Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7898

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Surinder Jassal

Representation Summary:

Objection to Site 18:
- Land should be retained for sports use/green space
- Site not comply with accessibility criteria in the NPPF
- TPOs should be retained and protected
- Wildlife will be affected
- Detrimental impact on character of area, will cause disruption, loss of light, privacy, traffic, potential crime, pollution, cleanliness
- Increase in traffic, parking issues and pollution
- Existing flooding issues
- Schools and medical centres oversubscribed

Full text:

Site 18
Please accept this e-mail as a formal objection to the proposed plan for building houses at the rugby ground site on Sharmans Cross Road.

First of all the grounds have benefitted from sporting facilities over a number of years and any development in this area would constitute as loss for any sports enthusiast currently using the grounds. This has been a natural green habitat for 100+ years and any development would bring ruin and congestion to the unspoilt area.

1. Loss of sporting facilities - This is an area which is extensively used for sporting enthusiasts. Not only for this, it is also utilised by families to bring their children and for those with animals. SMBC has a statutory requirement to ensure loss of pitches are replaced with facilities of equivalent quality and accessibility. Sport England has found that Solihull is in the 3rd quartile nationally for over-16 participation in sport three times per week and continues to fall in the national league tables. If this land is replaced by a development then this statistic would surely decline rapidly over the years.
2. With regards to the use of the land - SMBC has formally stated in 2013 that the grounds were to be used for sports only and so the freehold will NOT be sold at any cost. This policy should be reaffirmed that has strictly said that any such development is NOT appropriate for inclusion in the local development plan.
3. For sustainability purposes the site will not be within walking distance to Solihull town centre or Solihull train station which breaches policy set by the National Planning & Policy Framework of having local amenities within an 800m distance.
4. Natural habitat - Solihull is a naturally green area and having big building projects such as these will destroy the surrounding habitat, trees, natural vegetation as well as local wildlife dwellings. Endangered species of bats and badgers will be at great risk. Another point to highlight is that there are a number of Tree Preservation Orders (TPO's) in the area which would be affected - these are critical to climate change, wildlife and photosynthesis
5. Surrounding area - The area will lose its entire character and appearance if the suggested number of properties are built in such a small space. This will specifically cause disruption, loss of light, privacy, traffic, incidents, potential crime, pollution and the general cleanliness of the surroundings left compromised.
6. Exponential increase in traffic and pollution - The traffic volume will increase which will cause further disruption to an already busy network of roads and pose hazardous for children that attend Sharmans Cross Junior School from increased threat from more vehicles on the road. Parking will also become difficult if residents park on the streets and in front of other resident homes.
7. Road Flooding - Sharmans Cross Road has been subjected to flooding when rain has been heavy so over developing here will only add to this problem.
8. Schooling and medical centres - Schools and medical centres are already bursting at the seams and it is near impossible to get children into the preference of choice or be able to obtain a doctors' appointment in the area. Further development will lead to a degradation of service for the current residents. or diminish completely
There are many negative consequences for this development as pointed out above. Consideration should be given first and foremost to the current residents and not developers interested in their own gains. This will seriously affect the character of the area as well as diminish the surrounding environment. The negatives simply outweigh the positives for this development so it would be better that the proposal was rejected and considered for another area instead