. Flooding - Sharmans Cross Road is already has flooding problems whenever there is heavy rainfall. The proposed development will inevitably compound this problem.
v. Permanent loss of sporting facilities - Sport England has found that Solihull is in the 3rd quartile nationally for over-16 participation in sport three times per week and continues to fall in the national league tables. The neighbouring football club has a shortage of pitches and wish to use the rugby pitches. There is also a sporting covenant on the rugby pitches. Solihull needs to use this land for sporting purposes.

The proposed development is not in the interest of Solihull or the residents and I urge the council to reject this proposal.

Objection To LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation 18

With regards to the above Housing project, I would like to object to this proposed planning application

My reasons for the objection are as follows:

I live on the road, and the traffic is dreadful, so to add another 100 houses on the land seems ridiculous, that would mean a possible 150+ cars on the estate, the traffic is so congested now, even on an evening the road is very congested, and what about all the construction traffic to build the properties.

The parking is already dreadful, and i do believe the way that estate is being built, there would not be enough space for all the cars, there would be an overflow of parked cars on Sharmans Cross Road, which is already a very dangerous road, I have written to my local Conservative MP Julian Knight already about this problem.

There is a terrible problem with drains and flooding on Sharmans Cross Road, so to build another 100 houses would only add to the problem!

Again my main concern is with schooling, we already struggle to get our children into the schools in the area, so to add another 100 houses how on earth do you propose to place the children that are moving into to area into schools? Are there any plans to extend the schools in the area or to build new ones for all the proposed building works?

The hospitals and doctors, and dentists are already over subscribed in the area, so again how do you propose getting over this problem?

It is also a requirement that The National Planning Policy Framework requirements developments to have access to local amenities within 800m/10 minutes walk away, but the site it 1700m from Solihull Town Centre and 1000m from the station, so i do believe this is not being met.

Also there is a shortage of sports facilities, SMBC has a statutory requirement to ensure lost pitches are replaced with facilities of equivalent quality and accessibility? Again i do not feel that SMBC is meeting this requirement.

Kind Regards

I have received a leaflet asking me to comment upon the proposed housing on 'green belt' land around Shirley/Whitlocks End.

I am aware that Solihull Council have targets set by central government which you have to meet but as realistic as I am I cannot help thinking that 41% of your target being proposed adjacent to existing conurbations is rather too many. You can have no understanding of the increased traffic we have experienced since the last tranche of houses were built in Dicken's Heath and where I live, on Haslucks Green Road (514) which seems to be the centre of road closures, we have experienced months of disruption at the Green Lane Junction. With the next total road closure to start Monday 20th February to 28th April we will experience the kind of horror that your proposal will virtually make a permanent feature. It would have been interesting had you had some alternatives or indeed considered spreading the load out across the borough. Brueton Park perhaps?

I refer to the draft SDLP and especially as it relates to the Knowle area. I have been a Knowle resident for 58 years.

Practically all of the land proposed by the plan for residential development and it is likely to be high density development currently has , so I understand, green belt status. I refer to the Warwick Road/Station Road/Grove Road triangle and the football/cricket grounds in Hampton Road. These areas are with the exception of the park, the remaining green areas in the village.

If these areas suffer high density development Knowle will have become a satellite dormitory town to Solihull and no longer the village that residents find so attractive. Traffic problems could become considerable. A recent statement by the relevant government minister confirmed that incursions into the green belt would not be acceptable other than in exceptional circumstances. We have not, I believe, reached this situation. It has been widely reported that planning approval already exists for700,000 housing units countrywide. The house builders should be compelled to utilise these approvals in full and meaningfully within 18 months of the granting of permission on pain of annulment of the approval.

The suggested proposal from Arden academy that the school should be demolished (and the school relocated) to provide land for more housing is preposterous at a time of enforced austerity given that there has been very substantial investment in the school in recent years. This investment must run into many millions of pounds of tax payers money (our money). If there is a problem with numbers the school catchment area should be restricted to the Knowle and Dorridge wards. A local school for local children.

The draft plan has taken the easy option with scant regard for the existing residents of Knowle.

I wish to object to the proposal of housing by Oakmoor Estates to build homes on land formerly occupied by the Solihull Bees Rugby Club.

It would have a massive impact on the local community in terms of destroying the character of the area, in creasing traffic and pollution and putting pressing on local resources such as schools healthcare, not to mention the permanent loss of sporting facilities at the former Bees site.

Regards

Objections to Draft Local Plan for 6150 new homes in Solihull district.

I would like to raise the following concerns and objections that relate to the 41% of new homes being built in the South Shirley area, in particular Allocation 13. The building of what will be 2550 new homes in the south Shirley area will have serious implications for the local community.

1. I object strongly to the fact that Solihull MBC will take 2000 homes from Birmingham's housing requirements when no such deal has been struck by BCC with its other neighbour Bromsgrove Council. Solihull has already paid the price for its autonomy when it was forced to take Chelsmley Wood under its jurisdiction when it wanted independence.
2. The 2550 homes in South Shirley, allocations 4,11, 12 and 13 will have a serious impact on what are already congested roads: Stratford Rd and M42, Bills Lane, Tamworth Lane, Dog Kennel Lane, Haslucks Green Rd and Blackford Rd. Other roads such as Shakespeare Drive will become even more congested "Rat Runs."
3. The loss of green belt between Badgers Estate and Woodlands Estate and the proposed Allocation 13 will impact on the health and wellbeing of the community, as this area is used by so many for exercise, recreation and dog walking.
4. The plan will also remove six sports fields from the area at a time when the Government is trying to promote healthy living through exercise. Will these local sports facilities be replaced? Unlikely!
5. Local services will be effected, schools and GP surgeries the most. Solihull Hospital will be affected with longer waiting lists or patients moved to Heartlands Hospital which effects patients and relatives alike.
6. High density housing is not in keeping with the rest of the homes built in Shirley and Solihull and will be detrimental to the borough.



I feel the people of South Shirley and Dickens Heath are being treated very unfairly by bearing the brunt of this proposed development when there are other sites that could be used around the borough which the council has already identified. They may not be so attractive to developers, but aren't we the people who already live in the area more important. We all chose to live in the Solihull borough because it is a great place to live with well laid out estates with space to live with good community spirit and sense of pride in where we live.



Whilst I understand the position Solihull MBC is now in due to this government directive, you our council also have a huge responsibility to the people who live in the borough. Your major concern should be for the communities that already live here, you should concentrate on reducing as much as possible the impact on the lives of people of South Shirley and Dickens Heath this proposed plan will have.

I am writing to place my objection to part of the Draft Local Plan proposed.

I fully accept the requirement for housing and the quicker an adopted plan can
be bought in the better for all concerned.

My 1st objection stems around the proposed numbers allocated in the draft
centering around the outskirts of Shirley (Areas 4, 11, 12, 13 - totalling 2550
in an area in very close proximity to each other), I have included Dickens Heath
in the figures above as the traffic flow and population currently has major
effects on the area and especially highway junctions around Tamworth Lane, Dog
Kennel Lane at peak times.

My particular concern is area 13 allocated for circa 600no. units to the South
of Shirley. This area of green belt is considerably well used and an asset to
the local area. At present from my property there is a limited amount of open
space accessible to the public within walking distance. We use this area
regularly and other government initiatives of new schemes centre around
accessibility to open space for all - I do not feel existing stock should suffer
when not necessary. If this was to remain in the plan and subsequently developed
where would the accessible open space be, sustainability of getting in car all
the time to travel for a walk is not in anyway in the good for anyone. Shirley
Park is too far for my children to walk to and from although a good facility it
is not within walking distance to many hundreds of properties around the Shirley
South area.

I would not object to the other sites identified in the Shirley area if area 13
was removed from the plan. I agree the TRW site, Blythe Valley and possibly the
Dog Kennel Lane site as these have more infrastructure in place already. Could
the new HS2 hub area be identified to take a little more.

To implement the Shirley schemes the highways infrastructure requirements would
need reviewing along with the current medical allocation, Doctors surgeries have
week waiting lists and Solihull hospital has had many cutbacks over the last few
years- would Solihull not warrant an A&E / Full maternity ward?

The 2nd objection follows on from and centres around the allocation around the
borough which seems slightly biased towards certain areas - in particular the
Shirley is of concern to myself which is where we currently live. Reviewing the
allocated numbers my understanding is Solihull is taking circa 900, Meriden 50
units and Dorridge is not mentioned (this may be because Knowle and Balsall
Common appear to be taking a generous amount) (but Shirley 2550).

I must express my concerns over the proposed developments - Allocation 13, 12, 11 and 4.

I understand the need for housing, but this proposal for 2550 houses in such a small, already congested area is really far too excessive.

Has any thought been given to the roads around this area? I live in Tyberry Close, and my 2.5 - 3 mile commute to work (depending on which congested road I decide to take) takes me anywhere between 20 to 30 minutes in the morning. I know it's not a huge commute, but when I crawl along at a pace averaging 6-8 miles an hour, along with hundreds of other commuters, I wonder what this is doing for the environment. With the addition of all these houses, the pollution and number of vehicles will only get worse.

Its so sad to see such a loss of green space. I grew up before Dickens Heath was built, I kept my pony on Dickens Heath Road and rode around those lanes when they were all fields. It was bad enough when all that green space was lost. We've already lost part of Shirley Park, there's more houses going up in Tidbury Green and the loss of countryside to this huge urban sprawl can only be detrimental to the community. We live in a world of obesity, kids growing up overweight, the NHS is have a crisis, the loss of green space and clean air does not encourage people to get out and exercise.

We love to walk though the Christmas Tree Farm and down by the canals, it's just so sad that there will be 600 houses there.

It wasn't too long ago that a mosque was refused on Dog Kennel Lane due to possible transport issues - How can 1250 homes be any better?

I see that HS2 has been made an excuse for all this too - I struggle to get to work locally, how on earth could this be a good commuting area for the HS2 Interchange?

I am massively disappointed and saddened to see this plan. I do understand the need for additional housing and that this has been agreed, but maybe a reduction in the number of houses could be considered? I really hope that the concerns of the local community are taken into account.

Urbs in Rure = Town in County - not for much longer I fear....

Kind regards

Save Allocation 13

I am reiterating objections to the proposal of building 600 houses on our lovely green fields

Here is my response to the draft local plan. This focuses on the excessive amount of new housing development proposed for Knowle.

Total number of houses
The 1,050 houses proposed for Knowle is vastly excessive and totally out of scale with other locations. It is effectively a 20% increase in the size of the village (based on the existing number of households). I don't understand why there are no allocations proposed for Dorridge or Bentley Heath. Dorridge would be a much sensible solution for sustainable development with the rail connection.

The total number of houses is totally out of scale with the size of Knowle and will significantly exacerbate already very serious traffic congestion along the High Street and Station Road (not just new residents but deliveries, visitors etc). It will have a seriously detrimental impact on the village character turning it into a medium sized town.

The scale of housing development in Knowle is not justified by the evidence base, some of which is flawed in any case.

The Arden Triangle
I would like to strongly object to the number of houses proposed on the Arden Triangle. The scale of 750 houses is not justified by the Council's evidence base with the findings of the LCA that this area was only suitable for small scale developments. Such a large site will cause significant loss of some of the most attractive and valuable Arden landscape around Knowle and Dorridge. I don't think this area was appropriately assessed in the Green Belt Assessment. It is a very valuable and loved rural part of the village and provides a prominent and attractive landscape when approached from the south. Any development on this land near the Warwick Road would be highly visible and have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity when approaching Knowle. The area also includes important wildlife habitats.

Development on this site in any scale is not sustainable and would exacerbate already unacceptable congestion along the High Street and Station Road.

A dispersed pattern of development involving sites in Dorridge and Bentley Heath would be more appropriate for the area.

Whilst I accept there has to be a certain amount of development in the area a dispersed solution would be far more preferable and have less impact on the character of the area, less impact on road congestion and result in less impact on the Green Belt and Countryside.

Affordable housing
The 50% affordable housing is pointless as being within such an affluent area they will never actually be genuinely affordable. Furthermore by insisting on such a high percentage of affordable housing it makes achieving the community benefits much less likely as developers will have to factor this in their appraisals. It would be better to have much less affordable housing to make the benefits stack up. Furthermore developers will not be able to provide the required type of housing under the starter home scheme.


In summary the total number of houses proposed is far too many for the size of Knowle. Development should be dispersed to minimise impact on the community and congestion involving more sustainable development in Dorridge and Bentley Heath. The Arden Triangle proposal would have a seriously detrimental impact on very valuable green belt and the character of the village.

Regards

I wish to register myself and my wife's complete opposition to the latest housing plan for the Solihull area.
We live on Haslucks Green Road in Majors Green and the amount of traffic that passes our home from Dickens Heath and the extended Whitlocks End station car park is a major hazard
To even contemplate huge numbers of additional housing in this area effectively joining Majors Green , Dickens Heath, Tilbury Green and Shirley beggars belief.
What happened to the protection of the green belt.?
This area is becoming one giant housing estate.
Two very angry residents.

PROPOSED SHIRLEY GREEN BELT DEVELOPMENT
We wish to register our concern about the proposed building development in this area.
We have lived at this address for 40 years and have seen many changes in that time.
We understand that the Government have set targets, but the number of houses seems excessive in this one area.
Will new schools be built or can existing schools be developed (without the use of portakabins) to meet increased demand?
Will new doctor's surgeries be implemented/built to meet increased needs?
Solihull Hospital has been downgraded to such an extent that it is going to be inadequate to meet increased needs of a vastly greater population in the area.
Nationally, hospitals are at breaking point.
Roads in this proposed development area are only 'B' roads and the traffic is already heavy, getting out at junctions can take some time.
If thousands more cars are added to already congested roads, what measures are planned to ease traffic flow in the area?
A lot of prime building plots have been allocated to 'Senior' living, when they could have been better used for Family housing.
We ask you to consider all these points when final decisions are taken.

We would like to register our objections to the above plan - we have been told that Solihull is planning to extend Dickens Heath to the Bromsgrove border - the railway line - eroding the Green Belt completely.
We object very strongly to this plan due to the congestion on the roads in the surrounding areas. We live on Drawbridge road which is a short cut from Wythall/Tidbury Green and Dickens Heath to Shirley - the traffic is enormous at peak times already. My daughter uses either Shirley or Whitlock's End station but sometimes has to park on our drive as the car parks are completely full at 8 am. Have you got any plans to extend these railway station car parks because it is already impossible to get a parking space during the week? Also trying to access the stations, especially Whitlock's End, at peak times is impossible with the amount of traffic in both directions. There is enough extra traffic already from Dickens Heath which causes major problems in the area.
We hope you will seriously reconsider this plan to extend Dickens Heath.

Development on Green Belt SHIRLEY SOLIHULL
We appreciate that new housing is required but the numbers of dwellings are staggering, the density of new houses is so important, get it wrong and the project will be a disaster. Dickens Heath has certainly got it wrong. The architects and the Planners didn't get it all right!

We also know that the local amenities are under pressure right now. Being a resident in Bills Lane for 30 years we have noticed a massive increase in traffic, which affects air quality with airborne carcegenic particulates being present - one of the most dangerous pollutants. You must also consider Noise Pollution and the danger to local residents and animals regarding traffic numbers.

The existing infra structure will not be able to cope with such an increase in housing. Schools, hospitals, doctors surgeries will all be affected.

Drainage sewers will not be able to deal with the large number of new houses, water treatment plants are already at full capacity.

When house design is being considered developers have only as their priority - one thing PROFIT, it is important to make sure that the developers are not the only winners as they will not be around tomorrow.

It is essential to make sure an adequate number of affordable homes are built and some must be designated for the younger generation.

The 1947 Planning Act is of significance and the document was and still is a major landmark - the main principal part of the Act should be adhered to whenever possible.

I strongly object to the extent of the proposals re the building of 2500 houses around the Shirley area. The scheme is untenable, unrealistic, disproportionate (considering many other areas in Solihull), and fraught with considerable problems, particularly traffic ones. Yes, Shirley must play its part in the provision of new housing, but not to the degree proposed. Most of the cars from these potential areas will use the A 34, to turn left or right along it or cross it on the way to Soliuhull. Are you aware of the problems we experience now? And the possible future. YUK.

What about the Green Belt?
Some of the proposed areas are less unacceptable in your suggestion,e.g.TWR site and the Blythe Valley. Others, particularly allocation 13,off Baxters Close and Woodloes Road, are definitely untouchable, considering the numbers who use it for leisure and recreational activities.

Now a practical proposal. Solihull is overprovided with golf courses, and using one of these would be more acceptable to the vast majority of Solihull residents. The merging of Robin Hood and Olton golf courses is one suggestion to providing building land, but my choice would be to develop Copt Heath golf club. Two reasons; it would involve the Knowle area in Solihull's scheme , but mainly because it is near the M42 and this would generate less traffic congestion. Either scheme would be politically challenging; has the council got the courage to attempt them?

I wish to put forward my objection to your proposed development plans in South Shirley, specifically allocation 13, although I would also object to Allocations 4, 11 and 12.
I believe it is ludicrous to be contemplating development on this scale in Shirley, the road's in the area of these allocations struggle to cope with the amount of traffic daily as it is, Shirley and Whitlocks End stations are both packed daily, with the overflow vehicles from Shirley Station parking on nearby estates and causing chaos for residents, Schools are oversubscribed and there is already pressure on our health services and the addition of over 2500 new home's will push all these resources to breaking point.
My primary objection with Allocation 13 is that this area is much loved, well used public greenbelt and is home to a whole host of wildlife. I grew up in a tiny village in the middle of the Warwickshire Greenbelt which I loved, so was delighted to discover the open land a short walk from our home when I moved here. We, along with lot's of other locals, walk our dogs here, my children enjoy running round the fields and spotting the various creatures that live there, to lose all this would be a devastating loss to our community's wellbeing.
Aside from the effect on road's, public transport, schools, doctors and wildlife, there is also the fact that by building on this scale in Shirley is simply unfair, 41% of the entire boroughs allocation is here in Shirley, have we not done enough already, with the development of Dickens Heath and the Parkgate development (which lost us a fair bit of Shirley Park), not to mention the long awaited Powergen site.
In your proposals you talk about the benefits for the borough from the HS2 interchange, but Shirley will be one of the worst place's in the borough in regards to access to the new station.
I would ask you to reconsider your plans and leave our green area's as they are, a place for residents to enjoy and creatures to flourish.
Thankyou in advance for hopefully listening to the residents of Shirley

While I sympathise with Solihull MBC at having to plan for 6500 new homes, I must express my fervent opposition to siting 1050 of them in Knowle. Apart from all other considerations, Knowle is full!

Parking in Knowle is extremely difficult at the best of times, without any additional houses. There simply is no room to accommodate more people using Knowle village centre. Even Waitrose gave up trying!

There are very few employment possibilities in Knowle, so any new residents would have to travel away from the village to work. The parking at Dorridge station is already full, which means that most journeys would have to be by car - this goes against the accepted wisdom of encouraging use of public transport.

Those living in houses on the Arden Triangle would mainly be travelling in the direction of the M42, Solihull and Birmingham. All these cars would need to drive along Knowle High Street which is already extremely congested at rush hours and very busy throughout the rest of the day. Add to this the cars coming from the proposed Hampton Lane development, and the Warwick Road towards the motorway would grind to a halt.

It would make so much more sense to build the houses where the jobs are going to be created - e.g. HS2, Birmingham Business Park, Jaguar Land Rover, Blythe Valley Business Park etc. These are going to be the booming areas of the borough and the people working there are going to need homes, so it would be logical to build them in those localities.

Urbs in Rure. The approach to Knowle from the Warwick direction is delightful - one goes from countryside, through a handful of houses and arrives in the village centre. Development of the Arden Triangle would be seen as soon as one approached the proposed traffic island at Rotten Row corner. An absolute blot on the landscape. Please leave the Green Belt alone - it is there for a reason.

As I understand It, the idea of developing of the Arden Triangle came about because of the wish of Arden Academy for new premises. The principal has given assurance that there will be sufficient places at the new school for all pupils of secondary age moving to these new houses in Knowle. But what about primary school places? I am led to believe that the new RC primary school proposed for the Arden campus will replace the existing St George & St Theresa's school, so there is no provision in the plan for extra primary school places. An impossible situation!

A small, but I believe relevant, point: Part of the proposed new site for the academy cannot be accessed without crossing land which is in private ownership. Without access to this area, the site would be unreasonably small for such a large school. Unless, or until, access to this area can be established, the whole plan is unfeasible.

Knowle is a village which has grown considerably since the war. Newcomers have been absorbed into the community as it has expanded. However, saturation point has been reached and I beseech the council to recognise that.

We wish to register our objection to the development of Green Belt land to the south of Shirley and at Whitlocks End for the following reasons:-

1. We object to the loss of the use of Green Belt land for housing development.
2. The current road system is not able to support the additional traffic flow that these developments will generate. There are housing developments already under construction in and around the Tidbury Green area and proposals for the Powergen site in Haslucks Green Road that will generate traffic flows in addition to the South Shirley and Whitlocks End proposals.
3. The parking provisions at Shirley, Whitlocks End, Earlswood Lakes and Wythall railway stations are already inadequate and will not therefore encourage people to use the railways.
4. The provision of school places will be inadequate to cope with these developments.
5. Existing doctors surgeries are having difficulty coping with the influx of people over the last 10 years and will not be able to cope with this additional population.
6. Supermarkets in Shirley are currently very busy at peak shopping times and the additional number of shoppers created by the developments will make it worse.
7. The proposed developments are too high a concentration in the Shirley area and in our opinion should be spread out over Solihull Borough.

We trust our views will be taken into account when considering these developments.

Without prejudice, Objection to the Solihull Local Plan.

Specifically the proposed developments at Allocations 11, 13, 12 & 4.

South Shirley has been allocated a potential 2500+ houses, some 41% of the entire borough allocation.
This is massively disproportionate and completely unsustainable.

It is also inconsistent with the spatial strategy and the draft local plan policies.

The scale of the proposed developments fails to take into account the catastrophic impact on local services, infrastructure and local community.

The proposed scale of the development in south Shirley/Dickens Heath would lead to the total and unacceptable loss of the identity and character of the area as a whole.

The fact that the council has failed to provide credible evidence it has explored suitable alternative Brownfield sites to accommodate the developments and instead has opted to near eradicate the greenbelt south of Shirley.

Aside from the loss of green space around our homes and the benefits to the community health and wellbeing that brings, the proposed housing would create further transport problems along the A34 corridor, Haslucks Green Road, Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Tamworth Lane, Blackford Road, Tilehouse Lane and many of the roads that run between. It will also have a detrimental impact on already oversubscribed Schools Hospitals and GP's.

The road and rail network in this area is already at, or near capacity and cannot sustain this scale of development even with investment, in some cases it is near impossible to widen routes to cope with the extra volume. Add to that the fact that both Shirley and Whitlocks End Stations cannot accommodate the volume of vehicles already attempting to use both with commuters already blocking local residential roads to park, a development on this scale is ill conceived folly at best.

Allocation 13 serves, and has served the local community as a valuable amenity area. The fact that is also greenbelt seems to have been entirely overlooked, we, the residents of Shirley are devastated at news of this potential development, and the loss of our beautiful open space, which is home to a wonderful array of wildlife. A large proportion of the local community regularly use this space for recreation, dog walking, children's play area. It is also home to a wide variety of wildlife, access to all of which will be lost should the development go ahead. To lose the green belt space at Allocation 13 in addition to the numerous recreation/sports facilities that will also be bulldozed by Allocation 4 is wholly and completely unacceptable.

The draft local plan review makes a lot of reference to the benefits to the borough from the HS2 interchange at the airport, but Shirley will be one of the worst places in the borough to access the new station. Areas to the east and North of the borough are more natural access points. Access from Shirley would need to contend with the already over congested A34 and M42 and all roads in between, which after completion of the proposed developments will be unusable due to the increased volumes of traffic forced onto them.

If both Allocations 11 and 12 are adopted in addition to Allocation 13 the community of south Shirley will be hard pressed to actually get to the A34/M42 because of the increased gridlock it will create, the volume of traffic already suffered since the conception of the Dickens Heath development makes accessing the Tanworth Lane, Blackford Road, Dog Kennel Lane area nigh on impossible during commute hours.

Allocation 11 is muted for an area already occupied by local businesses I would question the wisdom of sacrificing local jobs in favour of housing. Is not part of the building strategy to provide homes for the local community? Residents out of work are unlikely to be financially able to make use of the new homes created.

Should the Local Authority choose to disregard the plethora of valid reasons why the proposed developments at Allocations 4, 11, 12 and 13 are wholly unsuitable and unsustainable for this area of the borough then they have no right to continue the use of the "Urbs in Rure" moto for Solihull as it will no longer be applicable, Solihull will become simply "Urbs".
I look forward to your reply at your earliest attention.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

We write to express our objections to the proposals contained within the Solihull Local Development Plan for the development of 100 homes on the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road.

There are a range of reasons why we are of the view that the development proposal is unsuitable.

1. Contrary to the green nature of Solihull/damaging to the character of the area

An essential part of Solihull's character is the interspersing of green spaces and residential streets. This mix of copses, parkland, sporting facilities and residential streets is the defining feature of the local area and one of the main reasons that Solihull is such an attractive place to live and work. In-filling the existing sports grounds at Sharmans Cross Road will destroy an essential part of this patchwork of green space.

In addition, the scale of the proposed development in comparison to the land available would produce a density of property and population quite at odds with the surrounding streets.

2. Inappropriate land use/loss of sporting facilities

A feature of the Solihull LDP is the loss of sporting facilities across the borough in favour of residential development. This produces a doubly negative impact. Not only are the sports facilities lost to the existing population but the proposed developments will significantly increase the size of the local population and therefore the demand for sports and recreational facilities. The proposed loss of sports facilities is both short sighted and contrary to Solihull MBC's legal duty to address the existing shortage of facilities. According to Sport England, Solihull is in the third quartile nationally for adult participation in sport and the proposed development will do nothing to improve this.

Specifically, some of the land at Sharmans Cross Road that is earmarked for development is presently owned by SMBC under a covenant that it is to be used solely for sporting facilities. The Council has a well-documented policy commitment to maintain the freehold of the land owned at Sharmans Cross and to use the land only for sport. The proposed development is fundamentally incompatible with the usage covenant and the Council's policy position.

3. Increased traffic volumes

Should the land at Sharmans Cross Road be developed as proposed with 100 dwellings, the impact upon local traffic flows will be significant, particularly during the morning and afternoon peaks. The junction of Sharmans Cross Road, Streetsbrook Road, Dorchester Road and Stonor Park Road is already a source of congestion, the proposed development will make matters worse.

At present the Council is planning to add a yellow line parking restriction in much of Woodlea Drive due to traffic and parking issues created at school drop off and pick up times around Sharmans Cross Junior School. An increase in traffic caused by the proposed development will only exacerbate this problem further.

4. Capacity of local services

The demand for places at local schools already exceeds supply and the addition of another 100 homes will add further pressure on schools and other service provision.


We trust that you will take these objections into account in considering the housing aspects of the LDP and any related planning application.

Yours faithfully

RE Proposed development Sharmans Cross Rd

I am writing to express my concerns and objection to the above proposed development.
A big concern is that clearly, if these proposals go ahead, there will be significantly more traffic in the area, increasing both air and noise pollution. You must be aware that in the mornings and late afternoon to evening Danford Lane, Sharmans Cross Road and the junctions at either end are almost at a gridlock. Traffic sits on these roads and any additional which would most certainly come from the proposed development, will create terrible pollution, stress, danger and frustration to the existing community in the area.
I live close to the proposed development, and suffer with asthma, I fear my condition will worsen given the scale of the proposals .
Furthermore a development of this size will be both out of proportion and out of character with the immediate area. It is not a large enough area to safely build 100 houses on. The stress and frustration created by the density of the proposal will badly affect the local community. Surely we should be enhancing the beauty of the area, its trees, greenery, and space not building what will inevitably become a concrete housing estate . I strongly feel that the council should honour the purpose for which this land has been dedicated - sports - and not just tennis - especially as the Lucas sports ground has now been built on, the Sharmans Cross Senior School has been built on. I also understand that the current freeholders have been proposing an unreasonable rent for enquirers wishing to use the area for the purpose for which it is designated i.e. sports. We need our open spaces.
Finally being a pensioner I rely heavily on the health services in the area. I have had to wait up to six weeks for an appointment at a local medical centre. Clearly they are severely stretched and these proposals will serve only to make matters worse. This is also a great concern to me and my family.
I hope you will consider these proposals carefully and that you will recongise that they are inappropriate to the area.
Thanking for your consideration.
I await your response.

OBJECTION TO ALLOCATION 13

I object to site allocation 13 being used for anything other than green belt. I have lived in my house on Baxters Road for 35 years and it was bad enough you took away our playground we had for all the children to play in, people moan that children should play out more as they are getting obese and lazy and take notice of the environment around them and here you are taking the community's green belt away from us. We should protect our green spaces for future generations to experience and all the wildlife that lives there from frog's to wild rabbits, foxes and all the birds especially the beautiful owls and wood peckers. My family choose all them years ago to live here where we have to walk to our house as there is no road just grass and tree's to the front, side and rear in a peaceful location where I played as a child and I bought my children up here and I now play with my Granddaughter here so building here would change our whole way of life for the worse not only to our health with all the extra pollution from already busy roads plus the new roads you'd have to build next to our houses, plus this would devalue our homes and for some of us we couldn't afford to move to a place like this with all the open space where we feel safe and secure and don't worry about the kids playing on the green as no cars can drive near them and we can walk the dog as a family.

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I am a resident of Sharmans Cross Road, Solihull and am writing to object strongly to the above proposal for the following reasons:

1 - The proposed development will be overbearing, out of scale and out of character with the established properties in the area. High density development of two to three storey buildings will greatly increase noise and pollution, and significantly reduce light and privacy for existing residents.

2 - The proposed area is not wasteland for development but valuable open space which is used and enjoyed by local residents and wildlife alike. Badgers and bats reside there and we have a woodpecker (protected by The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) frequently clinging to the tree trunks in this area. The proposed development would impact on the root system and crown spread of the trees which would be detrimental to the local wildlife and ecosystem.

3 - There exists an historical covenant to ensure this area of land is used only for sport and this should remain as agreed.

4 - The proposed development will bring a huge area of hard surface which prevents water/rainfall soaking into the ground in an area already prone to flooding due to heavy rainfall, causing greater hazards and difficulties to residents.

5 - The development will inevitably bring an increase in traffic turning on to a road which is already heavily used especially at peak times often causing tailbacks heading into Solihull.

6 - In addition to the above point, the road is congested at school times, morning and afternoon, with families parking to walk to the Junior school. This means the road width becomes significantly reduced, presenting hazards and restricted right of way. Greater volume of traffic will increase these dangers leading to accidents.

7 - The junction at Streetsbrook Road/ Sharmans Cross Road/ Stonor Park Road & Dorchester Road has been the site of many road accidents. Greater volume of traffic will increase the likelihood of accidents occurring.

8 - The safety of pedestrians will be jeopardised due to increased parking, moving vehicles, bus drop off & pick ups and no designated area to cross roads safely.

The local infrastructure cannot take more traffic, more sewage, more flooding, more danger hazards, any development.

I wish to register my objection to the proposed development at Allocation 13.

One of the reasons we bought our home, as I am sure many others did, was to have this beautiful green belt land in such close proximity. We use the land on a regular basis to take our children for walks where they love to spot the local wildlife. It would be devasting to see this beautiful land disappear & all the wildlife along with it.

The area is already becoming extremely congested, the roads are becoming busier on a daily basis, I cannot begin to even imagine how gridlocked these roads would become if all these homes were to be built.

Also, the local amenities would not be able to accommodate such a large number of new residents. Schools & doctor surgeries are already at nearly full capacity, had this been taken into consideration?

Yours sincerely

SOUTH SHIRLEY Site 13

I wish to register my concern regarding the proposed housing development in this area. The current proposal is to saturate this green belt area with 41% of Solihull's new housing when there are other more suitable sites including brown field sites that we have a moral duty to transform. Another interesting exerciser is to superimpose onto overall plan the home addresses given by the members on the planning committee , no hi density housing here !! While I understand the need for new houses and except that it has to happen.
HS2 is given as one of the reasons for new housing but the road network cannot support this number of houses from this site.
The well being of the community is my prime concern.
Obesity is of great concern to the nation health service, this open space is used by many dog walkers, joggers, ramblers and cyclists, a community spirit has developed in this open space with people stopping to chat and socialise, this is not unused waste land and if it has to be developed it must be done with sympathy with the old and new community in mind.