• Home
• News
• Sport
• Entertainment
• Comment
• Property
• Property News
• Commercial Property

• Jobs
• Motors
• Motoring
• Family Notices
• Dating
• Free Ads
• Archive Search
• Local Directory
• Business Bid

• Horoscopes
• Competitions
• TV Guide
• Vouchers
• Charities
• Local Links
• Buy Photos

It's your shout

In Robert King's letter last week, he seeks to justify the proposed housing development of rear gardens in Elmdon Lane. He states that he is currently looking for "a reasonably priced affordable house in the Marston Green area", the inference being that no such properties exist.  If he were to look in any local paper he would see that there are many houses in the area with the asking price as low as £75,000, and if he believes that the developers will be selling properties for anything like that figure then I suggest his is very naive.
As further justification, he mentions a house which he describes as "a car dumping ground".  I agree that it if the house was demolished it would improve the lane, but the building of 72 new properties on 12 gardens is too high a price to pay.
I would have thought that by mentioning the other "back land " developments, and there are a number of them, he would  add weight to the argument against having more properties built off the lane, rather than using it to support the building of what would be a mini estate. 
Mr King mentions that he has not seen any comments or articles in your newspaper from supporters of the development.  Could this be because they are in very short supply?
Yours faithfully
Linda Poulson
Elmdon Lane

Mr King has completely missed the point of the objection to the proposed housing development in the back gardens of Elmdon Lane.  They are the only ones which will be sandwiched between the current properties in Elmdon Lane and the perimeter fence of Birmingham International Airport, thus exacerbating the horrendous noise pollution already
suffered by existing residents of these properties, as well as the huge increase in traffic and demands on the infracture in the area, much of which is very old and in need of replacement.
The other "back land" developments as he calls them, were not built on back gardens and are mostly of the affordable type of dwelling of which he complains do not exist.  Many of these are occupied by first time buyers with young families.
Aylsford Drive, Digby Drive to name some of them, and the very large estate recently built on the site of the old Marston Green Hospital.   For someone who lives around here he seems very ignorant of his surroundings!  
The families who have agreed to sell their properties, which include Mr King's own, are bound to support the development as they are under contract to sell to Sandstone Group and no other and therefore cannot comment in a negative way even if they wanted to.  They have a vested interest in the development and some of them have really large pieces of land crossing behind residents who do not want to sell up. They will make a really handsome profit from these sales at the expense of their neighbours' quality of life. Some feel coerced but are not able to withdraw from their agreements.
The property which he says has been a dumping ground for cars for 17 years and are leaking oil and other toxic fluids will present a bit of a problem for the developers as they will be responsible for cleaning up the site before any proposed building can go ahead.
Mary Ross
Elmdon Lane
Marston Green
Solihull
B37 7DT

On Sunday 16th after arriving home late from a very enjoyable 80th birthday
party in Wales, I decided to unload the car the following day.
On Monday I unloaded some of our car, which was on our driveway, but leaving
my navy and white shoes outside the car to go back and pick them up because
my arms were full. I locked the car, but later on when I remembered to go
back to pick up my shoes they were no longer there!!
They were my favourite shoes, because they were soft leather and very
comfortable, that is why I bought them even though they were expensive. In
fact you did not realize you were wearing any shoes.
So to the person who picked them up, I hope they don't fit and hurt you,
then perhaps you will drop them back on my driveway. No questions asked.
D. Davies,
Old Lode Lane
Solihull

In response to ‘Marston Green lacks affordable housing’ from Robert King in your paper September 20 2007:
I too have lived in Marston Green all of my life, but my life is a little longer than Robert King’s, as I am a pensioner compared to his young years and therefore short time in Marston Green.
The problem of gardens being classed as ‘brown field’ sites and therefore available for development has been around in the Borough of Solihull for some time and does not only concern the residents in Elmdon Lane, but those in Holly Lane, Coleshill Road and possibly other areas of Marston Green, but by definition back ‘garden development’ should be small developments of a few dwellings, not 71 dwellings as is proposed for the area of Elmdon Lane between numbers 110 &134, that Robert King is commenting on, 71 houses appears to constitute and estate.
Marston Green has during the past few years provided between 600/700 dwellings for the Borough of Solihull. If you look at the current Solihull UDP you will see that there is an identified projected further 200 dwellings to be built on land in Marston Green.
If Robert King cares to walk along Hamar Way he will find the affordable housing he is looking for with at least 12 properties currently for sale.
I doubt that Robert’s family started their home buying in Marston Green as he wishes to do, many children who have grown up in Marston Green would I am sure like to buy their first house in the village, but it is a fact of life that we cannot always have what we want instantly, so like many people in Marston Green who are looking for their first home, he will probably need to start somewhere else and work his way up the property ladder as many people in Elmdon Lane have done.
The fact that Robert and many other people want to live in Marston Green is encouraging and shows that it is a good place to live, this says a lot for this village as a community and the  people living here.
Can I point out that the ‘backland developments’ of Digby Drive and Canterbury Drive he refers to were not built on other houses back gardens as is the case with the development in Elmdon Lane, nor were dwellings demolished to put roads in to access these developments, as is the case with the development in Elmdon Lane, as a child I played in both the areas that were later built on, as Digby Drive and Canterbury Drive, they were just fields not back gardens.
The fact that Robert has not seen any comments from supporters of the development shows that perhaps, unlike him, they would prefer to stay silent!
In answering his comment about the ‘infinitely powerful parish council’ I can only say, as Chairman of that body, I wish that it was so.
Margret Wilden
Chairman: Marston Green Opposing Over Development

In reply to Robert King's letter I would ask firstly, "Has Mr King been into the back garden of the property in question and evidenced the leaking oil etc.?"  Surely the said owner is entitled to keep as many cars as he likes on his own property!!
Secondly, he states that the council - Bob Sleigh and Caroline Spelman would do nothing about it (Caroline Spelman is the Member of Parliament and has little control over the council).
If the council officials have visited this property and nothing has transpired, then the said owner is not infringing any local bye-laws.
As Richard King is seeking to purchase an affordable residence in Marston Green, he should have no problem finding one in Marston Wavers, where I understand more to be built.
As for `all these people complaining`, maybe one day when he becomes a house owner he will find himself in a similar situation and become one of `these people`objecting to a development or something of that nature.
Referring to the other 'back land' developments, I would offer the following information.  Part of Elmdon Lane facing this proposed development, and Canterbury Drive are all built on land which at one time belonged to Canterbury House - long since gone. Canterbury Drive was built in the late sixties on what was a sand pit infill between the railway line and the rear of the houses in Elmdon Lane, and the Greenway which was built on the land of one large house, can hardly be called `back land` developments as opposed to the `garden grab` which is the current proposal in question.
Also to add to this, Adrien Kibbler of Sandstone developers was being interviewed on Central News this last week when he stated that the `affordable housing` was for the benefit of nurses, teachers and the police - does Mr King fall into one of these catagories? 
Perhaps one of the reasons Mr King has not seen many articles supporting the development is that the local population don't!
I am also of the opinion that some of those who have indicated a wish to sell their land may now be having second thoughts.  The current plan put forward is not that which was originally envisaged.......... but a very large development overlooking their back gardens which will deny them of the privacy they now enjoy.
I notice that Mr King has not disclosed that his family own a good proportion of the land being sold and that they stand to benefit financially from this development.  His opinion is bound to be very biased - isn't it? and this hardly gives him room to complain about The Observer being biased!!
If the development proposal is not passed, then purchasing a house should not be a problem for him, as I am sure suitable finance could be obtained from the 'Bank of Mum and Dad' as is the case with so many young people trying to get on the property ladder these days.
I must agree with him that the level of teenage pregnacy has nothing to do with this matter.
Finally, might I say that I have no objection to anyone wishing to dispose of their property as they wish, but they must be aware that in situations such as this, the residents in the surrounding areas have opinions which have to be taken into consideration by the council and relevant planning authorities.
Mark Clarke
Elmdon Lane

Nicky Price's history of the Parkgate development presents a very lop sided view of history'
She appears to have forgotten or does not know that as a condition for not building on the Power Gen site that Planning Inspector decreed that an alternative site should be found or it would have to have been built on the Power Gen site. There was no alternative not to build was not an option. Simply where was it to be built.
That is why the present situation exists today.
The Lib Dems were early on in favour of selling some of Shirley Park.
The Red Route cost the council nothing as it is a government sponsored scheme. She seems to have been duped by Lib Dem propaganda who quite openly and persistently failed to acknowledge the truth.
Bryn Tudor is the only Lib Dem to acknowledge the truth of that scheme and deserves praise for his honesty.
I have to ask Nicky why she expects the Council to subsidise Shirley's Christmas Lights?
It's not the council's job, it is not a charity.
The matter is quite simple if the residents of Shirley want Christmas Lights the should pay for it themselves as should any other part of the borough.
They should not expect the rest of the borough Council tax payers to subsidise Shirley.
That is why Malcolm and Ann Turner deserve praise and support.
BD Jones
Via e-mail

Tim Hodgson's latest piece of invective is revealing and shows the weakness of his viewpoint.
It is a pity he seems unable to argue his case based facts.
People of Shirley and Solihull who support progress and prosperity for our community will be pleased that the Parkgate Scheme is to go ahead.
It has to be admitted that the pain of progress has to be experienced before the pleasure of progress can be experienced.
The LibDems and their allies the Keep Shops Away Group are opposed to prosperity for Solihull and Shirley residents.
Their latest tactic is to ignore the truth which is freely available on the Council's web site when inconvenient
Mr Hodgson invited people to look at that web site. (recent letters) in an attempt to support his case.
Unfortunately when the facts don't fit his case he resorts to abuse.
This is the last gasp of a desperate man.
Shirley and Solihull residents have the right to expect accurate information from elected councillors not abuse when their fiddled facts and figures are vigorously challenged,
J K Wilson

• | More
• «Back
• «Home
• Contact the Editor about this story