No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3328

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Gillian Golder

Representation Summary:

Site 18 Objection.

Past planing application been refused by Council.
Council affirmed policy in 2013 that land would only be used for sport.
Solihull needs more sporting facilities.
Extra traffic will add to pollution.
Streetsbrook Road is already gridlocked at peak times. Sharmans Croos Road a very busy road.
Danger to cyclists on cycle route.
Danger of increased traffic to pedestrians, particularly schoolchildren.
Local schools and medical centres already oversubscribed.
Proposed development out of scale for the area. Out of keeping with surrounding roads.
Will destroy trees and wildlife habitat.


Full text:

LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you to express my strong objection to the proposed development of 100 houses on the rugby ground at Sharmans Cross Road, Solihull. My main objections are as follows:

1. In the past one application has already been refused by the Council, and a further was withdrawn. I understand that it was formally minuted in 2013 that the council would not sell the freehold. I would like the council to reaffirm its policy of the use of this land only for sport. Solihull needs more sporting facilities, not less.

2. The amount of extra traffic from the proposed development will only add to an increase in pollution (something that is very much in the news at the moment, with the relevant harm to health and the environment). Streetsbrook Road is already gridlocked morning and evening, and Sharman Cross Road is also a very busy road. There is also a huge inherent danger to cyclists as this is a designated cycle route.

3. There is also a cause for concern to me with the danger of increased road traffic in a road that contains a junior school. Lives will be put at increased risk as they are getting to and from school on foot. As a resident of the area I am very well aware of how difficult this situation is already.

4. Local schools and medical centres are already severely stretched and simply would not be able to accommodate this number of extra residents.

5. This proposed development is simply too big for the area. It is totally out of keeping with the surrounding roads and will cause problems with destroying trees and wildlife habitat. We should be mindful of these concerns now and in the future.

I urge you to consider these and all objections you receive, and refuse this totally unacceptable proposal that has been made once again. As far as I am aware, none of the reasons for the original refusals have changed.

Yours faithfully