Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the application by CERDA on behalf of Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross) Ltd for the residential development of Rugby Ground/Tennis Club just off Sharmans Cross Road. I have involved in the potential development of this site over the last 9 years and have faced the same problem throughout, namely that Oakmoor submit an Application which is full of serious inaccuracies and when these are pointed out the statement is made that it is not our skill or responsibility to check the detail

I trust that in this instance the inaccuracies will be vetted, particularly since the inaccuracies appear to imply that different SMBC policies are being met when they are not.

CERDA/OAKMOOR LDP APPLICATION SEPT 2016.

1. The front page states that the application was made 'ON BEHALF OF OAKMOOR (SHARMANS CROSS) LTD AND ARDEN LAWN TENNIS CLUB LTD'. The Board at the Club were not even aware an application had been made until November/December.
Careless at the very least.

2. Picture on front page is at least 7 years old. Sloppy at the least.

3. Front page error regarding application repeated.

4. Para2.5 page 3. 'The site has been derelict'. A half truth - the pitches are in excellent condition, and could be used immediately after marking out. This is important because e.g. Solihull F.C need pitches from Next season for 8 teams.
The pavilion, changing rooms and nursery units were progressively vandalised because no security was provided for the empty buildings. They were demolished under pressure from local residents, the Tennis Club and the Council. Oakmoor never tried to seriously protect the buildings or to let them out at all.

5. TPOs apply to far more trees than the southern and western boundaries with e.g. all the trees down the Tennis Club Rugby Club. Boundary covered as well a few individual trees. These trees could easily be awkward in the. Development of the site with the Tennis Club moving within the site.
A Planning issue which will be made worse with all trees in the course of having TPOs on them.

6. Para 2.8. The station is not 700m away but 1000m to 1100m away depending on
the route you take. Solihull town centre is c1700m away and not 1000m
This is very much a Planning issue with regard to accessibility/sustainability and density. School, and surgeries are over full, and more than 800 m away (i.e. walking distance). .SX Road is not an accessible site.

7. Para 3.3 refers to support for support for a previous scheme involving a package of support for the Rugby Club. It states that Sport England supported the scheme. This is incorrect - they did not oppose it which is very different.
In addition they do not disclose why they withdrew at the last minute from the Appeal of the SMBC refusal. Is it possible that this related to the value of the Council owned freehold and the sport only covenant.

8. Paras.5.4/5.5 perpetuate the same false impression of the distances to the station and Solihull town centre. The distances and the supposed 10 minute walking times are complete fictions from the centre of the site.
This appears to be a deliberate attempt to portray the accessibility of the site in a way that simply is not correct.

9. Para5.7 'not fit for purpose in 2009' is stated without any context. The Rugby Club aspired to the 2nd tier in England which require facilities and ground capacities which simply did not exist at the Rugby Ground. For lower levels of soccer and rugby they were more than adequate.

10. Para 5.8. The loss of a rugby pitch.......but there is sufficient provision in the area to serve the needs of the local population.' There is provision for 2 pitches and absolutely no evidence to support the contention there are ample pitches to support the needs of the local population. To the contrary there a demand for pitches which is not being met. The council's obligation to have an up to date survey of provision and demand of pitches and sports amenities is not in place so statements like this simply cannot be made. The Bees had to leave the Borough to meet the demand that they had.

11. Paras5.11/5.12. The facilities that have been outlined have not been confirmed as agreed but appear to involve significantly more space than the current Tennis Club. With 2 covered courts an extra squash court,150 car parking spots additional other facilities, crèche, players Bar etc etc etc. this, contrary to the application means that there would be less space for the 100 houses than for the original.

12. Paras.13/5.145.15
From 11 just above it is very very clear there will be less space for 100 properties than for 87 in the previous application. Density will be greater. The applications suggestion to the contrary cannot be correct. Their estimate of the houses per hectare must be regarded with suspicion at the very least.
There is then the statement that "30-35 properties per hectare would be consistent with the form of development in the local area". Again their quoted level will not be the actual level. Their estimate of the space available for residential is exaggerate so their comparison base is false. The relative density of estates surrounding the site give a range of 2 to 5 times the space per property depending which area you take.
This whole estate will be totally out of keeping with the surrounding neighbouring residential properties.

13. The move of the Tennis Club would of necessity have to take place before Any residential development could take place. This means onto the Rugby Ground. Currently no defined plans are available and no discussion have taken place regarding the facilities to be offered with the Board or the membership. There is the question of leasehold land and freehold land. No one even knows if the Board or the members will agree with the move and swap of land. Is this site really immediately available ? I think not.

14. Para5.15. Talks about the sports and community facilities providing the focal point of the development with the residential development extending around them. This sound a very altruistic and optimistic view. Sports Clubs with social amenities are noisy places. Other clubs experience when residential development takes place near to their centre of activity is not good with complaints and difficulties.
This presentation is over optimistic about dense property base in close proximity to the Tennis Club.

15. Since the last application for this site there has been a major increase in traffic during peak hours and school pick-up times on Sharmans Cross Road,Streetsbrook Road and all surrounding roads. This application takes no account of this. As all the other objections have shown this is a major major problem particularly with the vehicular exit being nearer to the Streetsbrook Road junction. It took me 25 minutes recently at 7-50 am to get through Solihull from 23 Sharmans Cross.
This problem is quite incorrectly played down in this application , together with no reference to the walking/cycling route on SX Road, or the danger to all the children going to SX junior school.

16. Para5.22/5.23
Yet again the Application is out of touch. With less activity on the site there had been a significant increase in wild life bats are a regular feature of summer evenings and badgers and faxes are also regulars. there are TPOs on central trees on the site and far more than just the South and west side.

17. Flood risk and drainage.

This area is heavily based on marl. This put major pressure on the surface water systems and they regularly cannot cope. Flooding is prevalent on SX Road despite work by Severn Trent. Gardens are regularly flooded in all surrounding areas. the Rugby pitches have special drainage by En Tout Cas. It acts as a sponge but dry on the surface . Once this whole area of6 acres is largely covered there will be a very substantial extra pressure on all surface water drainage. Climate change in the last 8 years has already made things a lot worse. This development could make a bad situation a lot worse. I doubt Cerda have any understanding of the scale of this problem.



LOSS OF SPORTS FACILITIES .S

SX Road is only one of 5 sports grounds at risk in the LDP. In the Review document there is little reference to sport as such with a few platitudes about if there is no surplus of pitches other of like or better quality with suitable access will need to be found i.e. created. This is pie in the sky. What it means in blunt terms is driving sports grounds further and further away from the central areas of population. It does not appear that there is any advocate or funds to to truly encourage the growth of sporting participation in Solihull's.

All of this is evidence by our performance nationally in participation in sport 3 times a week in Evidence produced by Sport England. These show that in the 330Boroughs in England we are declining at twice the national rare and have dropped from being around
175 to over 200 in the last 3 years and declining fast. It is a disgrace. But what can you expect when virtually none of our public park pitches have changing rooms or dedicated. Toilets and no facilities for girls/women. What do visiting teams think of Solihull. Only the private sector provide the facilities of quality,

What then of the Rugby Ground. The freehold is owned by SMBC and has 74 years to run on the lease. It is Covenanted to only be used for sport. The freehold land owned by Oakmoor is covenanted to only be used for the ancillaries to sport i.e. car parking, bowls greens, pavilion, and changing rooms. The current SMBC policy is that the freehold will not be sold, and the covenant will not be lifted but those policies can be changed be political decision . If they are, and the land becomes part of the LDP it will be another nail in the coffin of sporting active in the Borough.
One further point - on why the ground has not been used for 6 years. Oakmoor have never promoted it as available for sport, have sort charge exorbitant rents and have evaded all approaches by sports clubs to use the ground. They appear to have been determined to prevent the ground being used despite signing an undertaking that it would be used for sport when they took over the lease.

The same principle applies to all of the Sports grounds under threat in the LDP. If they are included there will. Be fewer facilities in the wrong places and less participation in sport. That in turn means a less physically and mentally fit population.

I object to the application for the No18 site to be included in the LDP for all of the above reasons.