No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 2457

Received: 12/02/2017

Respondent: Bridie O'Rourke

Representation Summary:

Existing traffic congestion and parking issues will be exacerbated, detrimentally impacting on highway and pedestrian safety.
Flooding and drainage issues.
Need to retain the land for sporting use.
Development would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

Full text:

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I am writing to lodge my objection to the proposed development of the former Solihull RFC pitches behind Sharmans Cross Road. Whilst I think this land should be used, I believe the density of the proposed development will leave the local road network and facilities under extreme stress and the school unable to cope. I regularly travel into and around Solihull and Sharmans Cross road in particular during rush hour. Sharmans Cross Road is already completely blocked by traffic all the way from the junction with Streetsbrook Road to the school. My daughter lives on Sharmans Cross Road so it makes it very difficult to get in and out of her property. If there are yet more cars for the proposed 100 homes pulling out directly into this traffic it will place the safety of the children walking to school at increased risk. The road is already busy and dangerous.

The impact of paving over of such a large area of green land can only increase the already high risk of flooding occurring and Sharmans Cross Road is already frequently covered by over six inches of water up by the school. It would be more beneficial to the community to use the the land for in sporting capacity and I understand that Solihull Council formally minuted in 2013 that they would not sell the freehold of grounds used for sport. It appears to me if this proposal goes ahead Solihull Council are going back on what they have said. With minimal investment, this area could be turned into a resource for children and sports in the area - rather than paving it over and adding yet more properties that are completely out of keeping with the area.. I understand there were very good reasons for denying the application previously in in 2009 and I wholey object to it and believe it should be denied now