LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Dear Sirs/Madams
I wish to object to the inclusion in the LDP of a development on the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road.
My principal concerns are as follows:
Loss of green, open space
The site is currently a welcome, open space in a pleasant, residential area, and should be used for recreation. In addition it is beneficial in being grassed as it can absorb some of the rainfall to reduce flooding. If this area is built on as planned, we will lose many things:

Permanent loss of sports ground - Solihull is already poorly supplied with sports facilities, and this site in particular is covenanted to be used for sports. This covenant alone should be sufficient reason not to ever consider development of this site. There are local clubs in need of grounds, but this one is not able to be used due to the developer's plans. The covenant should be honoured, and local clubs allowed use of the ground. Lack of facilities reduces the participation in sport of children and adults, impacting health and general well-being. Solihull's poor performance in this area could also negatively impact the attractiveness of the area.

The character of the area - Currently, the dwellings in this vicinity are predominantly widely spaced, two storey houses with large gardens and open space around. The planned development would need to be 5 times denser, so with less gardens and/or taller. They will thus be out of character with the area, and will impact on the right to light and privacy of existing homeowners. Solihull could lose its reputation as being a 'nice place to live' if developments are overcrowded like this.

Drainage - Gardens and land in this area already suffer from poor drainage and flooding. The significant increase in hard surfaces proposed for this site will increase flooding in the area, with many environmental and social impacts.


Traffic
Sharmans Cross Road is already an extremely busy road, and is particularly hazardous at either end of the school day when there are many children walking, scooting or cycling along and across the road. Both ends of this road are very congested with large queues attempting to access Streetsbrook Road or the roundabout at Prospect Lane. The addition of 100 dwellings will inevitably add to this congestion and increase the risk of death or serious injury to pedestrians and other road users. Any other point of egress from this site would not be any better, with Whitefields Road and Welcombe Grove not being suitable for any volume of traffic, and such traffic trying to access Streetsbrook Road or Blossomfield Road will still ultimately increase congestion near the town centre. In turn, this again impacts the attractiveness of the area to visitors, residents and businesses.

Pollution
Along with congestion on these roads, the increased queuing traffic will increase pollution on routes where children are walking to school, impacting their health. Such less desirable circumstances could also discourage children from walking to school when we should be doing all we can to increase this.

Parking
The parking for the Club will be insufficient at peak times, hence users will be forced to park on the road. This would exaceberate all the above points: congestion, risk to road users, and pollution. Also, parking for residents would be very limited due to the density of the proposed development. This would create further problems, including a possible clash between residents and club members over the use of club parking spaces.


I would also note that there are various errors and omissions in the document from Cerda proposing this site, including the following (section numbers shown in brackets).
(1.1) Arden Lawn Tennis Club Ltd have said they were not party to this instruction. For Cerda to imply such seems underhanded to say the least.
(1.3) The site is not immediately available: it is subject to a covenant to be used for sports only. Also, the freehold is owned by SMBC. As a council tax payer, I would object to the council selling freehold land at less than its true value, and giving up a covenant intended for the benefit of the community.
(2.8) The site is not 700m from the station: it is between 1000m & 1100m. It is therefore not an accessible site and more parking would be needed than is planned for. This exacerbates the points made above.
(5.8) There is not sufficient other provision for sport in the area as mentioned above.
(5.14) The proposed development could not be the same density as surrounding areas which can easily be seen from a map.
(5.21) The current use of the access for the Club is nowhere near representative of the amount of traffic that would be generated - especially at peak times - by a residential estate, particularly of 100 houses. There is therefore no evidence that the highways can safely accommodate such an increase.
This document is therefore highly misleading and should not be accepted.

Please consider these points and reject this proposal.