Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7506

Received: 10/03/2019

Respondent: Neil Eaton

Representation Summary:

Objection to Site 18:
- Site should be retained for sports use
- Existing covenant on site placed by SMBC all-party committee - what is the policy on lifting that?
- Density of housing inappropriate and out of character with the area
- Comments in Para. 271 are inaccurate
- Existing traffic and parking problems would be worsened
- Pow Coppice should be protected for wildlife

Full text:

Local Development Plan Site 18 - Sharmans Cross Road
I write in relation to the Local Development Plan (LDP) and specifically the above - The old rugby ground/Arden tennis club site, off Sharmans Cross Road.

In 2013 SMBC, affirmed as a policy that SMBC would not sell the freehold of the site or lift relevant covenants regarding the site, which ensure that the site is only used for sporting purposes. I understand that it was in fact an all-party committee of SMBC that confirmed this policy. What is the position with regard to this policy now? Has it been changed? If not then arguably the site should never have been included in the LDP as proper procedures have not been adhered to. The site should be removed immediately from the LDP.

Comments within paragraph 271 of the LDP are not accurate and arguably distort the position.

The above points are powerful arguments that SMBC will no doubt face if matters proceed with the site.

However, regardless of legal challenges as above, there are many other reasons why this site should not be considered for housing and why SMBC should honour previous commitments. To name but a few:

1. the suggested density of housing would simply be inappropriate for the area, fundamentally altering its character and distinction.

2. traffic in the area is already a concern and by putting the density of housing on this site would only increase that problem.

3. parking problems that currently exist would be exaggerated.

4. Pow Coppice is vitally important for wildlife and needs to be protected. A housing development as suggested would not do this.

I oppose the inclusion of the above site in the LDP and I oppose any development of the site as has been suggested.