13 Shirley - South of Shirley

Save allocation 13

As a local resident I strongly object to this proposal as I love to walk around the area mentioned and believe in protecting green belt.
Also I want this to be available to my grandchildren

Proposed development of South Solihull

The 'Shirley area' has already has a massive amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction, Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural and subsidence issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. Building hundreds of new homes will cause the area to become grid locked.

With regard to public transport; the local train stations are are very small and not large enough to serve the additional demands of these large scale developments. There is already insufficient parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations. The existing infrastructure won't allow for hundreds of additional homes and families, for example; the lack of school places would mean building new ones or massively extending existing schools. The same applies for doctors surgeries.

Building on the above mentioned areas will see the destruction of many local amenities and recreational areas (including several sports fields), wildlife will also be destroyed. Many local people use the 'green areas' for different leisure activities, including walking, bird spotting, exercising, sport, dog walking etc.
I believe there are numerous more suitable alternative sites (including brown sites), for example to the east and north of Solihull closer to the HS2 interchange.

Save Allocation 13

As a local resident who has lived in Langcomb Road for 36 years I strongly object to the proposal to build on Allocation 13.

Proposed Green Belt Housing Allocation - Shirley, Solihull

I am contacting you to express my concern and strongly object to the proposed level of new Green Belt housing allocation in Shirley. Namely, Allocation 4, 11, 12 and 13 - rear of Woods Christmas Tree Farm and surrounding area.

As a Shirley resident for many years, and having watched Dickens Heath spread far beyond the original plan, it is shocking that Solihull Council are now proposing large areas of Green Belt land in this immediate area for housing. I appreciate that we need more housing in the Country - however, it is extremely unfair that Solihull MBC should expect Shirley to take 41% of the total Borough requirements. Local Doctors surgeries and schools are already at breaking point, and we have already seen several new developments in the vicinity to the proposed allocated sites.

My concerns are :

Loss of Green Belt
Loss of green spaces for Local residents (this is the only green open area in Shirley which can be accessed without having to use a car)
Negative impact on our community - putting more pressure on the local infrastructure
Transport issues on surrounding roads - we already have major problems during peak times on Tanworth Lane, Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Haslucks Green Road and Dickens Heath Road

Allocation 13 is of particular concern - this area is used every day (by myself included) to walk dogs, jog and generally walk and enjoy open fields. I know of several elderly residents who would not be able to access open spaces if this particular development of allocation 13 should take place. On a daily basis, there are groups of our older residents walking their dogs and chatting with other local residents, this is often the only contact they have with other people.

I would urge that a review of these allocations take place.

I am writing to register objection to site allocation 13.
This construction if all goes ahead will ruin Shirley and completely change the character of Shirley from semi rural to an urban sprawl. Our roads! Haslucks green, bills lane, Shakespeare drive, roads around dickens heath are already like racetracks, with accidents waiting to happen. How will our roads cope with more vehicles?
Our closest paediatric hospital is now heartlands, after Solihull down sized. Heartlands is a nitemare to get to at the best of times. How will our hospitals cope with the volume of people?
Our public transport which already is not fit for the amount of people using it, as Shirley station for example is very small. How will public transport cope?
Not to even mention the green belt. This land is home to pond life, birds, deer. Once all this beautiful land is gone, it is gone forever. Fields our children can play in, gone forever. I understand that there is a housing problem I just believe that this is not the answer. I really do hope that all these objections are thoroughly read and taken into consideration before we loose our last pieces of greenery in Shirley.
From a worried and concerned parent in Shirley.

The proposed building on Green belt around Shirley

As a resident of Hurdis Road in Shirley, I would like to express my concern over the proposed building on green belt around the Whitlocks end and Shirley Heath areas of Shirley.

I believe that the proposed increase in over 2,500 houses is unfair as 41% are in sites that neighbour our local community. This will have a negative impact upon the local community as follows:

* Loss of precious green belt
* Increased traffic on all local roads
* The car park at Shirley station is not big enough for purpose today let alone for a potentially huge increase in train travellers.
* Residents such as myself in Hurdis road will suffer increased noise and pollution as more people use this road as a 'rat run' from one end of Shirley to the other.
* Construction traffic will be intrusive and unwelcome.
* I doubt whether local schools will have the capacity for a considerable potential increase in pupils on roll.
* The above point applies to doctors surgeries and local hospitals.

We would like to comment on the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review.
1. We would prefer the unique identity of Dickens Heath to be retained. If permission is granted for housing development on both land to the north of the Miller and Carter and the site to the west of the existing village, we feel that Dickens Heath would simply become part of a large urban sprawl and would lose its village character. Compared with the original plan for Dickens Heath, considerable additional housing has already been approved, but at least most of this is on the side of the village adjacent to more green belt.
2. Green belt which was confirmed in 1997 would be abandoned and the green corridors separating existing housing areas would either shrink or disappear. We would not object to development of the land north of the Miller and Carter, as there would still be some green belt protecting the village on that side. If the land west of the village centre was to be developed then there would be no effective separation of the village from the housing north of Whitlock's End Station. We do not believe that there are exceptional circumstances justifying housebuilding on the land west of the village centre. We recognise that new homes are needed; we believe that other areas of the borough should help to provide, instead of the lions share being permitted round Dickens Heath.
3. If development on the scale being considered was permitted, then the existing infrastructure is simply inadequate. There is insufficient parking in Dickens Heath centre now; 700 extra homes would exacerbate the problem. As any new homes would be further from the village centre, it is unlikely that people would walk to Dickens Heath, so parking problems would intensify. The car park at Whitlock's End Rail Station is already heavily used and unless it was extended, then would in all probability be unable to cope with the volume of traffic generated by the extra houses.
4. The road network in the area is of poor quality now, both in terms of inadequate width of roads, bad visibility at junctions e.g. both ends of Birchy Leasowes Lane, and condition of the carriageways. There are no footpaths on some roads e.g. Birchy Leasowes Lane, and the extra traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, would make these roads even more dangerous.
5. We are concerned that the service infrastructure e.g. doctors, dentists, schools, broadband provision etc. would be unable to cope with the likely number of extra houses.
6. We believe that the sports facilities are very valuable. One proposal we have seen relocates these north of Tythe Barn Lane, but on a diminished land area, which would not allow a realistic usage comparable with the current situation.
7. We would not like to see "Akamba" being forced out as it is a useful asset to the village, providing an unusual set of resources in the area.

We hope the Council will consider these points before making a decision and reject some of the requests to convert green belt into building land.

I am writing to object to the planning of houses being built on the land in Allocation 13.

Housing Plans for Shirley and nearby areas.

As a Shirley resident for more than 30 years I am shocked , horrified and angry that further housing development is planned on our ever decreasing green belt.
The developments on Allocations 4 , 11 , 12 ,13 will not only deplete our green belt with its intrisic benefits but will cause major problems with traffic on the existing roads ,overload medical services and drastically affect local schools.
In particular Allocations 12and 13 are totally unacceptable. Allocation 11 may be feasible and a reduced Allocation4 may also be acceptable.
We know Solihull has to build new houses but we already have more than or fair share in the area and if some is to facilitate the increase of population anticiopated by HS2 then this side of the borough is not where to build.
Roads are a particular problem! Is it acceptable to wait 10minutes to exit ones road onto Bills Lane? That has happened recently on a few occasions imagine what it would be like if these housing developments take place.
Yours Faithfully

Views on Allocation 13

These are my objections and comments on Allocation 13. I am writing to register my formal objection to Allocation 13.
- The area is currently semi-rural. Building on Allocation 13 as well as the other proposed locations will make Shirley an urban area of sprawling housing.
- Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements". The Council have not explored all other options and have not considered all options across the Solihull borough.
- Traffic along the A34 is already problematic and this will only become worse. I live on Burman Road and that road together with surrounding roads will become busier and more congested.
- The addition of housing in Allocation 13 together with the other proposed areas totals in excess of 2000. Assuming that families are the main occupants there may be at least an additional 2000 children - where are the proposals for the new primary schools that would be required as well as at least one secondary school? There will also need to be more medical facilities.
- Allocation 13 is a popular recreation and amenity area and is an area of environmental importance and benefit. There will also be an impact on recreation areas.
Before developing greenfield sites, it is necessary to prove that all options have been explored - what about development on sites surrounding Birmingham airport, close to the HS2 link or spreading the housing provision across Solihull rather than impact in one defined area.
Please bear these valid points points when making your final decision.

To whom it may concern

Re Spatial Planning Council House Solihull - Local Plan Review Shirley - South Shirley

I am writing in response to the consultation on the Local Plan Review and wish to draw the following concerns in respect of the draft consultation proposals in this area:

* To retain and enhance the existing amenity fields and the green corridor to the bridleway, with access to Bills Lane, the canal and the countryside beyond.
* There to be no secondary vehicle access roads via the Woodlands or Badger Residential Estate.
* We object to the concentration of 2550 homes in such close proximity to the South Shirley area and seek a fairer distribution across the borough.
* That there should be retention of a wider Green Belt between South Shirley and the built area of Dickens Heath.

I hope that the views of residents will incorporated into making a more inclusive and fair plan for the borough.

see letter and various appendices supporting site land - between no. 39 and 79 Earlswood Road (The Paddock) and The Orchard, 79 Earlswood Road, Dorridge

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

I know many people will have objected on the grounds of a loss of amenity, and I share this view. One of the major reasons for buying our home in Neville Road was the proximity of dog walks. However, I would also like the council to consider the environmental impact of this development.

Allocation 13 is rich in wildlife. There are a myriad species living in the area, ranging from foxes to bats, birds of prey to cuckoos, woodpeckers and so on. Also, there are muntjac deer in the area. It would be criminal to displace this ecosystem by developing this area, and I exhort the council to reconsider

Allocation 13

Hello, I am already worried about school places. How on earth am I going to get my now 1 year old into a school with all of these houses being built?

Are there going to be new schools being built too? Because with this amount of houses there needs to be serious consideration on how school places are going to be affected.
(Baxters green resident)

Christmas tree farm

My objection. Where as I fully appreciate the need for further housings development. I consider we all ready have enough going on in and around the Shirley area as it is and this will put even more stress on the amenities in and around Shirley i.e. Doctors, transport etc

I would like to register my objection to the proposed housing development in the area known as Allocation 13.

I have lived on the Badger's estate for just under 19 years now and in that time have witnessed the general increase in congestion on the roads in this area, particularly at school times, rush hour and weekends. The impact of a further 2,500 homes in the Shirley South and Dickens Heath areas would have a huge detrimental effect on this and put an intolerable strain on local services, schools, doctors, transport etc.

With specific relation to Allocation 13, I, along with family and friends have used this area extensively for much valued healthy walking exercise and enjoying the huge variety of wildlife including owls, foxes, bats, birds of many species and more. The area is also used extensively by dog walkers and ramblers and there is a genuine and reassuring atmosphere of friendliness and community spirit when you are out walking.

The impact of losing this is unimaginable and could not be replaced, not only in respect of the wildlife but also the health of people using and living by this area. The presence of large numbers of Xmas and other trees, as we know, enhances the air quality, absorbing greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane, so to lose this would have a significant impact on air quality and pollution and drastically increase the Carbon footprint.

Allocation 13 provides a valuable green, healthy area separating two already high density housing areas with existing strains on transport and other public services, with Badgers/Baxters Green and Woodlands to one side and the ever expanding Dickens Heath on the other. To virtually adjoin these areas with more developments would turn a well balanced Mature Suburb into a vast urban sprawl and would destroy the feeling of semi-ruralness for generations to come, in addition to the adverse environmental impacts mentioned above.

My final point is that it is totally iniquitous and disproportionate that circa 41% of Solihull's additional housing needs should be concentrated in the Shirley South area. I implore Solihull Council to examine this aspect closely and re-visit the potential of other areas in the Borough that can absorb some of this capacity. We know that more houses are needed but they need to be far more evenly allocated.

Allocation 13 - Shirley

I am most alarmed that this area is being considered for Housing. There are limited green spaces left in Shirley, and an ever expanding Dickens Heath - I am fearful there will be no green space between Shirley and Earlswood. Please look at alternative sites such as Sheldon area or Chelmsley Wood where you could offer more affordable housing.

Objections and Comments on Shirley allocation plot 13

I too agree with the objections regarding shirley allocation plot 13. I do not want houses built there at all. Traffic is already ridiculous at rush hours !!!!!!


Dear Sirs,

I 100% agree with what Shirley Heath has put. We won the battle years ago when they wanted to build a football stadium and will most certainly try our best to win this battle too. If there wasn't many people coming into this small country we would not have this housing crisis. I mean how many people per square mile in this country compared to other much larger countries than ours.
We can't just keep taking away our green belts. What's going to happen once they are all gone????


I am writing to register my objection to the development of Shirley South. Particularly Allocation number 13 which is designated green belt land.

Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of the new housing in the borough. This is disproportionate and unfair. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements".
I believe that there are numerous options yet to be explored and have yet to see the exhausted list of alternatives that have been investigated.

The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In this case HS2, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to the proposed developments.
The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter is like a racetrack. As are some of the local rat runs such as Stretton Road which constranly has drivers coming along the road at ridiculous speeds, in an area with two schools and a large elderly community.
The addition of thousands on new homes will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.

I drove down Marshall Lake Road today into the centre of Solihull and it took 35 minutes to travel just over a mile, the new traffic lights have made the situation worst the routes into the town centre are already creaking.

In terms of other public transport, the local rail stations are not fit for purpose, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations.

In addition to the problem of infrastructure, the area is not set up to facilitate a large number of potential new families. It is already veirtually impossible to get your child into the secondary school of your choice. What will happen to the catchment area of schools in the borough. In my particular area, residents have been bounced back from Alderbrook and Tudor Grange over the years by the Monkspath and Hillfield developments and latterly Dickens Heath. If this development were to go ahead, there would need to be provision for either school extensions or new schools. This again would require more space to be taken up.

Solihull hospital has been downgraded over the years and no longer has a paediatric department, the closest hospital being Heartlands. The trip to Heartlands is an absolute nightmare in traffic and can take over an hour.

In terms of Allocation 13. This is an area that has over the years has become a is a very popular recreation and amenity area, popular with families, dog walkers, ramblers etc.

The area has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land and even evergreen forest. There is a network of drainage ditches and well-established farm ponds and also a sink area which is effectively bog land. The area is very wet and for the most part of the winter is very boggy and forms a flood plain due to the very high water table and the constituent soil composition.
This results in heavy flooding across most of this low lying area. Many of the houses that back onto the fields in Langcomb Road experience flooding in their back gardens on a regular basis. A phenomenon that has reduced to an extent following the intensive planting of Christmas trees in the field adjacent to the gardens.
The network of ditches and ponds provides a varied eco system and I have seen frogs, toads and newts, along with Muntjac Deer, Cuckoo, Woodpecker and birds of prey. In addition in the meadowland and the marshy areas there are numerous wild flowers, I am not qualified to identify them but I feel you should carry out an in-depth wildlife and ecosystem survey at the correct time of year before a decision is made

In addition part of the area was granted to the stewardship of the Laker Centre on the completion of the Woodlands Estate. I am led to believe that the Layca Committee purchased the fencing around this area and also contribute to its upkeep. I would argue that the whole of area 13, by custom and practice over the last 40 years is by default a very important amenity area. On only has to look at the well-worn footpaths. This is indeed the lung of Shirley, the place to which people from many surrounding areas come to breath. Also, I am led to believe that any developments that affect a local communities quality of life should be offset. I feel that Allocation 13 should become a recognised conservation and public amenity area serving Shirley South. Shirley Park is woefully small and dog owners now are restricted to a tiny fenced in dog area.

I am also concerned about the nature of housing in this area. It is a well-known fact that houses in the South of the Borough command extremely high prices. I do not believe that the houses build will be affordable by the young people. They will be 3, 4, 5 bed houses with a small contingent of affordable houses that will probably be bought up by wealth buy to let landlords and exacerbate the issues with high rents etc.

The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses.

Slightly further south of allocation 13 the loss of a number of sports fields will deprive the local community of the opportunity of recreational activities and again reduce open space, this gives further argument to Allocation 13 being designated a conservation and amenity area.
In addition, the government states that the housing contracts should go to smaller companies using innovative methods, and promote self build and housing associations. Is this in the plan.

Alternatives to developing green belt sites are numerous and I am not convinced that all possibilities have been exhausted, both in smarter use of land and also locations

Thinking outside the box, flat areas of car park such as NEC and airport could be converted to multistory and the land save could be developed right on the door step of HS2 and also to compliment the recent resort World Complex.

This would alleviate pressure on south to north traffic flow. In addition, this would be the use of brownfield sites.
In addition to this, the proposed JLR site on Damson Lane, is purely a financial gain for the company to reduce freight costs. Why not build houses in that area instead. That would mean that the houses were in the right area. That is north of the town centre on the main arterial route of the A45, which has been developed to handle a large amount of traffic. The cost of JLR distribution is not the taxpayers concern. Or alternatively, why not build on the Land Rover Sports field as a trade off with the company, very few employees actually use the sports field.

There is also the possibility of buying larger houses in Solihull which have huge gardens and developing small estates with mews or flats as opposed to the exclusive developments that are cropping up along Blossomfield Road

Along with these ideas I have come up with a number of alternative areas which are more suitably located and are smaller pocket developments as per the governments' requirements. They are for the most part also in more affordable areas of the borough, see below

Land Pockets between
A452 / A45 / M42
A452 / Coleshill Heath Road / M42
Bickenhill Lane / B4438 / Westerly direction
B4438 / M42 / A45
Hampton Lane / A41 / M42

Finally, I am led to believe that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses from the Birmingham Allocation. This is regardless of the fact that there are many brownfield sites and public open spaces that should be used before greenbelt as per the previously mentioned government document. I would urge you to push back to Birmingham City Council on this matter.

As an example I walked along Fazeley Street last week, I saw a number of brownfield sites being used as cheap car parking and also overgrown areas with rubble etc and a large grassy area devoid of natural life Public space). Can you please ensure that Birmingham City Council fully research and address all of their brownfield sites before Solihull rolls over and gives away our green belt.

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

see attached documents

Allocation 13
I wish to raise my disapproval of so many houses being built in this area. While I fully appreciate the need for more houses, I feel strongly, Shirley is being asked to take more than its fair share of the planning (41%). South Shirley green belt is heavily used and enjoy by dog walkers, children, runners, ramblers and cyclists. If the council take all the fields, so much enjoyed by the residence, and forces all the activities on to the already busy streets: it will be to the detriment of health. I ask you to consider how much open space there is in Shirley. Already Shirley Park (a very heavily subscribed park) has been eroded for shops and flats. Green lane Park is really hardly fit for purpose and that would only leave Bills Wood which is hardly a safe haven for children to play in, although very popular with walkers.
The social and physical actives, the Shirley residence enjoy, on the green belt will be a devastating loss for hundreds of people.
The plans to build 41% of houses in South Shirley will effect:
* A loss of natural environment
* An increase in traffic and pollution.
* Policing
* Schools
* Open space for all to enjoy
* Doctors surgeries
I urge you to revalue the impact to the community, who you represent, and at least leave a few fields for them to enjoy.

Save Allocation 13

Hi I am writing to inform you of why we strongly object to the building of 600 homes on the green belt land in Shirley. The roads in this area are already extremely busy especially at rush hour on bills lane,haslucks green Road Shakespeare drive and on burman Road where it is difficult to even get off our driveway the extra traffic these houses on allocation 13 and 4 would create would make things much worse let alone the construction traffic.The stations at whitlocks end and Shirley are already very busy too where you are lucky to even get a parking space during the day. Without building extra road networks,stations, schools, doctors it's hard to imagine how the existing infestructure could cope but the main issue for local residents is the traffic which is already a big problem in this area and will be massively affected by these developments 13 and 4 we hope you won't take local residents fears, views and concerns lightly as we will be the ones that will suffer the most thankyou

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

Not only would this have a detrimental effect on the local countryside and abundant wildlife that prevails here for so many to currently enjoy ( a loss that could not be replaced) but also on the already stretched local services and facilities.

Green Belt should only be amended in exceptional circumstances when all other avenues have been explored.
There is also a disproportionate percentage (41%) of the total build required being sited in one area, surely there are other more suitable locations with less of an impact .

Objection to allocation 13

I wish you to consider the existing residents of the shirley area before planning this development. Living in Shirley consists of waiting....in queues of traffic,on the school run or on the Stratford road and junction 4 of the M42 on the way anywhere!....trying to get a doctor,dentist,hospital appointment....hoping your child will get into a school in this catchment,or into brownies or any other activity. However it's all put into perspective by a relaxing walk with the dogs in the fields that surround us. Please consider very carefully the impact on health & wellbeing of the existing residents if this development goes ahead without thought & planning

see letter and supporting documents for Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Nos. 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green

Allocation 13

We want to register our objection to the proposed development on Green Belt land in Shirley (Allocation 13). Having lived on the Baxters estate for 10 years we, like many other local people, enjoy having access to green space. We regularly go walking with our 3 children through this beautiful area which would be completely destroyed if the proposed housing development were to be built. This area of Green Belt maintains the separation between Shirley and Dickens Heath to prevent urban sprawl; losing it would have a significant detrimental effect on the semi-rural feel of the area. It would also be loss of sports facilities and good quality agricultural land.
Furthermore the local road network is not able to cope with the additional houses and traffic that will be generated. There are many existing problems that have noticeably got worse over the last few years as Dickens Heath has continued to grow and that would be exacerbated by any new development in this area:
- Morning tailbacks along Tanworth Lane from the junction near to Dog Kennel Lane caused by incessant traffic from Dickens Heath - I regularly queue for 5-10mins to get out of the end of Tanworth Lane. On more than one occasion the traffic has backed up Tanworth Lane to beyond Stretton Road and then caused traffic to back up Stretton Road.
- Morning tailbacks along the Stratford Road between the Monkspath Junction and beyond Dog Kennel Lane, sometimes causing traffic to back up Dog Kennel Lane itself.
- Evening tailbacks along Dog Kennel Lane from its junction with Tanworth Lane.
Please reconsider the plan to develop this area.

see letter

see letter

see letter

Allocation 13, Policy and Spatial Planning, Solihull MBC

All of the above members fully object to the proposed plan to build 600 houses on 'Allocation 13'. We object for the following reasons and request Solihull MBC Policy and Spatial Planning to cancel indefinitely all proposals for Allocation 13. The reasons for our objection are as follows:

1. There is already more than enough built up area with residential accommodation within the Baxters Green, Dickens Heath and Woodlands Estates and Shirley South areas. Those built up estates have only one relief road leading out of the estate. This in turn has caused already the enormous volume of traffic on roads such as Shakespeare Drive, Bills Lane, Burman Road, Haslucks Green Road and Stretton Road to be at unacceptable levels. We are unable to get out of our driveway in good enough time even during off-peak hours! All residents on Shakespeare Drive are unable to cross the road safely or the school children walking to school are not safe - all because of the unacceptable volume of traffic created by the above estates and the associated road structures not in place for the overflow of traffic.

Hence, if the Allocation 13 is given permission to build 600 houses, then this will only increase the volume of traffic on already congested roads as mentioned above and there will be fatalities with speeding motorists. All of this traffic is normally heading for the M42 motorway via Shakespeare Drive, Stretton Road, Stratford Road due to developing these estates in an enclosed manner with no relief roads out.

2. The proposed allocation of green space to remain ie. 'yellow highlighted area' if the development goes ahead is totally inadequate in proportion to the number of residents in the surrounding area wishing to access green space. Even Shirley Park has disintegrated due to the Asda development and will now impose further pressure with the residential development of the old Powergen site.

3. Rather than focussing on Shirley South for building of 600 houses, why are other areas such as Knowle, Dorridge, Catherine-de-Barnes, Hockley Heath and Earlswood not being allocated the building of houses and share the burden of urbanisation? Areas in Solihull near the Birmingham International Airport or either side of the motorway M42 must be DEVELOPED FIRST BEFORE proposing Shirley South, since there is good transport infrastructure and amenities and enough green space to the surrounding residents in these areas.

4. We are already suffering health problems such as asthma, arthritis and joint pain due to the petrol fumes from traffic from Dickens Heath, Baxters Green and Woodlands Estates racing through Bills Lane, Shakespeare Drive and Burman Road. The levels of pollution has increased dramatically in the last ten years so that there are more incidents of respiratory problems on Shakespeare Drive with many of the residents being elderly and frail. By proposing to develop Allocation 13, the health problems of existing residents many of whom have lived here for more than 40 - 60 years will be exacerbated further!!

5. There is no proper thought being given to what will be the associated infrastructure or the problems it will create on an already existing dire situation we face daily right now!

For the above reasons we three members of 145 Shakespeare Drive TOTALLY OBJECT INDEFINITELY TO ANY PROPOSAL OF ANY KIND OF BUILDING ON ALLOCATION 13. INSTEAD PROPOSALS FOR OTHER AREAS LISTED IN POINT 3 ABOVE MUST BE PURSUED!

Allocation 13

I am writing to object to the proposed housing development sites in Shirley and in particular allocation 13 which is a beautiful part of Shirley, great for recreation and of course has plenty of wildlife living there. My main objection is that Shirley is already such a busy place, traffic is so built up particularly since ASDA has been built and I find Haslucks Green Road just too busy. I find it difficult to get doctors appointments, sometimes you have to wait 4 weeks to see a doctor. I cannot understand why Shirley is taking the brunt of the newbuilds in Solihull when it is recognised how busy the High St is for traffic. I also cannot understand why Shirley is being picked on when Solihull has many other areas and we must be the furthest away from the new HS2 development. It just doesn't make any sense to me that you are building such a large amount of housing in one area. We have already seen an increase in traffic etc with Parkgate, we will experience more with the new Powergen development yet you want to increase it again? Please reconsider the plans, save Allocation 13 look at brownfield sites around the borough and at least spread it more evenly across Solihull and not build such a high amount in one place, ie Shirley.