LDP-proposed housing allocation 18
I reside at 59 Sharmans Cross road and wish to object to the proposed development of 100 houses on the Rugby ground and site of Arden tennis and social club.

The current Govt strategy to increase house building by around 250,000 to 275,000 houses a year should not in anyway influence the Council in the decision on this development. Indeed that strategy states that all approved planning must ensure that in place in the surrounding area is an infrastructure that will support the development. Clearly this is not the case with this proposed development.

Already residents surrounding this area of land suffer from excessive traffic delays, for example some mornings the traffic backs up from Streetsbook road to my house. In addition the traffic into Solihull from the fire station backs up past the Sharmans Cross road junction creating lengthy delays in the rush hour. Quite clearly the additional cars, probably 150 to match the 100 houses will have an adverse effect on this already chaotic traffic issue. Add to that the current additional cars using the Arden club and at peak times the traffic will be a nightmare. Therefore the infrastructure will not meet the needs. In addition there is nothing that the developers can do, or the Council can do to alter that situation.

I understand that the land should be dedicated to sport. I have looked at the plans and clearly there is an attempt to purchase the Arden Club and do a swop. That is in my view not sustainable. It will place the new homes right next to current dwellings, e.g., those in Winterbourne road. This will create a very condensed number of houses in a neighbourhood that is currently well designed and set out to be environmentally friendly. I imagine many of the proposed houses / apartments will be two or three stories and therefore totally out of character for the immediate area. There will inevitably be a loss of light and privacy to existing houses. That cannot be right.

Having lived in Sharmans Cross road for many years I am well aware that flooding is a past, current and future issue. Despite work this has not been resolved. The addition of these 100 properties with unsuitable drainage and the loss of natural grass land that assists drainage can only have an adverse effect and cause potential flood problems to those residing closely. I do not believe the developers can overcome this real risk. In fact with the added burden of extra school traffic and pedestrians with children from this proposed development the dangers for safety are very clear.

I want to return to the use of the ground for sport. It is I believe proven that Solihull is in the third of four quartiles nationally for over 16 participation in sport at least three times a week. With I understand four other sports grounds locally at risk of similar developments I believe SMBC has a responsibility to ensure not just that these five sports ground are protected but that every effort is made to ensure there is additional sporting facilities for young people. This proposed development will move Solihull further away from its sporting land requirement in the future.

I also understand that the National Planning Policy framework requires new developments to have access to local amenities within 800 meters or 10minute walk. This site is some 1700 meters from Solihull town centre and a 1000 meters from the train station. This is an additional reason to refuse this development.

I understand this land is owned by SMBC and on a previous occasion a decision was made and formally recorded that the freehold would not be sold and that the ground was only for Sports use. The current planning application clearly tries to get around this so can the Council reaffirm its policy and stop this planning application at the earliest opportunity.

On a final note I have as yet not formally received any notification of this planned development from the Council. It is only through the work of the action group that this has come to light. I therefore ask if the failure to notify is a breach of the planning application process and ask if that is the case what action can now be taken. If notification is no longer required I would appreciate explanation of the reasons for this..