RE: LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

This email is to set out the main reasons for my objection to and why, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) should reject planning permission being granted for the cited application to redevelop of the grounds off Sharmans Cross Road used by the Arden Club and the former ground of Birmingham and Solihull RUFC. Points have been made with reference to your document titled Reviewing the Plan for Solihull's Future; Solihull Local Plan Review; Draft Local Plan (Local Plan). It is right that SMBC follows the principles in The Plan and does not sympathetically interpret them in order to succumb to the significant Government pressure to build new homes and that the developer whose clear driving force is one of commercial gain. SMBC should also consider all the relevant facts of the previous declined application for 87 dwellings.
Local Plan P20 - This ground has been designated as a sports area and it should be retained for that purpose for at least the remaining term of the lease, 74 years I believe. Rather than redevelop the area pressure should be placed on the leaseholders to make it available to local sports groups for its intended use at an affordable price, with a view to increasing young peoples participation in sport. The Cerda Planning Limited proposal (job no 16/109) makes the point that the pitches have been unused for six years. I suggest this is not because no one wants to use them but rather, as reported, that approaches to the leaseholder by local clubs to use the field for football have not been responded to or artificially high rents were demanded. It is reported that the reason for the rugby club moving is due to the high rent demanded. A healthy community needs sports grounds; without them social issues can develop especially on estates.
As far as I am aware there are currently insufficient designated sports areas Solihull, so it makes little sense to reduce any such open space facility, also there is the proposal makes no commitment to provide equivalent or better open space areas elsewhere; certainly none that is accessible to local residents. Given the anticipated growth in the local population, unless new sports facilities are made available there will be a net reduction per head; by approving this application it would make the situation even worse and go against the policy. In this regard, the proposed relocation of the Arden Club is not taken into account as it will not generate open space. Not a planning matter but it would be commercially naive for the land owners to trade in freehold property (estimated value c£4m?) for a new facility on leasehold grounds unless commensurate compensation is also paid. My simplistic calculations suggest that it would not be commercially viable for the applicant to make such a payment.

Housing concentration - as proposed is out of keeping with the surrounding area in that the density of housing will be much greater than now (some quote up to 5x) and to achieve the 100 homes the the height of at least some units will be greater that exiting structures, making the proposal unsuitable.

Parking (Local Policy P8) - each dwelling has been allocated one space. By today's standards, with two or more cars per family being uncommon, I do not believe this is enough space and I foresee problems arising from this parking shortage for tenants, exacerbated by the competition for a reduced number of Arden Club parking spots. The obvious issues will be the frustration caused by residents parking on Arden Club space and the spillover onto Sharmans Cross Road.
The Cerda Planning Limited document (job 16/109) appears to have inaccuracies with regard to distances from the site to the railway station and town centre. This means that the cited distances and times to walk are incorrect and therefore not in line with the national planning policy framework requirements, the railway station being one kilometre away and the the town centre is over 1.50 kilometres away.
Traffic (Local Policy P8) - the development will I believe have a notable negative impact on traffic - it will increase congestion. The distance to local amenities , schools and doctors etc. will mean that many people will use the environmentally unfriendly option of the car rather than walking. That is in addition to all the usual car traffic that will take place. The impact on other road users is difficult to assess in what is an already very busy area in peak times. My main concern is the safety of the children attending Sharmans Cross junior school.
The local facilities such as schools and doctors surgeries etc. are stretched; this development will further increase demand negatively impacting existing residents in the area.
Impact on existing resident - their quality of place will be negatively impacted by this out of character, high density scheme with the added inconvenience of noise and traffic.