i am writing to object to the inclusion of the Old Rugby GroundArden club tennis site 245 in the Local Development Plan. I have objected to development on this site on three previous occasions, twice in 2009 and more recently in 2017 regarding proposed housing allocation 18 in your previous plan.

I set out below the reasons for my objections.

1) Loss of playing fields - my sons both played rugby locally and it was really unfortunate when they were no longer able to play on the playing fields on Shamans Cross Road as a result of Oakmoor acquiring the site and making it extremely difficult for sports clubs to play there. I understand there are local clubs that would like to play there and indeed the Sils football club pay regularly on the adjoining field, which our house backs on to.

I have recently become aware of commitments Solihull council made in 1965 and in 2013. It is my view that you must honour the 2013 all party policy on the rugby ground of maintaining the sports ground only covenant and not disposing of the freehold. Solihull clearly needs to retain amenity playing fields for the health of all in the borough.

2) Density of development - we already have considerable development in the area. Royal/Regent House on Homer Road is being redeveloped into 100 apartments and i understand there are options to convert wings in Sapphire House into apartments. Whilst these are sighted close to Solihull station in existing commercial buildings, this proposed site is close to existing residential areas and is out of character with the area and is highly likely to destroy mature trees and wildlife habitat. It is also difficult to see why the council would be supportive of development of even more dwellings given the addition of this large numbers of apartments on Homer/Blossomfield Road and potentially Streetsbrook Road. On the rugby club site itself the re is risk of three storey houses the most recent application for 100 houses suggests three storey houses which will destroy light for neighbouring properties and their gardens.

3) Traffic density has increased significantly over the 22 years I have lived here. So much so that in the morning the queue of cars is all the way back for Streetsbrook Road to beyond the school Crossing for Sharmans Cross School. As well as delays to travel this is highly unhealthy for both residents and children coming to school. I walk to Solihull station to commute into Birmingham and I am breathing in car fumes all the way for my house to the top of Dorchester Road. I have watched as the relatively small number of cars turning out of the Arden Club exit attempt to turn right into the traffic queue and i cannot imagine what this would be like if the extra cars for 100 new house were to attempt this each morning. Residents along Sharmans cross Road are essentially prisoners in their homes whilst this stationery traffic snakes along the road. All of this is particularly concerning given this is a cycle route and there are many children either walking or cycling on their way to school.

4) Infrastructure is inadequate to cope with this scale of development. The drains and sewers along Sharmans Cross Road are relatively old and were not built for this increased density of housing. We were perhaps lucky last summer with hot dry weather but flooding along the road near Sharmans Cross School usually occurs each year when there are several days of rain. Thee are also hard pressed local GP surgeries where it is increasingly difficult to obtain appointments.

5) I am told there were errors in Oakmoors LDP application and this leads me to wonder why this site has been included despite extensive objections in the past and this flawed application. SMBC should insist that Oakmoor make the playing fields accessible at a reasonable rent for local sports clubs instead of facilitating profiteering by a company that has been thorn in the side of the local community for the last 10 years.

In summary I object to the inclusions of site 245 in the LDP for the reasons i set out above