Allocation 13
I received a flyer through my doorway yesterday evening outlining proposed development of allocation 13 of 600 houses in Shirley to which I know nothing about? I live at 5 Burman Road, and have received no notification of development from the council or local government? Given that Shirley has the least green land out of all the boroughs of Solihull and has already lost park land in the Parkgate development with an increase in congestion and harmful pollution I certainly object to any further development. It is already difficult to get a bus from Shirley to Solihull with no reliable immediate service, it takes several days to obtain a doctors appointment at Tamworth lane surgery,even when very ill, no accident and emergency for children at Solihull, and reduced maternity services. Local class sizes already at capacity and not to mention the loss of such beautiful countryside. The development of the proposed 600 houses would be a negative impact on Shirley and should not go ahead.

I should like to know what exact percentage of the four developments are affordable housing and who qualify's?
Catering for which category of the population as we already have an excess of elderly in Shirley and insufficient for young people who are not able to get on the property market.

LDP -Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I object to the suitability of the proposed development for the following reasons :-

Destroying the character of the existing neighbourhood due to the high density of properties proposed, leading to a loss of light, privacy and overshadowing by 2 story properties .

The increased traffic will have a serious negative effect on highway safety and flow of traffic. Increased flow of traffic trying to exit the development will endanger both pedestrians and cyclists. Local traffic gridlock at peak times will be exacerbated.

The loss of sporting facilities in an ever increasing obese population is a definite negative.

Increased pressure on already stretched medical and educational facilities will lead to a dilution of these services for existing residents.

There will be parking issues for the existing Arden Club with the loss of around 75 spaces which could overspill into surrounding roads. This is without parking pressures from the development.

The development is not in keeping with the existing environment and SMBC has previously minuted that this land would not be sold and only used for sport 2013.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
Please accept this e-mail as a formal objection to the proposed plan for building houses at the rugby ground site on Sharmans Cross Road.

1. SMBC has formally stated in 2013 that the grounds were to be used for sports only and so the freehold will NOT be sold at any cost. This policy should be reaffirmed that has strictly said that any such development is NOT appropriate for inclusion in the local development plan.

2. The site will not be within walking distance to Solihull town centre or Solihull train station which breaches policy set by the National Planning & Policy Framework of having local amenities within an 800m distance.

3. The area will lose its entire character and appearance if the suggested number of properties are built in such a small space. This will specifically cause disruption, loss of light, privacy, traffic, incidents, potential crime, pollution and the general cleanliness of the surroundings left compromised.

4. Solihull is a naturally green area and having big building projects such as these will destroy the surrounding habitat, trees, natural vegetation as well as local wildlife dwellings. Endangered species of bats and badgers will be at great risk.

5. The traffic volume will increase which will cause further disruption to an already busy network of roads and pose hazardous for children that attend Sharmans Cross Junior School from increased threat from more vehicles on the road. Parking will also become difficult if residents park on the streets and in front of other resident homes.

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

7. Sporting facilities in the area will be at great risk where local residents are passionate about sport and are recognised by being in the 3rd quartile nationally for over-16's involvement which is observed by national league tables.

8. Schools and medical centres are already oversubscribed in the local vicinity so further development will lead to a degradation of service for the current residents.

There are many negative consequences for this development as pointed out above. Consideration should be given first and foremost to the current residents and not developers interested in their own gains.

SMBC Planning Dept. Housing allocation 18.
I refer to the proposed housing allocation 18 on the site of Arden Tennis Club and the former Rugby Club grounds off Sharmans Cross Road.
One previous planning application for the Green site was refused and another was withdrawn, this was several years ago.
I recently attended a residents meeting concerning the proposed development as above. I was amazed to hear that once again developers are planning to build on land which is covenanted for sporting purposes. There are precious few of these sites in the Solihull conurbation. Those that are left deserve preservation. Further more as SMBC are the leaseholders of the Green site I don't know why they are even entertaining any proposal to build on such land.
Since developers obtained the lease they have maintained the rugby field. However it has been six or more years since and NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO AFFORD TO USE THE SITE. This would suggest a deliberate act, by making the fee for use so exorbitant that no amateur organisations can afford it. The Developer can then say that no one has used the facility, so it would aid their application. This is very underhand. Is it legal? My comment about this has been included because one of the persons present at the meeting is running a youth football league of about twenty four teams. He mentioned he had attempted to rent the pitch for that use but cost prohibited.
At the meeting it also came out that the developers had approached some official trustee of the Tennis Club with a proposal to build a new tennis club on that of the green site. To include all the facilities already available at the present established club. That would then leave the freehold club site ripe for housing development. This is an improper proposal by underhanded developers. It reeks of profiteering.
I strongly oppose the development on the above comments and the following also.
This is a covenanted green site for sporting purposes and should be used as such. It would be a permanent loss if developed.
One hundred homes on such a small site will be out of character to this part of Solihull. There will be an immense increase of vehicular activity in an already busy area, causing delay, possible danger to public and increased noise plus air pollution.
At present there is only narrow access off Sharmans Cross Road. This would mean other houses would have to be demolished in this or another road.
There are not enough local amenities available. Schools and Surgeries. Those that are, are hard pressed at present to cope. Solihull town centre is a long walk away as is the Rail Station. A few local shops are located in the other direction but are a long walk away. Again vehicle use would be increased.
The green belt of land along that side of Sharmans Cross Road has a diverse amount of flora and fauna which would also suffer from loss of habitat. There are already large amounts of brown field sites being developed mostly for private dwellings and retirement homes. Surely some of those or others could be used for affordable housing.

see letter

see attached letter received by email
original letter superseded by amended version that included tenancy address

see attached letter

see attached letter

Hi Policy and Spatial Planning
My name is Russell Trevis I live at No 76 Binley close Shirley can I can i please opposed the above planning application. I have lived in my road for 14 Years i have used the the proposed land daily for all these years where i have taken my children for walks and also my dogs. I was under the impression that the land you are applying to build on was actually green belt land so why are you building? I cannot believe the infrastructure of Shirley can cope with the extra houses you are planning on building. I travel to Derby each day to work (my worst part of the journey is the a34 towards the M42 junction 4) and in the mornings it can take up to 30 mins just to get down the A34 it is totally gridlocked. When i get home around at 5.30 again the A34 is like a car park. Where are you proposing to re site all the football fields you are planning on destroying, my son plays for Highgate Utd which is based on Tilehouse Lane. There are also not enough schools in the area the 2 schools in our catchment are Light Hall and Alderbrook both schools last year were oversubscribed. What about medical facilities in Shirley to get a doctors appointment within 7 days is almost impossible so building 1000's of new homes will cause major issues here to.

I expect a e mail back with your proposal/answers to my questions in the mean time i will be consulting with my lawyer with the legality of your proposal

see letter from agent on behalf of landowner

RE: SMBC's proposed developments in Balsall Common.

I am writing to you in response to SMBC's Draft Local Plan and the affect it will have in the village of Balsall Common. My predominant concern is with the proposed development in Frog Lane and would propose that serious consideration be given to other PDL sites existing within the area and other areas in the borough, such as Dorridge as mentioned in point 8) of this correspondence.

1) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common when there are 14 PDL sites available in the village, suggests that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the green belt HAS NOT been demonstrated by SMBC.

2) 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. (SMBC's recent confirmation that the A452 is the most congested road in the borough at certain times. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing need 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".

3) Balsall Common is a settlement with very limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. (SMBC's own statistics state 80% commuter rate of Balsall Common residents). Any significant expansion will add unnecessarily to the road network as well as adding to the carbon footprint created by the additional traffic flow.

4) In addition to the above point 3), the 3,000 proposed jobs recently announced at the new JLR site at Honiley, although the site being in Warwickshire, SMBC will have the bulk of the traffic issues, with massively increased traffic flows, morning and late afternoon. This will add considerably to both A452 and that Holly Lane will become a "rat run", for the employees.

5) The proposed phasing of Balsall Common developments to take place over the next 15 years, at the same time as HS2, will add considerable 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 and unsustainable. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth".

As stated above, the existing facilities in Balsall Common are already inadequate for the size of the existing settlement. During any planned future development, the infrastructure HAS to be "put in place", before any further housing development is allowed. Your existing proposed plan has the Primary School to be developed in the third phase 10-15 years, this is "totally irresponsible of SMBC planners".

6) The proposed development of Frog Lane site, being in the south west of Balsall Common, will add to the existing congestion hotspot on Balsall Street East caused by the existing traffic congestion (mainly at school times) by commuter traffic travelling from/to Coventry/ Solihull, these being the main local employment centres.

7) I do not understand the logic of SMBC planners with regard to the proposed Frog Lane development, your draft document stated that the cottage and allotments are "protected" from any development, but the current school playing fields are not covered by this statement of intent. Elsewhere within SMBC's local plan document there is emphasis made of the importance of recreational facilities, so why is this omitted, in this instance? If SMBC planners are to be trusted, why this "double standard"?

8) Frog Lane site must score poorly in relation to all accessibility critieria, 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 made by car, adding to the existing congestion and very poor parking facilities.

9) As a general note, it is noticeable that Dorridge, which has a far superior railway station facility along with a more "open plan and spacious shopping centre, with plentiful car parking", appears to have no planned housing development in SMBC's proposed local plan. The cynic in me must ask the question of your council, "Who are the senior SMBC councillors living in this area?" who have protected it in the plan and should have "declared an interest", as Dorridge meets most of the SMBC's search criteria for future development.

The key facts of why we are opposed to the plans are:
* They're unfair: 41% of the houses in the plan are in 4 sites that neighbour our community
* They will have a negative impact on our community: aside from the loss of green space around our homes and the benefits to the community and health that brings, the proposed housing would create transport problems along Haslucks Green Road, Bills Lane, Tamworth Lane, Blackford Road and many of the roads that run between them. It could also have a detrimental impact on schools and doctors.
* It won't help HS2: 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 get to the new station. Areas to the east and north of the borough are more natural access points that won't need to contend with the congested A34 and M42.
* My mental health will suffer as I bought this property in the location it is as I suffer with PTSD and CANNOT live on or near a main road. I can give you access to my medical records to prove this if required.
* Shirley Golf Club wants to sell some of their land which is not bordered by any current propertys - build these houses there!

Good evening,

I have just heard that there has been an interest in the land opposite Miller and Carter, Solihull. The planning application I believe is to build 2000 houses on green fields. Unfortunately I could not make tonight's meeting (copy of minutes please).

I was under the impression there may be some development on Dog Kennel Lane too, so if these developments are agreed, this will mean that the whole of Shirley South will be engulfed with further housing instead of the lovely countryside which drew me to coming from Shirley East.

I live just off Stretton Road and come across traffic queues from Tanworth Lane to Blackford Road/Dog Kennel Lane on my daily commute to central Solihull. This will be much worse once this development is erected. Currently we have the excess traffic from the existing Dickens Heath village plus new developments, Dickens Manor, The Paddocks and Cheswick Place which has definitely increased.

I understand there has been a willingness to sell land from the Christmas Tree farm owners and the Football Ground which I am very surprised.

We have lots of dog walkers, joggers and cyclists go through this area, where will they go now? Also there are steel Pylons through this land, surely that is not suitable building land?

I am very concerned about the old people living round this area and the extra houses and noise.

What you should be concentrating on is flattening the speed bumps on Tanworth Lane, Stretton Road and Hathaway Road and reducing the amount of noise from motorbikes and them using our roads like a race track.

What is going to happen to the pressure on school places with our schools bursting at the seams already? Both Dickens Heath and Woodlands cannot be expanded due to space, no one has thought about this. Why not build at Blythe Valley, right by motorway access? LEAVE SHIRLEY ALONE

see attached letter

Response to Solihull MBC 23 questions extended consultation on the draft local plan
Question 1 are the right borough challenges identified?
Question 2 agreement with the Borough Vision

Only In a very small part yes, as they are clearly written from an urban Solihull centric perspective, once more bringing into disrepute the belief that Solihull successfully combines a well-balanced combined Urban and Rural vision. Looked at from a holistic position, Solihull MBC in this draft proposal will not be satisfied with following their own policies until an urban jungle is built through the most vulnerable portion of the Green Belt between Berkswell / Balsall Common Parish and Coventry City. Berkswell / Balsall Common is already a congested community with poor infrastructure and very poor public sector connectivity with the local economic centres which are primarily to the East and South ie NOT Solihull.
Adding the proposed disproportionate housing and its resulting population to Berkswell / Balsall Common will simply make the problems worse and continue the belief that SMBC will ignore its own Policy's when they do suit political goals.

Question 3 agreement with Spatial Strategy?
The approach defined for sites being appropriate for development as written looks good with the right priorities, But Unfortunately they have not been adhered to in this draft plan.
Barratt's farm land is Green field land not Brownfield land and has significant drain off issues. And as stressed above the village is virtually bereft of effective public transport The demolition of the Meriden Gap Green belt and its impact on the local ecology of the Green fields, ancient hedge rows and trees will directly effect the existing local residents and families who extensively use the area and its many crisscrossing footpaths for open air exercise and leisure activities. The additional traffic emanating from such a large increase in housing will add to the air pollution provided by poor control of the take off and landing heights from Birmingham Airport, especially the north turn over the settlement
If this land is built on the drain off problem identified above will represent a risk to local adjoining properties to the north and south.

Question 7 regarding sustainable Economic Development?
Good principles. But again not seriously considered in the draft plan with no consideration of the disproportionate building of houses on an already congested and ill planned village centre.

Question11 policy P2 providing homes for all
The total proposed housing numbers are grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing community and will have a very significant detrimental impact on the size, shape, character and environment of Berkswell / Balsall Common as a Rural Village. It is also noticed that while mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.

Question 15 appropriateness of draft proposed sites. As mentioned throughout this response mention is made of how Solihull MBC have failed to follow their own Policies in establishing the appropriateness of the chosen sites and yet proposals for a new village on a brown field site development to the north of the region have been ignored.

Question 16 completeness of required supporting infrastructure to complement the proposed draft development?
While Doctor and Schooling infrastructure is mentioned, no mention is made of shopping, banking etc Banks are withdrawing from Berkswell / Balsall Common and a lack of action on the site to the rear of the Co-op shop allowing it to be isolated from other retail outlets, preventing a cohesive village centre

Question18 sustainable Travel
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport apart from Birmingham focused rail is very, very poor in the area

Question 22 Delivery
CIL payments for local development should be focussed in the local area for locally requested and agreed infrastructure improvements.

Question 23 Any other comment
No explanation has been given to the fact that a grossly disproportionate number of houses are proposed to be built in Berkswell / Balsall Common in an important and sensitive Green Belt area compared with elsewhere in Solihull borough. Such as Dorridge, Knowle or other villages to the South.
There is a very strong perception in the Berkswell / Balsall Common region that Solihull MBC have abandoned the Greenbelt and consciously discarded their own policies and values and have lost what trust they had as a result.

see response

original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter

see attached letter and supporting document (The UK Central Hub Growth and Infrastructure Plan)

School Place Planning Response to the proposed Local Plan sites
Primary School Provision
For school place planning purposes the Borough is split into 9 primary planning areas. The proposed sites identified in the review of the Local Plan have been mapped to a planning area and primary school places across the planning area have been considered.
1. North Planning area
This planning area includes sites 5,7,14 and 15 - a total of 350 dwellings proposed. It also includes the proposed HS2 Interchange, site 19.
315 additional primary school places have already been added into this planning area to meet the needs of an increasing birth rate and current housing proposals. A further 105 places are currently being planned for. The pupil numbers likely to be generated by the level of dwellings planned for sites 5,7,14 and 15 can be met within existing school place provision. For site 19, a significant strategic site, it is expected that a new 420 place primary school would be required.
2. Rural East Planning area
This planning area includes sites 1, 2, 3, 6 and 10. Sites 1 to 3 total 1,150 proposed dwellings - are located in the Balsall Common area. Sites 6 and 10 total 150 dwellings - are located in the villages of Meriden and Hampton in Arden.
This planning area is already subject to approved housing development, totalling 150 dwellings, which is creating pressure on existing school places as is the demand from parents living outside of the Borough. 1,150 dwellings will generate circa 288 primary age pupils creating the need for additional primary school places.
To meet the existing and future demand for school places in this area, it is anticipated that an additional 420 primary school places will be required. These additional places could be provided through the expansion of existing schools in this planning area if the existing school sites are sufficient to enable expansion. Alternatively, the additional school places could be provided through the creation of a new school which would also enhance choice and diversity in the area.
Sites 6 and 10 are only small developments. However, they are proposed for the edge of existing rural villages. Additional pupil numbers, however small, may mean that demand from the village cannot be met by the village school but the proposed developments are not large enough to warrant the need for additional school places.


3. Knowle and Dorridge Planning area
This planning area includes sites 8 and 9 totalling 1,050 proposed dwellings.
This planning area is already subject to approved housing development, totalling 300 dwellings, which along with a fluctuating birth rate, is creating pressure on primary school places. 1,050 dwellings will generate circa 260 primary age pupils creating the need for additional primary school places.
To meet the existing and future demand for primary school places in this area it is anticipated that an additional 420 primary school places will be required. These additional places could be provided through the expansion of existing schools if school sites are sufficient. Alternatively, the additional places could be provided through the creation of a new school.
4. Rural South Planning area
This planning area includes sites 4, 12 and 13 totalling 2,150 proposed dwellings.
This planning area is already subject to significant housing development with circa 600 houses currently under development in the Tidbury Green area and 300 houses under construction in Cheswick Green. A further 750 dwellings have outline planning permission on the Blythe Valley Park site. Two schools have already been identified for expansion in this planning area providing an additional 420 primary school places to meet the needs from the current housing development.
2,150 additional dwellings in this planning area will generate circa 537 primary age pupils creating the need for additional primary school places. A minimum of 420 primary school places will need to be created, ideally through the creation of a new school within one of the proposed housing sites. This assumes that some of the pupil product from the new housing (site 4) will be met by the current school expansions.
5. Shirley West Planning area
This planning area includes site 11 totalling 400 proposed dwellings.
This planning area has already managed to absorb the increased number of pupils from a number of completed housing development including dwellings on Aqueduct Road and from the Parkgate development. The proposed site 11 adjoins the housing developments outlined in the Rural South Planning area (sites 12 and 13) so the expected pupil product could be accommodated within the development of the new school in the Rural South planning area.
6. Monkspath Planning area.
No additional sites planned. The current level of school places meets the needs of parents.
7. Shirley East Planning area
This planning area includes site 18 totalling 100 proposed dwellings.
90 Infant school places have already been added into this planning area (name the schools) and plans are underway to add 120 junior school places totalling 210 additional school places to meet the needs of a rising birth rate. The pupil numbers expected from the proposed 100 dwellings can be accommodated within this expanded level of places.
8. Solihull Central Planning area
This planning area includes sites 16 and 17 totalling 800 proposed dwellings.
In addition to the sites identified in the review of the Local Plan, this planning area incorporates Solihull Town Centre which is earmarked within the existing Local Plan for circa 800 dwellings. 210 additional primary school places have already been added to this planning area to meet the needs of a fluctuating birth rate and with a view to managing the pupil product from the development of the Solihull Town Centre.
800 additional dwellings will generate circa 200 primary age pupils. Once the details of the housing development in the Town Centre are known, with regards to the make up of the dwellings, for example apartments or family housing, it will be possible to more accurately plan for the potential pupil product. This will then determine whether the needs of Sites 16 and 17 can be met through the existing expanded level of primary school places or whether a further 210 additional places will be required.
9. Lyndon Elmdon Planning area
No additional sites planned and current level of school places meets the needs of parents.
Secondary School Provision
Work is currently underway to review the level of secondary school places across the Borough. None of the proposed developments are large enough to warrant the creation of a new secondary school, however the combined effect of the addition of circa 6,000 will generate circa 1,150 secondary ages pupils.
At present over 30% of Solihull secondary school places are offered to children living outside of Solihull and these places will in future years be used to absorb the increase in demand from within Solihull.
Arden School has already expanded by 300 places and the Council is currently planning the expansion of 3 secondary school places increasing by a further 450 places a total of 750 additional school places.
These expansions combined with the reduction in the numbers of pupils being admitted from outside of the Borough may be sufficient to meet the needs of the majority of the housing developments that are in the urban area. However, careful consideration may need to be given to the Rural East Planning area covering Balsall Common where there is only one local secondary school and high level of development.

Further to our discussions I am responding to the local plan on behalf of Balsall and Berkswell Football club and have the following points to make:

1. We understand the need for expansion of the housing in the village and want to ensure that appropriate sports facilities are made available to the families and especially the children.
2. The football club have a lease from the council for land on Lavender Hall lane and also rent pitches in Lavender Park opposite the ground.
3. Two of the proposed housing sites off Meeting house lane and Holly Lane will result in between two and four football pitches being removed from the village. These pitches are used by various junior teams and so will need to be replaced. These have historically been hired and maintained by the club from either the Church or School.
4. One of the proposed developments offers a "sports facility" being built within the housing estate. This will not provide for any external pitch or outdoor facilities.
5. We believe that the Football club and council could work together to further develop the facilities both on the club ground and within the Lavender Hall park.
6. Our initial suggestions would be to Improve the resilience of what we have, i.e more drainage connected into external drains on lavender hall,
7. level & improve the playing surface
8. Upgrade Lavender hall park so that it is also made more resilient i.e. there would be a need to install drainage and improve the playing surface
9. The installation of floodlights would open up the possibilities of greater use
10. Improved car parking within either the current ground or in Lavender Hall park
11. Make the Lavender Hall park more of an integrated sports facility rather than just a pitch in the park
12. We are currently working with the cricket club to install a cricket square on our ground and already have the agreement of the council for this.
13. The lease agreement with the council always allowed for us to develop the site into multi sports facility and we see this as an ideal opportunity for this to happen and the council to meet it's sporting aspirations and commitments
14. In an ideal world the village could do with an all-weather surface as a training or playing surface and this would open up other sports including hockey, Netball in particular.
15. There is space on Lavender Hall Park to build a sports centre when indoor facilities including badminton, table tennis, tennis and cricket nets could be provided thus turning this end of the village into a true multi sports environment.

We very much look forward to working with the council on developing future sporting plans for the village.

Sorry not to have completed the online portal but I could not get it to work so resorted to an email!

see attached response

see attached response by agent on behalf of Extra MSA group

LDP Proposed housing allocation 18
As members of Solihull Arden Tennis Club we wish to object to the above proposals for the following reasons:

1. The proposal of 100 houses will be detrimental to the character of the neighbourhood and will affect the Club amenities.Moving the existing Tennis Club to a different area is illogical financially and logistically.
2. The amount of extra traffic together with increased pollution within the surrounding neighbourhood and in close proximity to the local Junior School, together with the extra parking that will be generated over and above the existing will lead to gross overload.
3. The loss of sporting facilities from the site into a housing development will be a loss to the area and will never be replaced.
4. The site is inappropriate for housing development, over the last 6 years applications have been withdrawn and refused, again a refusal to these latest proposals is appropriate and necessary.

see attached letter

Response to Draft Housing Plan
I have attempted to respond to Solihull Council's draft housing plan using the online portal this afternoon. However, I have found the website to be very confusing and circular in nature. I could not access the online form for responses, despite clicking on hyperlinks for 'direct access to the online form'. As a result, I am emailing the key points that I wish to make instead. However, I would be grateful if the Council would review the approach that it takes to consultations in the future and consider the accessibility and clarity of its webpages.

Question 1 - I believe that the following key challlenges should also be included:
* Improving the range and number of facilities in Balsall Common, including the town centre, without this creating further problems with traffic and car parking
* Retaining the character and attractiveness of rural and semi-rural locations in the borough
Question 2 - I believe that my responses to question 1 should also form part of the vision for the plan, namely:
* Improving the range and number of facilities in Balsall Common, including the town centre, without this creating further problems with traffic and car parking
* Retaining the character and attractiveness of rural and semi-rural locations in the borough
Question 3 - I agree that brownfield sites should be selected ahead of greenfield sites. However, the distribution of planned new homes within the plan does not seem to reflect this strategy sufficiently. For example, greenfield sites in Balsall Common seem to have been allocated a very large number of new homes, particularly relative to its current size when other more developed areas of the borough that may benefit from regeneration or be better able to absorb expansion have not. I believe that this will be damaging to the character and attractiveness of Balsall Common and that it would be better for all communities in Solihull for new homes to be built in smaller numbers per development but in more locations spread throughout the borough. The present plan seems to place the burden on a small number of locations.

The current spatial strategy does not take sufficient account of the disruption that will be caused in communities by HS2 and how building new homes in the same areas may compound the difficulties experienced. Balsall Common will I expect, for example, experience significant issues from HS2 such as construction traffic, potentially at the same time as disruption from the building of a large number of new houses and infrastructure to support them. This needs to be taken into account when making final decisions on sites so that particular parts of the borough are not shouldering the burden of multiple developments at the same time, whilst other areas remain undisturbed. All areas need to make a fair contribution to the sustainable development and success of the area.

Please see response to question 15 for further comments on considerations for the spatial strategy/choice of locations.

Question 7 - Balsall Common should be listed as a town centre requiring a masterplan. Now, even before new homes are developed, the centre suffers from significant traffic problems (speeding, congestion, parking problems) and too few facilities. If the number of homes planned for Balsall Common proceed, a master plan is vital to ensure that the area remains a pleasant, desirable and prosperous place.

Question 15 - I believe that the locations selected should include consideration of ease of access to employment. For example, it seems strange that there are not more sites in or near the Dickens Heath/Monkspath/Blythe Valley area to enable ease of access to jobs at the business park and in the area south of the airport and east of Land Rover to enable ease of access to the jobs at both of those sites. The proximity of significant numbers of employment opportunities and transport links are much better in those areas than some of the sites selected (e.g. Balsall Common, Knowle). I also believe that those areas would be better able to absorb expansion without damage to the character of the area. For example, Dickens Heath features modern housing developments already and additional similar developments would be in keeping with its current design/character.

If the number of new homes cannot or is not spread more evenly around the borough and plans for Balsall Common to have the number of homes suggested proceed, I would welcome these being in smaller numbers across more developments. I believe that this would allow the town to expand in a more managed way that is in keeping with its character, limits the amount of green space and natural habitat being lost in each part of the town and manages the additional traffic more evenly. I am quite concerned about such a large number of homes being planned for Barrett's Farm for a number of reasons, including:
* This will create a large volume of additional traffic for a small number of routes
* The nearby town centre will not be able to cope with the additional demand and has little room to expand
* The location is a beautiful natural habitat for a range of wildlife and the public footpaths are a well-used and well-enjoyed feature of the area
* Having such a large estate of new build houses is not in keeping with the unique and semi-rural character of the area
I would welcome some of these being located in other parts of the borough or, at least, other parts of the town. For example, I believe that a developer owns land near Oakes Farm Shop off Balsall Street East and that this would be a good location for some of the homes currently planned for Barrett's Farm because:
* This part of Balsall Common is less congested
* It is serviced by a main road that could take the additional capacity
* There is a farm shop/cafe and a pub within close proximity
* There is space for the development of additional facilities, unlike in the town centre which is close to Barrett's Farm
* Pressure would be taken off the town centre, which is currently very busy with traffic and people relative to its size
It also would seem to make more sense in terms of ease of access to road and rail networks, as well as the health centre, for new developments in Balsall Common/Berkswell to be nearer to Hallmeadow Road, Truggist Lane, Riddings Hill, Lavender Hall Road etc.

I am sure that there are also other locations in Balsall Common and neighbouring villages/towns (e.g. Berkswell, which appears to have not been earmarked for any expansion) where the homes could be spread out in smaller numbers to make growth more manageable and easily absorbed.

Question 16 - If the number of homes planned for Balsall Common proceeds, I believe that the following infrastructure is required is addition to new schools and GP surgeries:
* Traffic calming measures in and around the town centre, including Station Road, Kenilworth Road and Meeting House Lane to counteract the volume and speed of traffic that already exists and will be exacerbated by new developments. I live on Meeting House Lane and the speed bumps and chicane that are there already are already ineffective at discouraging people from using the road as a 'rat run' and driving at high speeds to and from the town centre (e.g. because the speed bumps are very small and very spaced out). My cat was recently killed as a result of a speeding driver on my road. I am very concerned about the number of houses that may be built on Barrett's Farm and make the noise, volume and speed of traffic on the road even worse. I would ask that the Council would consider not having a vehicle access point from Meeting House Lane to the Barrett's Farm development (or off other similar residential roads) and instead ensure that access points are from main roads designed to manage this sort of capacity. I would also welcome Meeting House Lane being made a no-through route (e.g. being blocked off half way down near the Catholic Church/Tennis Club) or at least having more chicanes/single file traffic and more frequent/higher speed bumps , pavements being built all of the way down and any other appropriate traffic calming measures.
* More green spaces e.g. nature reserves, parks, play areas, cycle tracks, walking routes/public footpaths
* Extension of the by-pass (Hallmeadow Road) so that it provides ease of access to new housing (e.g. the Barrett's Farm development) and takes pressure off other routes in the area. At the moment, this road is underused and does not provide much of a useful route to anywhere
* Extension of the Kenilworth Greenway and the ability to access this by bike from Balsall Common (at the moment, it is not possible to access the Greenway on a bike without having to lift this above stiles/gates, which is very frustrating)
* More frequent and later night rail services from Berkswell to and from Birmingham New Street and International
* Additional bus routes and more frequent services
* Supermarket on the outskirts of the town (e.g. off the by-pass)
* Additional shop, bar and restaurant premises (but not all in the current town centre)
Question 22 - I understand that there may be good reasons why the Council may want/need to divert some of the CIL payments, new homes bonus and profit on the sale of Council land to areas other than those where the new homes are built in order to support prosperity and growth across the borough. However, I think that it is important that those communities who experience the disruption of new homes being built, their local area being changed (e.g. loss of natural habitats and greenfield sites, change in area character) and the impact of additional people/traffic in the area are compensated through sufficient additional infrastructure and facilities for managed and sustainable growth before the profits relating to those developments are used elsewhere. Diverting profits to areas of the borough which have not had new developments should be in exceptional cases only and where the minimum required needs of those in the development areas to manage the impact on their community effectively have been met first. I would also say that if developments were more evenly spread across the borough, it would be easier to justify sharing the benefits across the borough, too.

I hope that this response is helpful.

Shirley Conservatives newsletter response

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I wish to formally register my comments and objections based on the following main items of which there are so many.

'Affordable Homes' invariably generate tenants of doubtful personal standards It would appear that the inclusion of a substantial quantity of such houses is disproportionate to most sympathetic developments of this kind.
Sharmans Cross Road and the adjacent junction already generates road risks by way of congestion and layout. Additional usage will undoubtedly create further potential danger to pedestrians and in particular children who are likely to be around in abundance. Greater numbers of vehicles means increased environment pollution....do we really want this!!
The list of negative factors highlighting the weakness of the proposal is almost endless and Planning is respectfully urged to deny the application.
Most will concede the national demand for housing is acute, however, this particular site does not lend itself to such a project which is unreasonable and inconsiderate. The present infrastructure and local amenities would require enormous upgrade the cost of which ultimately falling on the tax payer. This is incongruous in it's entirety.

Sharmans cross sporting development
Please find this email in objection to the proposed development of the sporting fields in Sharmans cross road.

My primary concerns are,

Traffic, this is already at its limits there are daily gridlocks on Sharmans cross road at both ends, it is regularly being used for parking which in turn is putting pedestrians cyclists and in particular school children in danger. A new development will only exacerbate this already increasing problem.

Further building in the area will in all likely hood lead to in creased flooding in Sharmans cross, this is already a problem despite the remedial works that have been undertaken.

There is already a shortage of sporting facilities in the area how will these playing fields be replaced if built on, surly it would be better to put effort into ensuring this land is used for its designated purpose.

There is already a high density of housing and population in the area the building of another 100 houses in such a small area will only increase problems for the already overstretched schools and medical facilities.

To summarise my concerns are;
Traffic
Safety to cyclists / pedestrians
Parking
Environmental impact particularly flooding Loss of sporting facilities Effect on essential amenities

see attached letter

DRAFT LOCAL PLAN DECEMBER 2016
My understanding is that the SMBC Draft Local Plan dated December 2016 is a "non-statutory document" and hence residents will have the opportunity comment on the Final Local Plan when published, and at the Public Enquiry.
It's accepted that there is a growing need for the Borough Council to agree to the development of more residential properties in the area and this will, regrettably, mean building on Green Belt land. However, the prospect of using 85% green belt land, including an existing amenities area, is difficult to accept.
When you consider the existing construction sites, together with what's proposed by SMBC and Bromsgrove District Council (BDC), we are looking at just under 3800 new properties that border Wythall Parish, hence the already busy arterial route through the Majors Green and Tidbury Green will become even more heavily congested. Add the extension to the Whitlocks End Railway Station car park and the proposed new sports hub along Tilehouse Lane/Tythe Barn Lane and it's obvious that serious consideration must be given to the highways infrastructure.
You may not be aware that we've had 30 traffic accidents on a 300 metre stretch of Haslucks Green Road/Tilehouse Lane in Majors Green during the past 18 months, including one pedestrian badly injured as she walked along the pavement. Worcestershire County Council has made a number of improvements but long term a more practical solution must be found in order to negate the potential for a fatality.
During the next year, I am confident that SMBC will be addressing residents' concerns and undertaking many assessments in and around the proposed development sites including health care provisions, primary and secondary school capacity checks, ecological assessments, recreational considerations, road transport management, etc.
It is pleasing that SMBC intend constructing cycle/walking lanes in and around the construction sites, in particular, those leading to Whitlocks End Railway Station.
Consideration should be given to carrying out road traffic flow measurements and analyses of all roads affected and come up with a solution that will link the proposed development sites with the A435 and A3400 roads, therefore preventing excessive traffic congestion in the Dickens Heath, Tidbury Green and Wythall Parish areas. Looking at the roads in and around Dickens Heath, I urge SMBC to come up with a road system that will be an improvement on what can only be described as "shameful".
In addition to your Draft Local Plan, a further report, dated 16th Dec, has been issued by The Planning Inspectorate (Government) which looks at the pro and cons of housing development in the BDC area up to 2030. It refers to an additional 7000 properties for which they have land for 4700 only. The remainder may be built on Green Belt land. It does mention Wythall amongst other neighbouring areas (in Section 66 (Policy BDP5B) citing "large scale" settlements"
In summary, I trust that you will:
* Consider spreading the development sites more equally around the whole of the Borough rather than concentrate on Shirley and Dickens Heath areas.

* Seriously consider the impact on of constructing on Green Belt land

* Carry out a traffic flow survey in the Dickens Heath, Majors Green and Tidbury Green areas and undertake an analysis of the increase in traffic resulting from the ongoing and new developments

* Make it a condition that the development companies agree to fund the necessary improvements to existing highways, pavement lighting, and construction of new highways as required by your Final Plan

* Consider retaining the Amenities Area behind Badgers Estate

* Encourage Centro to extend the Whitlocks End Railway Station Car Park as soon as possible.

* Consider charging a parking fee at the existing and new Whitlocks End Railway Station to limit commuters from outlying areas using the facility

* Co-ordinate SMBC and BDC development plans

* Ensure Richborough proposed plan for the Sports Hub has adequate parking spaces for those who will use the facilities

* Consider constructing a Park and Ride facility in a strategic location in order to limit the traffic flow through urban areas