My objections to this development are the same as they were in 2017.

Loss of Sporting Amenity
--------------------------------
The borough plan acknowledges the importance of improving health and well being within Challenge J and the plan expresses the desire to;

* Promote development that contributes to a healthy and safe population by providing for opportunities to enable people to pursue an active lifestyle and make healthier choices.
* Ensure development promotes positive outcomes for physical and mental health and wellbeing through its location, layout and design, inclusion of appropriate levels of open space and the protection and improvement of air quality.
The table states correctly in the reasons and conditions column that the sports ground is currently unused, but this does not reflect a lack of interest in the facilities but rather an unwillingness by the development company that has acquired the lease to allow the facilities to be used. It appears that while they have been approached to negotiate use of the facilities they have refused to engage as it is not in their interest for the sports facilities to be used. Development of the site would require re-provision of the sports pitches if not in surplus. Given that there is a shortage of pitches in Solihull it is difficult to see how this can be replaced with a facility that has the same quality (e.g. changing rooms and toilet facilities for both males and females) and equally accessible. As a parent I know how difficult it is to encourage an active lifestyle and removing facilities will make this even harder.
The logic of moving the Arden club facilities onto the rugby ground, then building on the Arden club site and also replacing the pitches elsewhere seems incredibly inefficient. If there is a site which could be developed into replacement pitches, why not build houses there instead and save the cost and disruption of moving the Arden club buildings?

Housing density
--------------------
Policy P5 states "The density of new housing will make the most efficient use of land whilst providing an appropriate mix and maintaining character and local distinctiveness."
Looking at the likely area of construction suggests a property density which is five times the density of the neighbouring properties on Winterbourne Rd which is totally at odds with the local character. Given the previous application for a smaller number of dwellings required three storey buildings, it is likely that this would also be required to cram properties onto this site which would again be out of character with the area and would be likely to impact significantly on the neighbouring properties in terms of light, privacy and overshadowing.


Impact on traffic & Parking
-----------------------------------
I am very familiar with the traffic issues on Sharman's Cross Road, especially around the start and end of the school day, and also the junction between Sharmans Cross and Streetsbrook road before 9am. The additional traffic that would be associated with the new homes would make existing congestion problems worse and also could have an impact on the safety of others, particularly children walking to and from school and cyclists. While I note that there is the possibility of widening the exit, this wouldn't counter all the difficulties associated with joining the main road.
Similarly, there would be a potential impact on parking both at the Arden site and along Sharmans Cross Road, which is already problematic at school drop off / pick up times.

Conserving the qualities of the Mature Suburbs
---------------------------------------------------------------

Having lived in other Birmingham suburbs, I can say that Solihull has something special. The attractiveness of the physical environment has a lot to do with it. The number of trees mixed in with the housing, housing design and sense of space should be vigorously defended. At one point areas were threatened by developers buying up neighbouring large houses to replace them with very crowded new buildings that were not in keeping with their surroundings, but thankfully this seems to have ceased. This development would have the same effect but on a slightly larger scale and I cannot see the sense in prohibiting one type of development and not the other.

Pressure on local services
-----------------------------------
There is no spare capacity at the local schools or health facilities, but rather these are already oversubscribed. I note that this is acknowledged in the likely infrastructure requirements assessment and again extending the capacity in the area seems unlikely and providing additional capacity elsewhere will result in poorer service to existing residents.

Similarly, the area is prone to flooding and by replacing the rugby pitch with a less permeable surface is likely to worsen the issue. The likely infrastructure requirements don't include upgrading the areas drainage.

Ethical considerations
-----------------------------
As an aside, while I understand that this falls outside the planning assessment criteria, it is still worth reflecting on the behaviour of the developers that own the leasehold to the rugby ground. It seems they were dishonest about their intentions when they first acquired the land and have since been dishonest in the way they represented the support of the Arden club, while at the same time preventing the use of a sporting facility by the local community. Rewarding unethical behaviour would seem the best way to promote ever increasing levels of unethical behaviour in the future, creating even more obstacles to a local plan that already contains a good number of challenges.