Proposed Housing Allocation 18

We have lived at our current address for almost 6 years. We both work in the local area and chose Solihull as the place we wanted to move to to bring up our two children aged 6 and 3. We are also members of the Solihull Arden Club.

I have recently reviewed the Solihull Draft Local Plan (DLP) and was alarmed to see proposed housing allocation 18 for 100 homes at Sharmans Cross Road.

In response to Q15 in the DLP I do not agree that building 100 homes at Sharmans Cross Road is appropriate and my strong view is that it should be removed from the proposal allocation in the final version of the plan. I object to the site's inclusion for the following reasons:

1. Increased traffic

The roads around the proposed site cannot cope with the additional traffic that 100 new homes would bring. At rush hour times and other busy periods during week days and at weekends, it is virtually impossible to turn right out of Dorchester Road onto the Streetsbrook Road, for example. Similarly, it is almost impossible to turn right out of Sharmans Cross Road onto the Streetsbrook Road.

100 new homes would bring at least 100 if not 200 (with 2 cars per household) of additional traffic. This would have a serious impact on highway safety and increase the risk of accidents to pedestrians (in particular, children walking to Sharmans Cross junior school and other local secondary schools), cyclists (I understand that the Streetsbrook road is a designated cyclist route) and other road users. I have witnessed accidents on both of the junctions I mention above and I am very concerned about the dangerous impact of increased traffic in the area.

2. Permanent loss of sporting facilities

I understand that Oakmoor Developments has made joint representations with Arden Lawn Tennis Club Limited to the Council (September 2016) as to why the development should be included and why it supports what the Council is trying to achieve. To be clear, as a member of the Solihull Arden Club we have not been consulted with in relation to the proposed development and whilst I appreciate that this is an internal issue for the club, it is important that the Council is aware of this issue as the representations set out in the September 2016 document do not take into account the views of the club's members. I also attended a meeting on 30 January 2016 at the Solihull Arden Club where a director of Arden Lawn Tennis Club made it clear that no officers of the company had been party to the document setting out the representations.

The proposal includes the sale of the Solihull Arden Club site to Oakmoor and the club being relocated to the rugby pitches. I simply do not understand the rationale or the need for this other than Oakmoor wishing to maximise profit from the proposed site. The members of the Arden Tennis Club would gain a new facility but:
* the previous site of the Solihull Arden Club would be covered with houses and this land could not be used for sporting purposes going forwards;
* the new Arden club would be built on part of the rugby pitches but the rest of that land which could currently be used for sporting purposes by the wider community would be built on. This would destroy what could be used for community sport for all generations for a variety of sports for years to come;
* the development would result in cramped parking as the club would lose approximately 75 parking spaces - this adds further to the concerns set out under 1 above;
* it removes the potential for any development of the Solihull Arden Club and any other integrated sports facility offering on the whole site in the future (for example, as in Hampton in Arden which forms a fantastic and key focal point for all members of the local community - cricket, hockey, tennis etc).

3. Health and supporting local communities

Oakmoor mentions in its representations that the site has been derelict and subject to vandalism for at least 6 years. My understanding from a recent meeting I attended of the Sharmans Cross Action Group is that Oakmoor has rejected any requests from local sports teams to use the site and where they have had conversations, there have been extortionate demands for rent for the use of the two pitches.

Section 11 of the DLP deals with Health and Supporting Local Communities. One of the key points made is that any developments will be expected to promote, support and enhance physical and mental health and well being. It goes on to say that healthy lifestyles will be enabled by "supporting the retention and protection of facilities which promote healthy lifestyles such as open space, including public rights of way to open space, playing pitches and allotments".

Maintaining the land at Sharmans Cross Road as sporting pitches falls squarely within the above objective. The rugby pitches are one of five sporting grounds at risk in the DLP. The Council's Health and Wellbeing strategy 2016-2019 has as one of its priorities tackling childhood obesity and one of the ways to tackle this is to increase the uptake of physical activity amongst children. Having sport pitches in the local area which can be used by local youth and adult teams is key in achieving this. The local state primary schools lack green space for the children to take part in sporting activities and having sports pitches which the children could use is vital in getting them engaged in sport from a young age.

The Council minuted in its 2013 policy that the grounds would only be used for sport and the freehold would not be sold. This implies that the site was and still is inappropriate for inclusion in the local development plan.


4. Suitability

Building 100 houses on the site would be approximately 5 times the density of the houses on Winterbourne Road. The development would destroy the character of the neighbourhood. This is an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site and would be out -of - character with the existing housing in the vicinity. I understand that the previous planning application including houses of 3 stories which is totally out of keeping with the rest of the neighbourhood. This would inevitably result in loss of privacy and light.

5. Sustainability

I understand that the National Planning Policy Framework requires developments to have access to local amenities within 800m/10 minutes walk. The representations made by Oakmoor (September 2016) state that the site is located within 700m of Solihull Railway Station and approximately 1km from the town centre. I walk to the station for my commute and to the town centre on a regular basis and both of these measurements are understated. The station is at least 1km from the site and the town centre (Mell Square) more likely to be 2km (even the John Lewis entrance to touchwood is further than 1km).

5. Schools and Medical centres

Having two children of primary school age, I am very aware of the shortage of primary spaces. Similarly with GPs, whilst efforts have been made at our local surgery to increase the availability of appointments, this is still far from perfect and it is very difficult to get routine appointments. Amenities such as these are already oversubscribed and the proposed development would further impact on this without bringing benefits to the wider community (with the retention of what could be a fantastic sports facility in the form of the rugby pitches).

6. Conclusion

Putting 100 houses on this site is not, in my view, an appropriate way of contributing to to the housing need in Solihull. Whilst I understand the need for development in the borough (and there are a number of much higher volume sites available in the borough), this should not come at the price of sporting facilities which could benefit the wider community as a whole (which in itself would help the Council deliver its other key objectives of promoting health and well-being in the borough). In addition, the development should not be shoe-horned into a site which is not appropriate for development because of the detrimental impact it will have on the local area as a result of:
* increased traffic which with it brings significant highway safety issues;
* pressure on local services which are already oversubscribed;
* the overdevelopment of the site.