Sharmans Cross Road development
I am writing to voice my strong objections to the above proposed planning allocation for houses to be built on the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road Solihull.

I have several concerns in relation to this development, all of which in my view render it highly inappropriate to give consent for the construction of housing on this site.

Traffic congestion, highways safety issues, parking and pollution
The proposed development is too large and will have a serious impact on what is already a congested busy area. Sharmans Cross Road is already gridlocked in the mornings from 7.45am to 9am with traffic headed towards Streetsbrook Road and parking for Sharmans Cross School. We often have challenges in exiting our house to travel to work and school because of the queue of traffic along the road. A further 100 houses will add considerably more volume, causing safety issues in the road with people exiting the proposed site in large numbers at peak times.

The access to and from the site will also be limited and likely to be through one point on Sharmans Cross Road. This will cause a pinch point at busy times, with cars turning in and out, adding to the safety issues which already exist on this busy road.

This will also increase the risk to pedestrians, in particular school children making their way on foot to Sharmans Cross School and other local secondary schools. The parking situation at the school is already very challenging with cars parked on pavements and blocking the flow of cars along the road. It is already a dangerous situation which will be greatly increased if this development proceeds.

Given this congestion there is already an issue with cyclists who struggle to navigate the road already when it is most busy despite it being a designated cycling route and often resort to mounting the pavement, increasing the risk of injury to pedestrians. This is also likely to become worse.

Parking - in addition to obvious issues with finding parking space for the residents of the 100 proposed houses on such a tight piece of land for such a large development, the Arden Tennis Club would lose around 75 parking spaces. I question where will they park? I assume on the road which will further add to the safety and congestions issues I have noted above.

Clearly, the proposed increase in housing will also lead to increased pollution levels, exacerbated by the need to queue with idle engines in the street at peak times. This is not acceptable.

Suitability, design and appearance
The proposed development of 100 homes, including affordable housing (up to 50 houses, which presumably may comprise housing association properties extending to more than 2 stories high) will have a serious detrimental impact on the current character of this neighborhood. This is a well established area with traditional, sympathetic housing, considerable tree coverage affording appropriate privacy but with adequate light and line of sight. The development proposed will destroy the character of this area. 100 houses on that site is 5 times the density of housing on Winterbourne Road for example.

Solihull is highly valued for its environmental quality including many mature trees and Tree Preservation Orders. A development of this scale will destroy the local environmental quality enjoyed by many residents and may also have a significant impact on the natural habitats for local wildlife.

This proposed development is an unacceptable over-development of a relatively small area of land, both out of scale and out of character in appearance to the existing property development in the vicinity of the rugby ground. The development will lead to loss of light, privacy and overshadowing issues.

Most importantly, as noted below, this land is retained for sporting purposes (and has both the rugby pitches and an existing tennis club within its overall boundaries) and is too small and not suitable for such a development.

Use of land and sustainability
SMBC formally minuted in 2013 that its policy was to retain the rugby ground land for sports purposes only and that it would not sell the freehold on this land. I would like confirmation from you that this policy is still in force which would imply that the proposed development of housing on this site is not appropriate and that it should not therefore be included in the LDP for the area.

Further to this, the National Planning Policy Framework requires developments of this nature to have access to local amenities within 800m/10 minutes walk. The site is 1700m from Solihull town centre and 1000m from the railway station so these criteria are not met.

Drainage and flooding
There are existing drainage and flooding issues in Sharmans Cross Raod. Our back garden and lawn frequently flood in heavy rain due to the lack of flow through of drainage water in the area. Then road can also flood near the school area. A further 100 homes and the related needs for drainage will have a serious additional impact on this existing problem.

Schools and local medical facilities
These are already over-subscribed and this development will place a significant further burden on school places and access to medical care leading to a loss of quality and safety of those services, and have a serious detrimental impact on those services for existing local residents.

Permanent loss of sporting facilities
This is one of 5 sports grounds at risk in Solihull in the LDP. There is a current shortage of pitches and sports facilities in the area, and SMBC has a statutory duty to ensure lost pitches are replaced with facilities of an equivalent standard and accessibility is not reduced. Despite the economic success in the area, Sport England has reported that Solihull is in the third quartile nationally for over 16 sports participation (3 time per week or more) and continues to fall in the national league tables. The removal of sports grounds such as Sharmans Cross Road will only add to this issue.

I want to voice my strong request that the 2013 all party policy on the Rugby Ground on maintaining the sports ground only covenant and not selling the freehold be retained.

In summary, for the reasons outlined above I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of this land in the SMBC LDP and would politely ask that it is not progressed any further.