Local Housing Development Plan - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I would like to register my objections to the proposed development on the former Solihull Rugby Club ground.
In the time I have lived in the area I can remember Saturday mornings with large numbers of young boys and girls playing tag rugby at the club, my son and daughter included. There have been children of all ages and adults taking part. We are constantly reminded that as a society we are not doing enough to encourage our children and adults to take regular exercise, to participate in sport and generally lead healthy lifestyles. We should see these fields as an opportunity to invest in our children, but instead we propose this further cull on our available facilities.
There are already far too few playing pitches available. For an area as obviously affluent as Solihull, we should be able to afford to lead by example and improve sporting facilities not build on them. We are already not doing enough and so we should see this as an opportunity to do better. Where can this logically end other than the day when there are literally no local facilities remaining within the town: no walking to watch a game, no walking to take part in evening training sessions or to take part in games.
On a separate note, whilst I know better than to include an emotional aspect, I feel it is a political travesty that the council are in the position of being held to ransom by a building company because of the terms of an ill thought through lease. We the people, through you the council, should take the land back and bring it back into sports use as originally intended. It should not be allowed to remain unused and it should not be built on.

Finally I would like to thank you for the chance to put forward our views

Local Housing Development Plan - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I have lived in Winterbourne Road for all but 2 of my 23 years. I have been lucky enough to have enjoyed lots of sports as I have grown up. I have played for local football teams, I have enjoyed tennis at Solihull Arden Club and while the Rugby Club were running locally, I was part of groups that played tag rugby from Sharmans Cross Junior School. In the light nights me and friends living around the area, met up at the pitches after school, put down our jumpers as the saying goes and had our own games of football. It was close enough for everyone to walk to and it was safe.
I don't agree that these pitches should now be built on. In the future where will local children be able to play? You can't 'keep' getting rid of pitches because there is no way in the future that someone will think it a good idea to tear down houses in order to create playing fields. So the only way to make sure that there are local pitches for use in the future is to protect those that we have. Please don't build on them, bring them back into use and make an effort to get as many people as possible using them.

# Allocation 13 objection

I wish to register my objection to 'Allocation 13' of the council's Local Development Plan.

I have lived in Lillington Road, Shirley since 1989 and enjoy the fields and natural space that is covered by 'Allocation 13' on an almost daily basis, as do many other people. This open space and community resource is an essential breathing space for people and even more so for 'nature' as it is being squeezed from all sides.

I appreciate that considerations for non-human animals and nature in general don't constitute an official reason for objection, but I must put my views across and be a voice for the voiceless who don't pay council tax or are registered in the borough.

I also feel that this area is being given an unfair allocation of housing for the borough. I've always considered that Shirley Heath was the 'edge' of Shirley and that a green space should be left between here to retain the rural feel. The developmeant of Allocation 13 practically joins Shirley up with Dickens Heath, which itself now nearly joins Tidbury Green - where is space for nature in this?

I believe that building here would substantially alter the character of the area and would be incredibly detrimental in many ways.

On a more practical level, a further increase in the number of people in this area would cause further transport issues, increasing air pollution and adding to the strain of existing services.

I understand that some of the requirement for additional housing is as a result of the proposed HS2 station in the north of the borough. Surely if there has to be development, it should be nearer to this area which would in turn not add quite so much to congestion on the already over-used M42.

I sincerely hope you will consider not adding Allocation 13 to the LDP for the benefit of the people of this area, for the benefit of nature, for the benefit of the character of the area and future generations.

I am writing to register my objection to the loss of Allocation 13 to the proposed new build developments.

This piece of land represents the only piece of countryside which is accessible for thousands of residents within the B90 area.

The piece of land known as Allocation 13 enables the local community access to the natural environment and is very well used by families, walkers and dog owners alike. The land provides a valuable community amenity, which should be protected.

There have been a number of recent developments within the B90 postcode including Parkgate, which has resulted in the loss of parkland and green space for residents to enjoy and other large scale developments such as Dickens Heath taking acres of greenbelt land.

Residing on Neville Road, I feel that the roads and surrounding infrastructure would not be able to cope with the proposed 600 houses to Allocation 13. There is already insufficient parking at nearby Shirley and Whitlocks End train stations. Places at already oversubscribed schools will become even harder to obtain. Solihull Hospital has already been downgraded and does not meet the needs of residents of Solihull, who often have to travel to Heartlands and further afield when treatment is required. Doctors surgeries have closed patient lists and I cannot see how the area could cope with such large scale development.

Working within residential development and acting for social housing landlords and new build developers I am not opposed to development. However, given the large scale of the proposed development to Allocation 13 and other surrounding proposed sites (totalling 2550 new homes), the proposals are too vast and confined to one area. Surely there are other less populated areas within the Solihull Borough (such as Knowle, Dorridge, Hockley Heath, Hampton in Arden) which could be considered leaving residents of B90 with some accessible green space, having already lost most of it.

It should also be a priority for Solihull Council to ensure that Birmingham City Council have used all of the brownfield sites available to them before any overflow of allocation is passed to Solihull.

I wish to make the following comments on the current version of the Local Plan:

1. There is no mention anywhere in the draft, in any context, of dog-walking facilities. A very large proportion of Solihull households include at least one dog and in addition there are working dogs employed by the Police, Fire, security and airport services. There are currently relatively few places in the urban part of the Borough where dogs can be exercised properly off-lead away from traffic: these include Elmdon Park, the Conservation Fields off Brueton Park, Dorridge Park and Langley Hall Park. Smaller public spaces open to roads do not meet the needs of many dog walkers, mainly because of the danger of, and to, traffic. Many owners therefore make otherwise avoidable car journeys from their homes simply to take the dogs somewhere they can have a decent safe walk, at least once a day. They then require parking provision at or near the park. "Country" walks are available along rural footpaths but there is hardly ever any car parking available at the beginning or end of the walk. Dog-walking and cycling are not particularly compatible as each is a nuisance to the other. The provision of adequate land for exercising dogs is relevant to a number of the Policies, especially but not exclusively, provision of housing (need to ensure that there is significant acreage of off-road, enclosed, walkable land within walking distance of new housing and also that access to such amenity land from existing housing is not compromised by the interposing of a housing estate), health and wellbeing (a daily walk with a dog has multiple health and social benefits) and climate change (providing dog walking space within walking distance from home will reduce the number of polluting car journeys).

2. Your question 7 (agree with Policy P2?): I do not believe the case for relocating the railway station to Monkspath Hall has been made. It would be an enormously expensive venture for no benefit - for instance, there is no mention of a direct train connection to Birmingham International or HS2 - and it would, rightly in my view, be seen as a vanity project. Officers have suggested that the current station is too far from and too inaccessible to the town centre but the journey from a new station at Monkspath Hall would be uphill and therefore less accessible for anyone with fitness issues, buggies, luggage etc. It would also inevitably entail losing part of Tudor Grange Park and much of Monkspath Hall car park. (Despite the insistence of officers that there is oversupply of car parking in the town centre, the views expressed to me by the general public are very much to the contrary).

3. Your questions 15 and 16. I have already emailed my comments on your site ref. 16 "East of Solihull". In case these have been lost, I reiterate: this site is in Green Belt and:

The staggered junctions of Yew Tree Lane, Hampton Lane, Marsh Lane and the Solihull Bypass cause significant traffic congestion (with concomitant noise and air pollution and delays to journeys) particularly back along Hampton Lane towards Catherine de Barnes, and not only at peak times. Traffic congestion along Damson Parkway/Yew Tree Lane will probably be exacerbated by the opening of the JLR logistics operation and flow through Hampton Lane is likely to increase with the development of UK Central. A housing development opening out on to any of the adjoining roads could only make matters much worse. Some of the land earmarked is used for children's sports and the football pitches, the need for which would increase with the influx of new families, would be lost.

I suggest the alternative proposal of developing instead land to the south of Catherine de Barnes, along and between Henwood Lane, Berry Hall Lane and Ravenshaw Lane. Not much mention is made in the draft Local Plan of Catherine de Barnes. This settlement already has some community infrastructure in the shape of a village hall, pub, shop, restaurant and some small businesses. The village could be enlarged into a sustainable settlement with the addition of a school and health centre if there were sufficient new homes. Upgrading Ravenshaw Lane to provide direct access on to the A41 Solihull Bypass near Junction 5 of the M42 would actually alleviate some of the existing congestion along Hampton Lane. This proposal has the added advantage of preserving the green space between Damson Parkway, Lugtrout Lane, Field Lane and Hampton Lane as a buffer against urban spread.


4. Finally, re Policy P15: there is an increasing trend towards enclosing residential properties with high iron railings. Many of these, notably along St Bernard's Road and Dovehouse Lane have made the properties look unpleasantly like compounds: they have a forbidding look and are obviously designed to exclude. They all detract from the relaxed, traditional, friendly street scene that contributes to Solihull's attractiveness as a place to live and are absolutely out of character with the atmosphere of the Borough. It would assist planners in refusing planning applications for more of these if policies on design could include emphasis on retaining more traditional boundary treatments and specifically on discouraging the erection of railings where none previously existed.

I am writing to express my multiple concerns in relation to the proposed housing development on Sharmans Cross Road. As a home owner Winterbourne Road, we back onto the site. My objections are as follow:-

Sporting Facilities
This is one of five sports grounds at risk in the LDP. As there is a shortage of pitches in Solihull, SMBC has a statutory requirement to ensure lost pitches are replaced with facilities of equivalent quality and accessibility. 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

As the manager of a under 10's football team (Solihull Moors) I am greatly concerned at the loss of sporting facilities. Currently we travel over 6 miles, taking around 30 minutes for training, so I know from first-hand experience how hard it is to secure good sporting facilities. I also appreciate how having access to local sporting facilities facilitates a vast number of social, physiological and health benefits.

As I understand it, there have been multiple enquiries to lease holders to use the site for sport e.g. football training and it feels as if there is a reluctance to answer enquiries with regard to use of the rugby pitch for sports, or reasonably price the lease for facilities. If correct, this really seems to be an underhanded approach by the holders.

In fact, item 1.2 of the Cerda planning document states that the application has "improved sporting provision". I believe the land housing the rugby pitch has a covenant stipulating that the land should be used for sporting purposes. SMBC formally minuted in 2013 its policy with regard to the use of the grounds only for sport and that they would not sell the freehold. We would like reaffirmation of this policy which implies that this development is inappropriate for inclusion in the LDP. One previous application for this site has been refused and another withdrawn. It appears to me the developers are attempting to circumnavigate this covenant, by moving the tennis club onto this land to 'satisfy' this requirement, whilst allowing the land which houses the current tennis club to be developed. It would leave a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth if SMBC allow the developer planning permission on these grounds.

I do not understand how reducing the amount of land, which could accommodate numerous different sports and which could be used in a hugely beneficial way, for children and adults alike, is an "improved sports provision". Further, I fear allowing the land to be lost, sends a message to both children, adults and the volunteers that sport, and the benefits it brings, are unimportant to Solihull, and consequently we would experience a reduction in sports participation and in the number of volunteers who co-ordinate sports in the community.

Local Amenities - As a father of 2 young children (aged 11 & 10), I am concerned about the lack of amenities to service an increased community/population as a result of 100 houses being built i.e. school & college places, doctor, hospitals etc. The current services are already stretched beyond the limit.
Within the plan there is no precise definition of the criteria for access to doctors surgeries and schools but the clear implication is that in general they should be in walking distance. The site fails on all these criteria with no surgeries within 1500m and bus access not being direct. The nearest Primary school is over 1500m away and the Junior School is oversubscribed so some children somewhere would be driven long distances to school. Secondary schools are also oversubscribed and over 1500m away.

Flooding - We already experience issues with flooding on Sharmans Cross Road and in the gardens running along Beaminster Road. The drainage systems are not equipped to cope with additional usage from an additional 100 families. We have since purchasing our home, had to add additional drainage in the garden to deal with rain water.

Additional traffic and issues with parking - I am concerned from a safety perspective (my children walking to school) and also the increase congestion and gridlock in the morning and evening.

Accessibility
The Cerda planning document details a number of item relating to accessibility. The developers - Oakmoor - in their submission specifically state that the distance to the Station is 700m when in fact it is 1000m to 1100m depending on which route you use.
Oakmoor also state that the Town Centre is 1km walk when in practice it is 1700m from the centre of the site to Touchwood

Public transport - accessibility also requires there to be frequent (defined as every 15 minutes) bus services to e.g. the station and the town centre. Oakmoor suggest this criterium is met by bus services nos. 3, S3 and S3W. These provide a half hourly service M to Sat and hourly on Sundays.

Suitability - The development will destroy the character of the neighbourhood. 100 houses is effectively 5 times the density of property on Winterbourne Rd. This is unacceptable overdevelopment of the site, and will be both out-of-scale and out-of-character in its appearance compared to existing development in the vicinity. 50 houses within the development will be "affordable homes" which are likely to be housing association properties. It is inevitable that buildings will be more than 2 stories (possible 4 to 5) leading to loss of light, loss of privacy and overshadowing

Therefore I believe with that on these grounds it is inappropriate for inclusion in the LDP.

I am writing to register my objection to the loss of Allocation 13 to the proposed new build developments.

This piece of land represents the only piece of countryside which is accessible for thousands of residents within the B90 area.

The piece of land known as Allocation 13 enables the local community access to the natural environment and is very well used by families, walkers and dog owners alike. The land provides a valuable community amenity, which should be protected.

There have been a number of recent developments within the B90 postcode including Parkgate, which has resulted in the loss of parkland and green space for residents to enjoy and other large scale developments such as Dickens Heath taking acres of greenbelt land.

Residing on Neville Road, I feel that the roads and surrounding infrastructure would not be able to cope with the proposed 600 houses to Allocation 13. There is already insufficient parking at nearby Shirley and Whitlocks End train stations. Places at already oversubscribed schools will become even harder to obtain. Solihull Hospital has already been downgraded and does not meet the needs of residents of Solihull, who often have to travel to Heartlands and further afield when treatment is required. Doctors surgeries have closed patient lists and I cannot see how the area could cope with such large scale development.

Given the large scale of the proposed development to Allocation 13 and other surrounding proposed sites (totalling 2550 new homes), the proposals are too vast and confined to one area. Surely there are other less populated areas within the Solihull Borough (such as Knowle, Dorridge, Hockley Heath, Hampton in Arden) which could be considered leaving residents of B90 with some accessible green space, having already lost most of it.

It should also be a priority for Solihull Council to ensure that Birmingham City Council have used all of the brownfield sites available to them before any overflow of allocation is passed to Solihull.

Re: Proposed Housing Allocation 18 - Land off Sharmans Cross Road, Solihull

My concerns about the above allocation are as follows:

- The description of the site in Appendix C of the Review is very misleading. It describes the site as a 'sports ground' and that the 'sports ground is currently unused' . However, a large area of the allocation is the Arden Tennis Club which is very well used by the local community.

- Loss of the tennis club would be detrimental to the local community. There is tennis/squash, the gym, yoga and also an excellent function room used for social functions and hired to children's groups in the area. I appreciate not having to use the car and be able to walk to such a facility with my children. My son is a member of the club and regularly plays tennis and my daughter has been attending rhythm time. There is no other similar facility locally.

- Loss of accessible sports pitches in a residential area. Whilst the former rugby site is currently unused I would like to see evidence that it has been marketed to potential users?

- Impact on local schools. Sharmans Cross Junior School which is full to capacity and is in desperate need of resources. Blossomfield school is already, I understand, increasing the intake to extend to four classes per year.

- Any proposals for this site should be considered as part of an outline or full planning application for the site when all issues can be properly addressed. To simply allocate the site with the Local Plan is premature and could be detrimental to the local area and community.

LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation18

I'd like to raise my concerns over the plan to build such a large number of houses on the old rugby fields on Sharmans Cross Road.

I have lived in Winterbourne Road for the last 22 years and although I am not originally from Solihull, I have grown to appreciate the feel of this area in which I have raised my family. We have been lucky to have lived here when the rugby club was here, working with the local schools to encourage children to take part in tag rugby games, which my children did. Often on a Saturady afternoon we would walk over to watch the team play. Having a local sports team like this in the heart of the community was great. When the club moved to a new ground it was always hoped that another team or sport would make use of the field but when it was left empty local residents continued to use and enjoy the open green space. It feels wrong build on fields that should be being used for sport and the proposed development is not in keeping with the area as it currently exists.

I also seriously doubt that the area can cope with the impact of such a development. Being a main road into the town centre, Sharmans Cross Road already struggles to cope with the volumes of traffic at certain times of the day. For something like an hour every weekday morning, the road has stationery traffic past the point where the proposed development would have its access point. On top of that the junction of Sharmans Cross Road/ Streetsbrook Road/ Stonor Park Road does not cope well with the volume of traffic and is difficult to navigate during the very busy periods and there are often accidents here.

If the development was approved this would put a lot of pressure on the already oversubscribed local schools to provide additional school places for children moving into the area. Doctor's surgeries would also be affected. They would have to provide additional services for new residents. These surgeries are already overstretched.

Although I am aware of the need for new and affordable housing, I feel that the proposed development will be detrimental to the feel of the area and will have an impact to both the volume of traffic and the pressure on local services. Most importantly new homes would be built on land that should be used for sport.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18RE SHARMANS CROSS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing concerning the above proposed development for which I would like to outline some of my objections. I hope that you will take them into consideration when making your decision regarding the irreversible conversion of the land previously dedicated to sports but not, it seems, supported by council for this purpose. I understand that the current developers who have bought the land have not been supportive towards promoting its use for sports for obvious reasons.

Firstly - the traffic problem. It is a very real problem. There is already a very significant amount of traffic in the immediate area. Morning and evening traffic is already deadlocked around the island at the Sharmans Cross Pub. Clearly these proposals will further exacerbate the problem. Access from Sharmans Cross Road onto Streetsbrook Road is also problematic despite two outlets. The traffic which accumulates around the school, next door to the proposal, will mean that additional weight of the extra traffic entering and exiting the proposed access site will create danger, stress and frustration for the local community and the surrounds. Increased traffic will also provide greater risks to pedestrians. and the safety of infants attending the local school (which will also demand further development and stretch resources as a consequence) is of a particular concern. Pollution is a very concerning factor.

Secondly, there still exists the need for sports facilities, not just tennis, which is also part of a government program. The area is not at all well served with sports grounds and this development could easily and at minimal cost, be reinstated as a sporting facility to benefit all Solihull inhabitants.

Thirdly - social, moral, spiritual and environmental welfare. Building on the proposed scale will have a detrimental effect on the local wildlife - there will be inevitable loss of its natural habitat and therefore threat to its existence. The general environmental ambience of the area will be lost under concrete and this is a concern to those of us who feel that our morale and spiritual welfare is enhanced by the open space. Sharmans Cross Road is susceptible to flooding therefore covering the natural ground with concrete and Tarmac will further exacerbate the situation. The Lucas Sports Ground and the fields around Sharmans Cross senior school have already been built on and although Prospect Park survives, the field next to the Arden Club feels more secure, private and should indeed be renovated for the purpose in which it is already designated i.e. Sports. This is a much needed facility in the area. I use the land as it exists. I don't see why recreation should be less important than housing allocation as a stressed society is not a healthy one. Houses are now being built on the surrounding green belt area, therefore turning inwards and over-crowding the town is of no value to Solihull residents.

As a conclusion, all the amenities in the area are totally stretched already. The Health Care in the area is stretched with doctors appointments having waiting times of up to six weeks. Solihull Hospital is already under funding cuts and schools in the area are oversubscribed and students are bussed in as well as parents taking to the roads to bring them in . My mother, with whom I live, currently waits for three months for a hospital appointment , often with appointments being postponed or delayed, however, getting the initial GP appointment for referral in this area has already taken weeks.

I do hope that you will take into account the views of myself and the vast number of local residents who agree with these views.
Please reject the current planning permission request.

Many thanks for your consideration. I look forward to your reply.

Solihull Local Plan review - particular interest in Shirley and Allocation 13
Please find my own thoughts on some of the proposals put forward for the new local plan. I am a resident of Shirley and live on Blackford Road (B4102) so these proposals do raise some concerns.

* I believe that the density of proposals affecting Shirley South is too high. Allocations 4, 11, 12, 13 will all have a very large impact on the area with respect to transport, schooling and healthcare facilities such as GPs in what is an already congested and high density of dwellings area.
* As a resident of Blackford Road my main concern is the huge increase in traffic that this will bring. Without clear proposals regarding road infrastructure and transport it is difficult to see the positives going forward of any development. Although I am not against the building of new homes completely.
* Blackford Road has a history of structural problems and has been repaired 4 times since I have lived here (2010), once closed for 6 weeks. I don't believe this route is viable if traffic is going to increase.
* If the road infrastructure was reviewed BEFORE building, more effort could be made to modify the roundabout system at the end of Dickens Heath Road to promote the use of Dog Kennel Lane which would then disperse traffic across a number of routes into Solihull and beyond. Any development could be built meaning new residents are not fronting straight onto the road and negative impact to them would be minimised too
* Allocation 13 reduces the buffer between Shirley and Dickens Heath too much. This is not seen elsewhere in the borough.
* Allocation 12 and 13 are not currently well served by public transport - in fact they are quite far away from the local train stations (Shirley and Whitlocks End), too far for most people to walk. Shirley and Whitlocks End both have carparks that cannot meet existing demand and it is currently not safe to cycle due to the poor road layout in the area (particularly leaving Dickens Heath towards Whitlocks End).
* All Shirley sites would not obviously benefit from HS2 - should there be a greater effort to place housing within reach of this valuable new route?
* I am very against Allocation 13 being adopted in this plan. It currently is accessible to all, offers a near "rural" experience within walking distance of most Shirley residents and is not currently served well by the existing road network. Too much habitat for wildlife will be lost and the infrastructure changes needed would be great and disruptive.
* Allocation 13 is a valuable habitat and maintains a healthy buffer and green corridor to de-lineate Shirley from Dickens Heath so the two areas can maintain their distinct community identity.
* Allocation 13 would remove accessible amenity land from some of the most affordable homes in the area and seems to work against the promotion of healthy lifestyles for all. Please look again at this as a proposal.
* I would like to see a reduction in the allocation burden on the Shirley area overall and particularly want Allocation 13 dropped.
* I would like to see a more even spread across the borough - perhaps in the form of smaller developments to include houses that are affordable in the more affluent/expensive areas.
* I would like a reassurance that the council will protect as many green spaces as possible including hedges and trees on existing roads to maintain the motto of Solihull Urbs in Rure. These enhance the experience of living in the borough and can aid the pollution problem caused by congested roads if maintained and planted well.



I thought I would try to put forward some positives.

* The council look like they are going to use the B4102 as a main route into Solihull. The road network using the Monkspath Hall route is already in a much better state to take additional traffic and delivers the road user to an area of parking with close links into the centre of town (and possibly to the new train station if it moves). The properties built in this area tend to have been built away from the main road and this could mean detrimental impact is minimised to residents (unlike around Blackford Road and Tanworth Lane which both have a range of aged properties that front directly onto the road with small front gardens.) The Monkspath Hall route support enhanced bus routes into Solihull. In fact if the station were there a new transport hub could be created and the land made available at the existing station given over to home building.
* Monkspath Hall Carparks take up a very large area of land - if the carpark was made multi- could land be released to build affordable flats? If affordable these homes could potentially serve the workers of the service industries in the town centre and might be an attractive proposition to the young of the borough. They would not need public transport or cars to access all that Solihull has to offer re. work and recreation but would have the benefit of great connectivity to Birmingham and London .
* Don't expand Touchwood for retail but put homes there instead. Touchwood is expensive for businesses to rent and increasing numbers of shops are leaving to set up elsewhere (for example Sports Direct which is moving to Shirley). If there are already empty retail units why make it bigger? Provide flats.
* Make any infrastructure changes before building commences. Don't leave it to the developers - they will do what is affordable to them not what is needed by the communities affected.
* The council needs to stop paying lip service to cycling and make it viable to those who are too fearful of the dangers. A dedicated cycle route into Solihull from the areas affected by the proposed sites e.g off the Stratford road, through Hillfield park. It is not enough to just paint some lines on an existing road.
* The council need to incentivise people to leave their cars at home/lift share.
* Parking permits should be introduced in the most congested areas eg Dickens Heath and the centre of Solihull - it might make people think twice about having a car and parking it on the roads if this were in place.
* Make Blythe Valley the new Dickens Heath by placing Allocation 13 houses there in addition to those already granted.
* Use the NEC carparks for housing and make multi storeys instead - this puts the new homes within reach of HS2.
* Enhance Shirley by placing more homes above the retail units on the Stratford Road for the benefit of the workers in the shops and businesses. This will enhance the feel of Shirley.
* Make protecting green spaces however small a priority. Even a hedge can enhance a road that might otherwise experience busy traffic.


I've tried not to make it too longwinded!

addendum to site 13 objection
I would like to add a proposal to my objection on your proposed development of site 13 Shirley.
Site 13 as you are probably already aware is a very much loved area by Shirley residents with its peaceful bridal way's walks pools woodland and fields. Shirley residents have been using this area for peaceful recreation for generations.
After speaking with many local residents we would like to propose to Solihull council planning that you would consider letting Shirley residents develop site 13 as a community managed nature reserve.
Shirley residents have many skilled and experienced people in our ranks who we believe could develop this area into a jewel of a nature reserve in Solihull borough that could involve the whole community of all ages and back grounds .Not only would this be fantastic for community health and relations it would also benefit the Butterfly and Bee population if we restore the fields to wildflower meadow land which can be done and this would have a fantastic knock on effect for wildlife and I am sure it would put Solihull on the map. Site 13 has the perfect ingredients of wet low marshland with small river and pools with an inclining field system surrounded by drainage streams pools and glade woodland. Its open elevation to round the clock sunlight is perfect to re create wildflower meadowland.
I am sure this would work and even become a visitor attraction. As I have probably mentioned before the site does have a thriving Hedgehog population with various species of owls and bats and abundant bird life which includes gold crests bullfinches herons woodpeckers cukoos sparrow hawks and kesterels.and Muntjac Deer.
I have attached a photo of some restored meadow land to give you an idea of what we are proposing.
I hope you can give this proposal some serious thought as the benefits of this idea are immense for the borough.

Solihull Local Plan review - particular interest in Shirley and Allocation 13
Please find my own thoughts on some of the proposals put forward for the new local plan. I am a resident of Shirley and live on Blackford Road (B4102) so these proposals do raise some concerns.

* I believe that the density of proposals affecting Shirley South is too high. Allocations 4, 11, 12, 13 will all have a very large impact on the area with respect to transport, schooling and healthcare facilities such as GPs in what is an already congested and high density of dwellings area.
* As a resident of Blackford Road my main concern is the huge increase in traffic that this will bring. Without clear proposals regarding road infrastructure and transport it is difficult to see the positives going forward of any development. Although I am not against the building of new homes completely.
* Blackford Road has a history of structural problems and has been repaired 4 times since I have lived here (2010), once closed for 6 weeks. I don't believe this route is viable if traffic is going to increase.
* If the road infrastructure was reviewed BEFORE building, more effort could be made to modify the roundabout system at the end of Dickens Heath Road to promote the use of Dog Kennel Lane which would then disperse traffic across a number of routes into Solihull and beyond. Any development could be built meaning new residents are not fronting straight onto the road and negative impact to them would be minimised too
* Allocation 13 reduces the buffer between Shirley and Dickens Heath too much. This is not seen elsewhere in the borough.
* Allocation 12 and 13 are not currently well served by public transport - in fact they are quite far away from the local train stations (Shirley and Whitlocks End), too far for most people to walk. Shirley and Whitlocks End both have carparks that cannot meet existing demand and it is currently not safe to cycle due to the poor road layout in the area (particularly leaving Dickens Heath towards Whitlocks End).
* All Shirley sites would not obviously benefit from HS2 - should there be a greater effort to place housing within reach of this valuable new route?
* I am very against Allocation 13 being adopted in this plan. It currently is accessible to all, offers a near "rural" experience within walking distance of most Shirley residents and is not currently served well by the existing road network. Too much habitat for wildlife will be lost and the infrastructure changes needed would be great and disruptive.
* Allocation 13 is a valuable habitat and maintains a healthy buffer and green corridor to de-lineate Shirley from Dickens Heath so the two areas can maintain their distinct community identity.
* Allocation 13 would remove accessible amenity land from some of the most affordable homes in the area and seems to work against the promotion of healthy lifestyles for all. Please look again at this as a proposal.
* I would like to see a reduction in the allocation burden on the Shirley area overall and particularly want Allocation 13 dropped.
* I would like to see a more even spread across the borough - perhaps in the form of smaller developments to include houses that are affordable in the more affluent/expensive areas.
* I would like a reassurance that the council will protect as many green spaces as possible including hedges and trees on existing roads to maintain the motto of Solihull Urbs in Rure. These enhance the experience of living in the borough and can aid the pollution problem caused by congested roads if maintained and planted well.



I thought I would try to put forward some positives.

* The council look like they are going to use the B4102 as a main route into Solihull. The road network using the Monkspath Hall route is already in a much better state to take additional traffic and delivers the road user to an area of parking with close links into the centre of town (and possibly to the new train station if it moves). The properties built in this area tend to have been built away from the main road and this could mean detrimental impact is minimised to residents (unlike around Blackford Road and Tanworth Lane which both have a range of aged properties that front directly onto the road with small front gardens.) The Monkspath Hall route support enhanced bus routes into Solihull. In fact if the station were there a new transport hub could be created and the land made available at the existing station given over to home building.
* Monkspath Hall Carparks take up a very large area of land - if the carpark was made multi- could land be released to build affordable flats? If affordable these homes could potentially serve the workers of the service industries in the town centre and might be an attractive proposition to the young of the borough. They would not need public transport or cars to access all that Solihull has to offer re. work and recreation but would have the benefit of great connectivity to Birmingham and London .
* Don't expand Touchwood for retail but put homes there instead. Touchwood is expensive for businesses to rent and increasing numbers of shops are leaving to set up elsewhere (for example Sports Direct which is moving to Shirley). If there are already empty retail units why make it bigger? Provide flats.
* Make any infrastructure changes before building commences. Don't leave it to the developers - they will do what is affordable to them not what is needed by the communities affected.
* The council needs to stop paying lip service to cycling and make it viable to those who are too fearful of the dangers. A dedicated cycle route into Solihull from the areas affected by the proposed sites e.g off the Stratford road, through Hillfield park. It is not enough to just paint some lines on an existing road.
* The council need to incentivise people to leave their cars at home/lift share.
* Parking permits should be introduced in the most congested areas eg Dickens Heath and the centre of Solihull - it might make people think twice about having a car and parking it on the roads if this were in place.
* Make Blythe Valley the new Dickens Heath by placing Allocation 13 houses there in addition to those already granted.
* Use the NEC carparks for housing and make multi storeys instead - this puts the new homes within reach of HS2.
* Enhance Shirley by placing more homes above the retail units on the Stratford Road for the benefit of the workers in the shops and businesses. This will enhance the feel of Shirley.
* Make protecting green spaces however small a priority. Even a hedge can enhance a road that might otherwise experience busy traffic.


I've tried not to make it too longwinded!

Arden 2020
With regard to the proposed Arden 2020 Project, I would like to make the following observation: whilst Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath have growing populations and hence there is, and will be, the need for additional school places, the focus of this proposal should be exclusively on the pupils and driving up standards of education in these areas of Solihull. Therefore, would it not be more appropriate to leave Arden Academy where it is and meet the demand for secondary school places by building another school on proposed site? This way, we would see competition for pupil numbers between the schools which would serve only to drive up standards as parents and pupils would effectively vote with their feet. I do not see how the proposed "super-school" would improve the education of our children; if anything, it would encourage lower standards through complacency.

I look forward to receiving your reply on this matter.

Best regards

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I am writing to object to the proposed development for 100 houses on the Rugby ground off Sharmans Cross Road.
My objections are:-
Increased traffic and safety issues:-
100 houses would result in many more cars - given most households in Solihull have one or two cars - 100 plus cars. Sharmans Cross Road is already very congested at peak times with problems caused by the volume of traffic by the Junior School; cars parking on Sharmans Cross Road to drop/pick up children, the Lollypop person and children crossing, cars coming out of side roads and turning round after dropping/picking up.
More cars would be a considerable safety issue for car drivers and children.
If you travel towards Solihull then the junction of Sharmans Cross Road/Streetsbrook Road is also congested and dangerous.
More cars would cause more tailbacks and coming out of the proposed development would be very difficult especially as it is situated where cars are backed up to at peak time.
Local Shops - Prospect Lane Shops does not have adequate parking at times even if you use the pub Carpark - more local people would cause parking issues.
Local amenities can't take the increase:-
Schools - does Sharmans Cross Junior School have the capacity to take more children (adding to more traffic as children don't seem to walk). And what of other local schools?
Medical Centres - can they handle the increase.?
Waste Collection: can they handle it?
Arden Club Parking: if the club looses a lot of parking spaces as proposed this will cause more on street parking in roads already busy. Sometimes cars are parked on the side roads on both sides and 'stick out' that emergency vehicles would find it hard to get through. There would be more problems like this.
Transportation: local buses. If the residents from the proposed development don't use their car and take public transport, can the local buses cope? The buses are not that frequent along Sharman's Cross Road in either direction and there is not a covered bus shelter.
Loss of sporting facilities: we need to exercise for health and wellbeing.
Nature and green spaces: are good for us and we need our bats and badgers and trees
If you need clarification on any of my comments please contact me

I am writing in regard to the plans for development of the sports grounds at Sharmans Cross Road, to register my concerns and objection.

The plans envisage the loss of the sports pitches, at a time when Solihull is short of pitches for our children to play on (which are important for children's physical wellbeing). The replacement of these sports pitches with such a very high density of housing that would, of neccessity in squeezing so many in, lead to buildings that would be quite out of keeping with the area, making this an unsuitable development.
Bringing so many additional houses and the residents who will live in them, will also bring a significant strain on the infrastructure and services in the area:
Sharmans Cross Road and the surrounding roads (notably Streetsbrook into which it feeds) are already congested in the morning when there are long queues which on Sharmans Cross often stretch from Woodside way up to Streetsbrook and on Streetsbrook back even as far as Woodlea road. An additional hundred homes would exacerbate this problem. Even if the new development is able to feed out onto Winterbourne Rd or Welcombe Grove, the traffic will quickly meet the queues on Blossomfield Road. Aside from the inconvenience these additional congestion problems will bring, both in these roads and the Solihull road arteries they feed into, such congestion and increased traffic volume brings pollution and road safety issues. Traffic from the development passing down Sharmans Cross away from Streetsbrook would increase volumes of traffic near Sharmans Cross School and this increases the danger to the young people being educated there when travelling to and from the school.
The schools around the area are already oversubscribed and the new houses will increase the pressure on these schools, and the GP surgeries in the area are similarly very busy. Significant new infrastructure would be needed for more development in the area.
The Sharmans Cross Area is important for wildlife and environment. The sports pitches are part of an area of open space with mature trees and complement the space behind the houses on the other side of the road and the parkland around Woodside Way and creates a large habitat for a very wide variety of small mammals and birds as well as different species of trees. The development of the land for housing would both reduce the amount of green space available to the local community (which is important for people's mental wellbeing as well as their physical wellbeing) and reduce air quality, as well as impact on the wildlife.

I urge you to reconsider this proposal, and instead retain this land for the valuable purpose of sport in Solihull for which it is intended.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I live at Dorchester Road, Solihull and I write to object to the proposed new housing development on Sherman's Cross Road.
I am very shocked that this is even being proposed. I think the area already suffers with too much traffic and this would add to it immensely - in the proposal there aren't enough spaces for the new residents and then also their guests which has to be accounted for. I worry that ground that was always intended for sports and recreational use is being used to build houses which is absolutely ridiculous. There isn't a call for the new development under sustainability as it is further away than the National Planning Policy Framework. The schools and medical facilities in the area are already over subscribed and this new development would have a detrimental affect on these facilities for existing users and the new residents. I think the new development should also be rejected under the grounds of suitability as it will be an over development of the land and the design and appearance also is not in keeping with the area.

I truly hope our voices will be listened to and am happy to be contacted for further information.

Please reject this proposal!!!

I want to object to the Proposed Housing Allocation 18 as I feel it is not a good option at all under these grounds

- there will be an increase is traffic and therefore pollution in the area and safety of other road users, pedestrians and cyclists will be put at risk
- the risk of flooding due to the overdevelopment of the land
- the size of the development is too big, it is not suitable for the area
- local schools will be put under more pressure from over subscription
- medical facilities are also oversubscribed and will have to stretch even further causing the service provided to be worse
- parking lost at the Arden Club will increase congestion and put users safety at risk
- it's not sustainable as the development is further away from amenities

I expect my objection to be heard and all the other objects too. I feel very strongly against the Proposed Housing Allocation 18 at Sherman's Cross Road.

Allocation 13

Please accept my objection against the plans for allocation 13. I have been a Shirley resident for 20 years and love where we live. I love to walk my dog with my family and friends in those lovely green fields. We were saddened that we lost part of our park to the Parkgate scheme, so please, please don't let Shirley lose more! Shirley will suffer if all those houses are built and won't be the same great place to live. I honestly hope and pray that someone sees sense and saves our green land.

Many thanks for taking the time to read my objection.

We object to
A) Proposed land development adjoining Langcomb road (Site 13)
B) Wider issues of concentration of Sites in South Shirley

Objections
1, 40 % of all housing allocation in Shirley

While we recognize that new housing needs to be provide. It cannot be right that 40% of all the new houses being proposed at this time should be located with the Shirley area on green belt land. Surely there should be a more even spread across the borough?
We object to the land having high density housing which will result in urban sprawl and effectively connecting Shirley to Dickens Heath.

2, Traffic Congestion

The local network infrastructure is already under significant pressure and arguably cannot take any more strain? The traffic flows in that area will be directed predominantly down Haslucks Green Road, Bills Lane, Tanworth Lane, Blackford Road and Dog Kennel Lane, also impacting the numerous roads that run between them, and would only further congest the A34. In terms of benefitting from HS2, I can understand the logic of building residential properties in the vicinity of UK Central, but for residents of the properties being built around Shirley, they would need to access both the A34 and the M42, worsening what are already congested roads.

2, Building on green Belt land

The green belt in this area has been long established and contains a large variety of wild life. The area concerned is wildlife rich. While no official study has been done at present; we regularly see and hear a variety of species. The evidence for this is supported by the large number of Owls and bats regularly heard and seen in the area. This supports the evidence that there is good food supply for them provide by a diverse range of insects and mammals.
including :-
Birds:- Cuckoo's, owls , Jays, woodpeckers.
Mamel's:- field mice, shrews, hedgehog's, foxes, Frogs, newts, squirrels.
Insects: - Dragonflies, bumble bees, honey bees, butterflies and Beetles,

3, Flooding

The gardens backing onto the fields behind Langcomb road regularly flood. We believe the fields and trees behind the house play an important part in mitigating the effects of the flooding. Should these trees be removed additional drainage will be required.
However there are times when a pool of water covers the ground across our properties. This usually stays for up to a week before dispersing. We believe the line of oak trees on the border play an import part in helping control any flooding.
The proposed development should take account of this:-
1) Flooding problems.
Review the proposed developments to ensure they are not going to create additional flooding problems.
2) Housing density.
Ensuring the lowest housing density while allowing retention of as much of the natural tree lines to help control flooding naturally.
3) Drainage Review
Review and providing extra drainage to protect our properties, including the maintaining protection and planting addition Oak trees in the existing tree line.
6, Prevention of neighbouring towns merging into one.

We object to the land having high density housing which will result in urban sprawl and effectively connecting Shirley to Dickens Heath.

7, Well-being and quality of life

We chose to live in the vicinity, due to its close proximity to open country side. We utilize and enjoy the local country paths and routs through the land adjacent to Langcomb road, providing connections to the local canal paths and other county bridal ways. This contributes to our well-being and general health.
This is documented in the "Solihull health and well-being strategy 2016 - 2019"
1) Evidence : Refer to page 26 of "what we need in Solihull"
Improved access to quantity and quality of open and green spaces, to improve both physical and mental health.

This could be reinforced by retaining and improving the existing local bridleways and footpaths, combining and incorporating the wildlife corridors in a dual purpose amenity for everyone.

2) Recreation and fitness
Currently the land is used by many people for recreation and fitness purposed . we wish to be considered in the layout of the proposed developments , so this can continue to be an important health benefit to all current and new residents in the community.

8,Proposed amendment to local plan

Alternate Shirley housing plan to reduce encroachment on green belt land while improving the local area and helping with traffic flow.
Following the announcement of the councils need to provide additional housing in the Shirley area, we believe an adjustment to the plan can achieve a more balanced approach providing many addition al benefits to the community as a whole.
E.g. to demolish and use the Light hall school land as development. Currently the school is very run down, with classed being attended in Porta cabins.
Proposed new School
A new school could be built opposite Miller and Carter. This new school could then have the capacity to accommodate pupils from both Shirley and the Dickens heath areas. Utilizing this location would also have many advantages.
Advantages
* The green belt land behind the new school could be saved and used by the school, while still being available for general community use. Protecting the Wildlife.
* The road system by the Miller and Carter is already substantial with good connections to the local estates (Shirley and Dickens Heath). This would help reduce congestion within the Light hall school area.

Draft Local Plan - Balsall Common
As a very concerned resident, I am asking you to look again at the housing developments proposed for this area.

We need to look at brownfield sites for new homes, not the green belt sites which have been put forward. As detailed in the recent Government white paper, green belt land should be protected.

We need to protect the Meriden gap and the countryside for future generations. I do appreciate that we have a housing shortfall, but surely we can allocate sites which current residents are happy with not just greedy landowners, who do not have a vested interest in the area they develop.

We are already facing a huge amount of construction traffic with HS2 and at present, we do not have anywhere near the required facilities or infrastructure such as school places and public transport.

Another option for Solihull is to look at developing a completely new area, perhaps similar to Dicken's Heath which is a lovely village development. Surely, this would provide affordable housing for young and old to meet the requirements.

Thank you for your recent correspondent regarding the proposed planning for Allocation 13 off Bills Lane.
We would like to strongly object to the current plans for the following reasons:

1. There is no other green space within walkable distance (1/2 mile) for our children to play outside and enjoy green belt.
2. The current green space is the habitat of bats, newts, owls and many other important wildlife.
3. The green space is very attractive and the development would have a detrimental visual impact on the area.
4. It's Part of the community. I and many other dog walkers currently enjoy meeting and socialising in a local green outdoor, safe space. If this was removed there would be no other comparable alternative in the area.
5. Current overcrowding. There is already significant overcrowding during rush hour on the roads surrounding the whole area. Dickens Heath up to the miller and Carter. Bills lane leading up to the Tanworth lane and Shakespeare drive. Through majors green leading to Norton Lane, which is already having another development site built. The A435 leading up to the M42 junction 3 motorway island.
6. The schools, doctors and hospitals are all already over prescribed.
7. 41% of the development are proposed within close proximity to each other and not enough other areas has either been considered or proposed.

I am writing to object to the decision to build over 600 new homes to the south of Shirley Estates. Having lived in Shirley for over 39 years and living on said Woodlands estate as a boy and now as an adult. I feel I have some expert knowledge on the surrounding areas.

It was a great place to grow up and was also a great place for my children to grow up, which was was why I moved back onto estate. For a council estate it must rate as one of the best as proving as over 50% must now be privately owed. Over the last 10 years due to Dickens Heath growth the traffic has steadily got worse. I cant understand why with all the green areas i see on the other side of Dickens Heath and Earlswood you wish to build on the fields right next door to Woodlands and Badgers Estates.

Dog Kennel Lane has unused fields either side of it but even that would cause more horrendous traffic problems. We all see the headlines about Solihull being one of the best places to live but if all this planning goes ahead Im sure that would no longer be the case. Knowle and Dorridge have plenty of areas to build on to.

So I'm writing to object to planing of said houses and would like to know how else I can object

(Your website was very unclear on what I should do to object and how can I attend varies meetings of objections when like most people are at work when the are scheduled to happen)

I am writing to object to the decision to build over 600 new homes to the south of Shirley Estates. Having lived in Shirley for over 39 years and living on said Woodlands estate as a boy and now as an adult. I feel I have some expert knowledge on the surrounding areas.

It was a great place to grow up and was also a great place for my children to grow up, which was was why I moved back onto estate. For a council estate it must rate as one of the best as proving as over 50% must now be privately owed. Over the last 10 years due to Dickens Heath growth the traffic has steadily got worse. I cant understand why with all the green areas i see on the other side of Dickens Heath and Earlswood you wish to build on the fields right next door to Woodlands and Badgers Estates.

Dog Kennel Lane has unused fields either side of it but even that would cause more horrendous traffic problems. We all see the headlines about Solihull being one of the best places to live but if all this planning goes ahead Im sure that would no longer be the case. Knowle and Dorridge have plenty of areas to build on to.

So I'm writing to object to planing of said houses and would like to know how else I can object

(Your website was very unclear on what I should do to object and how can I attend varies meetings of objections when like most people are at work when the are scheduled to happen)

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

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged
6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable. I feel this site is totally inappropriate for any more housing development for a number of personal reasons.
I would ask SMBC to please listen to the residents comments and take these on board. At the end of the day, the residents are the people who live and know the area well, they are not trying to be difficult, just realistic. I would request that SMBC look at the suggested brown field sites as an alternative, especially for Site 3 for the reasons given above, which should definitely remain part of the green belt!

Local development and housing plan

I write to express some of my concerns about this plan in relation to Balsall Common.

1. There is much encroachment onto the green belt, particularly at the Barratt's Farm site when brown belt land adjacent to Lavender Hall Lane and the railway just north of the village is untouched as are pockets of brown belt land close to the A452 north of the village.
2. The plan does not make adequate proposals for the centre of Balsall Common, bearing in mind that an extra 4,000 to 5,000 people will live in the village. There will need to be a better flow of traffic, improved parking, improved pedestrian area, retention of banks (two closed/closing in the last year), larger Post Office facility etc etc.
3. The plan should propose that a dual carriageway bypass is built as a continuation of Hallmeadow Road south to the junction of Meer End Road and the A452. This is particularly important if the Barratt's Farm development has to go ahead, as access roads from that development onto the new by-pass will be needed. Traffic access of that estate onto Meeting House Lane which is too narrow to have footpaths in part would not be safe.
4. I cannot see that adequate consideration has been given to providing accommodation for the elderly has been given. It is obvious that care homes are closing at the same time as the NHS is under pressure to provide 'care at home' in the years to come, and this must be planned for. It's no good developers building only 2,3,4+ bedroom homes for families; special facilities for the single elderly must be included too, and these must be close to regular bus service. Despite the difficulties that care homes are having at present, I would recommend that a major care home provider is approached to see if they would support such a provision in the enlarged village (care home, not nursing home).

OBJECTION to site 3, Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:
"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




I also wish to add that the building of the houses on the Kenilworth Road has bought me the following:

1) two cars that are permanently dirty due to the dust from the building site
2) the windows to my house and window sills are again permanently dirty, from all the dust from the building site
3) my guttering has clumps of grass, mud and debris that were thrown into it when building work commenced in the field adjacent to my house
4) my back lawn looks like a building site from all the mole hills in it. Since all the building work disturbed it's natural home, it has moved into my back garden.
5) the traffic has got considerably worse, as has the speed of the drivers that use the Kenilworth Road. I have had two near misses where I have pulled out of Welsh Road onto the Kenilworth Road and the car behind me, has nearly driven into the back of my car.

Every day now, the traffic regularly goes all the way back from the traffic lights on the Kenilworth Road, all the way down to Eveson's.

The new white gates with the 50 speed limit signs look very nice, but that is not much consolation to those of us who live on the Kenilworth Road and have to use it day in, day out.

Although my points 1 to 4 are temporary and will cease once the building work has finished, my traffic concerns unfortunately will not be.

OBJECTION to site 3, Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

Dear Mr Palmer,
I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:
"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




I also wish to add that the building of the houses on the Kenilworth Road has bought me the following:

1) two cars that are permanently dirty due to the dust from the building site
2) the windows to my house and window sills are again permanently dirty, from all the dust from the building site
3) my guttering has clumps of grass, mud and debris that were thrown into it when building work commenced in the field adjacent to my house
4) my back lawn looks like a building site from all the mole hills in it. Since all the building work disturbed it's natural home, it has moved into my back garden.
5) the traffic has got considerably worse, as has the speed of the drivers that use the Kenilworth Road. I have had two near misses where I have pulled out of Welsh Road onto the Kenilworth Road and the car behind me, has nearly driven into the back of my car.

Every day now, the traffic regularly goes all the way back from the traffic lights on the Kenilworth Road, all the way down to Eveson's.

The new white gates with the 50 speed limit signs look very nice, but that is not much consolation to those of us who live on the Kenilworth Road and have to use it day in, day out.

Although my points 1 to 4 are temporary and will cease once the building work has finished, my traffic concerns unfortunately will not be.

OBJECTION to building on Site 3 - Kenilworth Rd/Windmill Lane, in Balsall Common

I am responding to the Council's plan, ref Q15, specifically to the proposal to build 200 homes on site 3, greenbelt land, when PDL site 240 'Wooton Green Lane' appears to have been overlooked by the Council.
I support BARRAGE action group's report, and comments and proposals therein.
Additionally I would add that while more, particularly affordable, housing is required in, or near to Balsall Common, that does not mean at any or unnecessary cost to the neighbourhood or the community. With detailed planning for HS2 yet to be made and revealed to us, justification for this current building plan seems mixed, muddled and plain wrong in places. As a result it also appears to be morally wrong; which I know is no legal objection but is a strong and widespread feeling of many.

As a resident of Balsall common for over 8 year I would like to respond to the Solihull Draft Land plan.

I do not support the bypass as I don't believe the details of the proposed bypass are year detailed or clear enough.

The current primary school serves the residents of balsall common fine - the issue with the primary school is that it has over the years widened its catchment too far out and this has resulted n the school now feeling its out grown its current site. If the school and its governors severed the local residents of balsall this would not be an issue.

The sports and recreational grounds again in balsall common are sufficient and cater for all ages and areas of the village. The issue arises when SMBC plan to dispose of the recreational ground on Holly's Lane/Frog Lane for housing development. This area is used for weekly football, daily dog walkers and other locals and would be a loss to this side of the village if it was to be disposed of. I support us keeping Holly Lane recreational ground as part of our green belt and as important free land for residents.

I believe that all tows and villages have to review their housing as SMBC hs put a case forward. However this should not be at the detriment of green belt land. Balsall common has had its green belt reduced recently with JLR extending their area towards Holly Lane. Further housing on Frog Lane would only increase the traffic flow at this end of the village. I object to this housing as it would again further erode the green belt at this side of the village and reduce the recreational facilities for residents on this side of the village.

The proposal towards Berkswell train station (Barretts Farm) is a more considered and sensiable option. It is close to the train station meaning residents could walk/bike/bus to the station. Thus reducing traffic with the use of more cars in the village. It would allow a fairer distribution of traffic through out the village. I understand that currently much of the traffic comes from coventry/tile hill through balsall street east, baslall street and kenilworth road. With increase traffic flow for these exiting rads once the JLR site opens this would strangle this part of the village.

I totally support keeping baslall street east and balsall street as the southern defensible boundary of balsall common.

With all the new developments within the balsall parish - how can the local amenities cope? Where are the pans for how new residents and hosing will be served by the doctors, shops, buses?