Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10224

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Laurence & Rachel Bannister

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

Overdevelopment of site and out of scale and character with surrounding development.
Increased traffic and pollution. Impact on highway safety for drivers, pedestrians (including school children) and cyclists.
Development will generate increased on-street parking and loss of spaces for Arden Tennis club.
Exacerbate existing flooding on Sharmans Cross Road.
Permanent loss of sporting facilities at a time when there is an existing shortage.
Impact on wildlife.
Development will overburden schools and medical facilities which are already oversubscribed.
Inappropriate use of land as there is a covenant restricting the land for sporting use.
Site does not meet sustainability criteria.

Full text:

We are writing to kindly but strongly object to the above proposed development - as it will:

1. Destroy the character of the neighbourhood. 100 houses are effectively 4-5 times the density of property on Winterbourne Rd. This is unacceptable overdevelopment of the site and will be both out-of-scale and out- of-character in its appearance compared to existing development in the vicinity.

2. Increase traffic and associated pollution - The development will have a serious effect on highway safety and the convenience of road users, including:
a. Increased volumes of traffic moving in/out of new site, most likely turning right out of site towards town, increasing gridlock on Sharmans Cross Rd, Streetsbrook Road, inevitable increase of traffic on side roads. (SX Rd is currently jammed from 7.45am to 9.00am.)
b. Danger to pedestrians, unaccompanied children going to/from Sharmans Cross Junior School and secondary schools.
c. Create a danger to cyclists, as this is a designated cycle route.

3. Adversely affect the parking situation - In addition to cramped parking for the new development, Arden Club could lose approximately 75 parking spaces. This will affect safety and congestion through increased street parking. Parking is already chaotic during peak times/school drop-off and pick up/sporting fixtures.

4. Negatively affect Flooding - Sharmans Cross Road is already subject to flooding during heavy rain. The development will worsen this problem.

5. Result in the permanent loss of sporting facilities - This is one of five sports grounds at risk in the LDP. As there is a shortage of pitches in Solihull, SMBC has a statutory requirement to ensure lost pitches are replaced with facilities of equivalent quality and accessibility. Sport England has found that Solihull is in the 3rd quartile nationally for over-16 participation in sport three times per week and continues to fall in the national league tables.

6. Negatively affect design and appearance - This area of Solihull is highly valued for its environmental benefits and contains many mature trees with Tree Preservation Orders. Development of houses will destroy this space which is enjoyed by many residents. It is also a known habitat for bats and badgers.

7. Overburden schools and medical centres - These amenities are already oversubscribed, and this development will further increase demand leading to a degradation of services for residents.

8. Be an inappropriate use of land - SMBC formally minuted in 2013 its policy about the use of the grounds only for sport and that they would not sell the freehold. We would like reaffirmation of this policy which implies that this development is inappropriate for inclusion in the LDP. One previous application for this site has been refused and another withdrawn.

9. Not meet sustainability criteria - The National Planning Policy Framework requires developments to have access to local amenities within 800m/10 minutes' walk. The site is 1700m from Solihull town centre and 1000m from the station, so these criteria are not met.

As such, we kindly 'demand' that the "2013 all party policy on the Rugby Ground on maintaining the sports ground only covenant and not selling the freehold be retained" is upheld.