Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I live at 77 Sharmans Cross Road and i am writing to object to the inclusion of the former rugby club playing fields in the SMBC Local Development Plan at allocation 18. I have objected to development on this site twice previously in 2009. i set out my objections below and add that the current proposal is for a greater number of dwellings than the proposals which were refused planning permission in 2009.

My objections are as follows:

Loss of playing fields - prior to Oakmoor taking over the land my sons were able to play rugby on the grounds on Sundays. During the time Oakmoor has owned the site they have prevented sports teams for using the playing fields by seeking to charge rent that is vastly higher than amateur clubs can afford. There are though clubs that would like to play there and this would be in line with the covenant that exists in the freehold/leasehold of the land. i do not understand why the council has not enforced this requirement. It is simply not acceptable that when there is a shortage of pitches in the borough, the LDP includes a proposal that reduces availability further. The longer term health of children in the borough should be a much higher priority than cramming in houses with no amenity space.

Density of development - the proposed density of development is far greater than the rest of the local area. It was i think 87 houses last time planning consent was refused and now the proposal is to build 100 houses. At this density it is highly likely that the properties will be three storeys and this will mean there is a loss of light and privacy to nearby residents. The proposed development will change the character of the area and is highly likely to destroy mature trees and wildlife habitat.

Having lived here for nearly 20 years i have seen an increase in traffic volume such that in the morning between 8 and 9 am cars are queuing along Sharmans Cross Road to get onto Streetsbrook Road. My house is half way along Sharmans Cross Road and cars are often queuing back this far. it would simply be impossible to envisage how an additional 100 cars from the proposed development could be accommodated. They will be trying to turn right to join the traffic queue and this is going to lead to greater congestion, to accidents and potential fatalities given that a lot of Sharmans Cross Junior School pupils walk, bike and use their scooters on the pavement to get to school each morning. This is also a cycle route so any any time of day there will be increased danger to cyclists. And the pollution will no doubt increase considerably.

i do not understand why Arden club would put its name to plans which rob it of its freehold and reduce parking spaces for club members. Whilst i can see that is matter for them, i do consider it a significant problem for local residents from an increase in on street parking due to the reduction in on site parking for the club. This increase in on street parking will be dangerous for children, cyclists and for residents who are trying to get out of their drives onto Shamans Cross road. it is already a problem at the end of the school day and during football matches, but this development will make it much less safe. i have seen buses come face to face with cars coming the other way because on street parking has reduced Sharmans Cross Road to one lane. Cars also block the pavements, particularly near the terraced houses near the club entrance and when the wheelie bins have been emptied it is like an obstacle course walking to the station. It will get much worse with over 100 new properties.

We already suffer from flooding near to Sharmans Cross Junior School during heavy rainfall and we have had local blockages to the sewers which Severn Trent have had to unblock. The sewage and drainage infrastructure on this road will not be able to cope with an additional 100 or even 50 dwellings.

i believe that there are not sufficient local school places or vacancies in GP surgeries to accommodate additional residents to this extent. This can only result in a degradation of services to existing local residents.

i recall reading that Solihull was one of the best places to live in England and that this was due to local amenities and the character of the town. This development will destroy that character and will be the thin end of the wedge for apartment buildings and other out of character housing in this locality.

So in summary i object to the inclusion of allocation 18 in the LDF. it is profiteering by a company that has had no regard to access to local amenity land for the past 7 plus years. SMBC should put a stop to this and enforce the use of the land for community sporting activity. SMBC should not include a development in the LDF that undermines the covenant on the land.