18 Solihull - Sharmans Cross Road

see attached letter

Houses on Sharmans cross Road

i write as a concerned resident, opposed to the development of the Bees site Sharmans cross road.
surly, suitability of this site as a housing development is questionable.
Local amenities, Doctors, Dentists, Schools are already oversubscribed and further demand can only serve to degrade these services further.
The road layout would have to be significantly changed to accommodate the increased volume of traffic, totally destroying the character of this well established neighbourhood.
Work done in Winterbourne Road recently, to improve drainage was, at best, a minor improvement and the the area remains, prone to flooding.
Additional demand will only exacerbate the problem.
Pedestrian safety will also become an issue, particularly, to pupils at Sharmans cross junior School and the local secondary schools.
The existing community needs to be considered. Affordable housing on a premium location is an oxymoron and makes me very nervous.
Communities need recreational sites. If the development goes ahead, there will be a further Two Hundred plus people forced to travel further and further to ever diminishing facilities.

see letter and supporting documents for Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Nos. 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I wish to register my many objections to this site being included in the Local Plan.

My objections are many:

1. Loss of wildlife habitat - it provides a haven for wildlife within an otherwise built up area. Its not just the common animals and birds that would suffer but rarer badgers, bats, woodpeckers, hawks and hedgehogs as well. These would all be displaced.

2. Permanent loss of sports field - there is a shortage of pitches for our youngsters within the community already, many have been sacrificed over the last 30 years and this site must not be lost. The existing lessee must be forced to allow it to be used for its intended purpose, or lose the lease.

3. Loss of local recreational facility - this field provides locals with a vital open space to walk and relax and exercise their dogs, kick balls about and fly kites.

4. Unsuitable development - the density of the planned site is many times that of the surrounding houses and would be out of character for the area

5. Increased traffic - the extra traffic generated by the development will cause serious overloading of the already busy junctions of Sharmans Cross Road, giving increased queue lengths at rush hour at both ends of the road. The access road will form another side road queue to this road system that is already overloaded at rush hour. The additional junction is almost opposite Woodside Way, so the added complexity in the traffic flow at this point increases accident risk, and risk to cyclists and school children alike. There will also be an increase in traffic exhaust pollution.

6. Lack of adequate parking - the development will give rise to at least an additional 160 vehicles. The development itself is unlikely to provide enough parking capacity and cars will inevitably spill onto Sharmans Cross road itself, again adding another increment to the traffic dangers. Also the existing site provides overflow parking for Solihull Arden Tennis club, the loss of which will add hugely to the parking problem.

7. Poor drainage and increased flood risk - Sharmans Cross road historically floods easily and the additional dwellings will add to the overload the drainage systems.

8. Overload of schools and medical centres - these are already oversubscribed and more population means poorer service for existing residents

In conclusion, this should not be included in the local plan. Its submission is a re-run of a previous planning application already refused on the overwhelming evidence of the unsuitability and availability of this site.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

As a resident of Sharmans Cross Road I am writing to object in the strongest terms to the possible inclusion of the development of 100 houses on the current rugby ground at Sharmans Cross Road in the local development plan (LDP).

The proposed development of the ground has been the subject of two planning applications over the last few years, one of which was refused on planning grounds and the other withdrawn. That in itself evidences the fact that the site is not suitable for development. The reasons for the planning refusal in 2009 remain and are exacerbated by the increased size, scale and density of the development contemplated by the LDP. In those circumstances it is extremely disappointing that the Council believes it acceptable to put the local community through yet another period of planning related concern.

There are a large number of grounds which support the position that the development proposed to be included in the LDP would be inappropriate and potentially in breach of planning policy, and that including it is not a decision any reasonable local authority in the position of the Council should make. These include:

1 The size, scale and density of the development (which I understand would need to include 3 storey buildings) will be completely out of character with the surrounding area both generally and in its appearance. There is no development of similar size and scale in the locality. It will give rise to serious noise, loss of light, loss of privity and local pollution issues for current local residents.

2 The development would destroy a green space enjoyed by local residents which houses mature trees and other flora and is a home to a variety of wildlife. That would all be irreplaceable.

3 Solihull (and particularly central Solihull) has a serious lack of sporting facilities and green open spaces for leisure use. The Council has a statutory obligation to ensure that any lost sports facilities are replaced with facilities which are equally accessible. There is no space in the local area (in walking or cycling distance) where such facilities could be located. In a time of serious and increasing national concerns over lack of participation in sport and the ensuing medium and long term health effects (for both children and adults) the loss of a space which could (if utilised properly by the Council) provide a facility capable of being used for such purposes would appear completely unjustifiable.

4 I have seen a copy of the original lease of the land between The Trustees of the Solihull Rugby Union Club and The Mayor Alderman and Burgesses of the County Borough of Solihull. It contains a covenant on the part of the tenant to ensure that the land is only used as a private sports ground. That evidences the importance the Council placed on the recreational value of the land in 1969. Since then leisure/green spaces in the Borough have reduced dramatically and the recreational value of the land increased accordingly. I understand that the Council acknowledged this in 2013 confirming its policy with regards to the use of the land solely for sport and that it would not sell the freehold. There is no objective justification for a change in that policy. Indeed the Council should be actively enforcing the covenant and reconfirming that policy.

5 Traffic (and the associated pollution) in the vicinity of Sharmans Cross Road is already at increasingly dangerous levels. Sharmans Cross Road itself cannot cope with current rush hour traffic with regular gridlock resulting in numerous accidents particularly at the Streetsbrook Road junction. The increased traffic which would inevitably arise if the land is developed would have a serious effect on the safety (and potentially health) of road users, cyclists (Sharmans Cross Road is a designated cycle route) and pedestrians including children walking to the local junior school.

5 The development (and the potential loss of parking at Solihull Arden Club) will lead to increased parking on local roads (both main roads and smaller residential roads). Parking in the area is already a major issue and gives rise to serious safety concerns during busy periods.

6 Sharmans Cross Road is already prone to serious flooding issues during periods of heavy rain. Any significant development would increase flooding issues with consequent negative impacts on the health and properties of affected residents.

7 Schools and medical centres in the area are already over subscribed. There is no possibility of them coping with the increasing demands on services the development would bring. Additionally I understand that the National Policy Planning Framework requirements regarding the distance between developments and local amenities would not be met.

As noted above I strongly object to the the proposal to include the rugby club land in the LDP .

Please can you acknowledge receipt of this e-mail.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I live in Dorchester Road and so am writing to express my concern at the above proposal for the following reasons:

1. Increase in volume of traffic. Currently it is extremely slow to get onto Streetsbrook Road from Dorchester or Sharmans Cross. Adding 100 additional houses will greatly exacerbate that problem.
2. This will lead to safety issues for both pedestrians (especially school children at Sharmans Cross School) and cyclists.
3. This will also affect the level of air pollution in the surrounding area especially as many cars will be stationary with engines idling.
4. There is not the infrastructure in terms of schools (Sharmans Cross or Tudor Grange) to cope with an additional influx of people.
5. Medical facilities are already stretched to breaking point. I currently wait for at least 1 week for a doctor's appointment.
6. This level of housing density is completely at odds with all the surrounding houses.
7. Loss of sporting facilities - when a key government policy is to encourage people to be more active, loss of such facilities makes no sense.

It is my conclusion that the proposal is contrary to current local and regional planning policies and so should be rejected.

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

To whom it may concern.

Once again a sporting facility, green space is under threat of disappearing
so that many more houses can be crammed into an unsuitable area. Sharmans Cross
Road is extremely congested at both school start and finishing times. By
building this proposed housing estate development on the rugby field,
adding potentially, another 100+ cars into the mix, would compromise the
inevitable road safety issues for our children, as risk becomes even more
heightened. The carbon footprint would also increase and the prospect of
more housing within this area would have a direct knock on effect to school
placements, already under a great deal of pressure. It's a well known fact
that open spaces are a health benefit to everyone. Surely there are other
pieces of land ripe for re-development such as old office buildings no
longer being used, in prime locations with direct and easy access onto the
road infrastructure. Yet again we are faced with another example of
developers being given the opportunity to build what ever and where ever
they want, which is to generate themselves presumably a good profit.

see attached letter

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I am writing to record my objection to the inclusion of the site at Sharmans Cross Road being including in the LDP.

I am a member of the Solihull Arden Club and a local resident living on Dorchester Road.

According to Council documents this land has a covenant that restricts its use to that for sports use only and it is therefore totally inappropriate to be considered for inclusion in any non-sports related development and therefore the LDP.

In addition and very specifically the council states as a number one objective pitches should not be built on.
This commitment would exclude planning consent to build over the 2 pitches with a redeveloped Arden club

I request the council confirms that the council will not renege on its previous policy of not selling the freehold for sites where grounds are only for sport.

I am very concerned about additional traffic being generated on Sharman's cross road which already has significant issues at school times and peak traffic times caused by the difficult junction on to Streetsbrook road and having Sharman's cross school located on the road. This is a major safety concern especially for the attendees of the junior school.
With the loss of parking spaces within the site additional on road parking would exacerbate the current situation further.


I do not believe the site meets key sustainability criteria stated in the national planning framework where developments need to be within set distances of facilities which this site does not meet.

In addition I doubt the current schools and medical centres can cope with the additional capacity required from the proposed number of dwellings, other local residents already in the catchment areas could suffer.

see attached letter

see attached letter

Site 18

I wish to record my objection to the proposed development on the Sports Ground behind Sharmans Cross Road most strongly.

1. With an ever increasing population if is wrong in principle to reduce any ground or facility that can be used for healthy sport & recreational activities

2. Any increase the density of housing and the subsequent residents in this area can only add to the problems we have with all support services & infrastructure. In this area of Solihull our schools & medical support services are already over stretched by the existing demands upon them

3 If you insert 100 homes, (some which may be 3 stories high) the roads & paved areas will increase the fast run off of rainwater in a road that already floods,making the situation worse.Sharmans Cross Road traffic locks solid nose to tail, Public transport has great difficulty in negotiating cars delivering children to school at present & any increase in traffic will only make this worse. Danger to pedestrians, unaccompanied children attending the Junior school & those making their way to the secondary schools on adjoining roads, either on foot or cycling (this is supposed to be an approved route) will be in increased danger. There is gridlock at the Streetsbrook Road junction at present during peak times.

4. Presently this area, including the open land is a well balanced marriage between residential development & recreation, this proposal would destroy that. It provides an environment for much wild life & many mature trees, some subject to preservation orders. We can develop this further for additional sporting activities, since it is accessible to surrounding residents & schools, promoting health giving exercise & reducing calls upon medical services

Please reject this proposed development.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I am writing to object to the proposed development of 100 houses on the Sharmans Cross Road rugby ground. My reasons for objecting are :

1 The effect on the traffic in Sharmans Cross Road. As a frequent user of Sharmans Cross Road I am already affected by the congestion at certain times of day - mainly morning rush hour and school start/finish times. At these times the parked cars along the road are a major obstruction and it is effectively reduced to a single lane road. This causes delays and the parked vehicles can prevent motorists easily seeing pedestrians who may be trying to cross the road or enter/leave the parked vehicles.The traffic generated by the additional houses will only make a bad situation worse.

2 The loss of sporting facilities. SMBC should be actively encouraging people to play sports - not removing facilities which enable them to do so. Once built on the sports grounds will never be reclaimed for sport and the creeping urbanisation will result in progressive degradation of the environment.

3 The effect on wildlife. Any reduction in green sites like the rugby ground will damage wildlife habitats, particularly if mature trees are destroyed.

4 The scale and density of the proposed development. The proposals are totally inappropriate and fit badly with the much lower existing housing density in the surrounding area. There would also be increased pressure on local schools and medical facilities.

5 SMBC policy on the use of the grounds. I would like to see SMBC confirm its policy, which was minuted in 2013, that they would not sell the freehold of the land which would only be used for sport.

I have given my objections below to the proposed housing allocation 18 in the LDP.

Objection Reason for objection

Loss of sporting facilities Solihull is in the 3rd quartile nationally for over 16 participation in sport.
There is now irrefutable evidence that exercise has massive health benefits.
The NHS and social care are in crisis. Diabetes (strongly linked to lack of exercise) is costing the NHS 14 billion pounds a year.

The eminent surgeon, Lord McColl, said in the Lords this month: "The problem isn't that old people are getting older it is that young people are getting fatter."

The Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, has expressed serious concern that: "Three quarters of young people are spending less time outdoors than prison inmates."

In short, we are sitting on a health time bomb that cannot be ignored.

At the same time, there is massive demand to use the playing fields at Sharmans Cross and the demand and need for playing fields in the borough is only going to rise.

At a recent public meeting it was incredibly sad to hear sports organisers say that they were desperate to use Sharmans Cross playing fields but they were unable to do so. What kind of borough are we living in?

It is self-evident that it would be irresponsible, beyond belief, to concrete over these precious playing fields.

Use of land In 2013 Solihull Council affirmed its commitment that Sharmans Cross playing fields should be used only for sport and that they would not sell the freehold.

An unsuitable development that will have a detrimental effect on the character of the area. The proposed housing density is totally out of character with the area and is five times the density of that in the surrounding roads.
It can only be described as over-development, being out of scale and out of character with the area.

A large risk to pedestrian and cyclists' safety. Sharmans Cross Road pavement is a designated cycle route. The large volume of traffic that will have to cross the pavement to enter or leave the proposed development will be very dangerous for cyclists.
A large number of children and parents use the road to go to and from Sharmans Cross Junior School and such a large increase in the volume of the traffic will put children at great risk.

Road congestion and gridlock. With the large amount of traffic entering and leaving the new development the new junction on to Sharmans Cross Road will cause gridlock during the morning and evening rush-hours. Half of the traffic will want to turn right and will not be able to move at busy times.
Increase in pollution from stationary cars. At busy times the gridlocked stationary cars will be emitting diesel fumes that pedestrian and cyclists will breath in. This will include children going to school at the time when pollution is at its highest levels.
On street parking would increase The loss in parking spaces at the Arden Club would cause chaos on Sharmans Cross Road as it is already difficult and potentially dangerous at school drop off and pick up times.
The current problem of flooding in Sharmans Cross Road would get worse. The large additional pressure put on the drainage and sewerage system would increase the amount of flooding that already takes place on Sharmans Cross Road during heavy rain.
Local schools and medical centres in this part of Solihull are already over-subscribed. Such a development would add to the current problem of schools and medical centres in this area being unable to cope with demand.
Suitable brown field sites are not being designated for housing. I personally know of one very suitable brown field site in Birmingham, similar in size to the proposed development, that has not been designated for housing on Birmingham's plan.
The development is not sustainable. The site is more than 800 metres from local amenities and does not, therefore, meet the criteria of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The development will destroy mature trees and the natural habitat for bats, badgers and owls. The Borough's motto Urbs in Rure correctly describes why Solihull is so appreciated throughout the county. This part of Solihull is especially valued for its benefits to the environment, including trees with preservation orders, badgers, bats, and a wide variety of birds including owls and sparrow hawks (recent photo below of Sparrow hawk in Sharmans Cross Road).
See Attached Photo

SHARMANS CROSS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

I am writing to register my opposition to the planned building project detailed above.
My concerns are based on the effect such increases will have on the already severely stretched public services.
For example hospital waiting lists, doctors surgeries, dentists etc.
To get an appointment at an nhs surgery can take upwards of 2 weeks, A&E issues are well document and obtaining a NHS dentist is currently taking me 9 months.
Furthermore I am aware of the critical problems associated with day care in the community, this proposal will only exacerbate these issues
Has there been a thorough and detailed investigation into assessing the affects these increases will have as a result of an increased population in the area. Futhermore there are also a number of retirement homes being built which will also add to local pressures.
I am not aware of any extra NHS surgeries indeed the Solihull Walk in centre has recently closed. There are no new schools, and Solihull hospital now provides a much curtailed service.
Will the increases also be reflected in increases to front line service staff who undertake home visits to the old and infirm, I doubt that. Increased houses and population must be fully supported by a local support structure. Will there be extra doctors/dentist surgeries, extra school facilities and front line NHS staff.
Surely before pushing ahead with any major development a full and concise investigation must be undertaken into the above issues. This should then be communicated to Solihull residents in order for them to fully understand all the implications involved, and how Solihull Council will deal effectively with them.
I fear that without that we will experience increased problems, which will only serve as a detriment to Solihull residents.
I await your response

see attached letter

RE : LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I am writing to register my objection to the proposed allocation of land on Sharmans Cross Road, utilising the Rugby club and adjoining Arden Tennis Club land.

My reasons for this are listed below:-

1. Flooding - this Section of Sharmans Cross road regularly floods when we have excessive rainfall, removing green land will only add to the problem. The current drainage system is old and on at least two occasions in the last 15 years I have walked my children to school through sewage which has overflowed on to Solihull Road.

2. 100 houses proposed - where are the owners of these houses going to obtain school places, (already at maximum capacity) access medical facilities such as doctors, dentists. The local hospital no longer has an A & E or maternity facility and already operates on overload forcing residents outside of the borough.

3. Traffic - getting around this part of Solihull is already slow and hazardous, visibility for traffic exiting this sight is not good, the increased volume of traffic will have a direct impact on the local community. There is a school nearby which suffers from parking issues and child safety should be a priority. The added volume will have direct impact on pedestrians and cyclists in the area.

4. Local sporting facilities - We hear lots in the media about children having a sedentary lifestyle due to the advancements of the internet and a reluctance to play outside. Continually removing sporting facilities will only make these issues worse. Sports Clubs promote the feeling of community togetherness and contribute to the wellbeing of the local community. Sport teaches discipline and fair play; a healthy body is a healthy mind.

We are told in the media that Solihull is one of the most desired areas to live but on the other hand we fall extremely short in having good quality sports facilities available.

Finally, I would remind you that this land has been suggested for housing in the past and planning has been refused, nothing has changed, this land is designated for sport.

see attached letter

see attached letter

LDP Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Sharman's Cross Road Rugby Ground

I wish to strongly object to the use of the above Sports ground being used for housing or any development that is not for sporting use.

This ground was designated by Solihull Council for sporting use only and leased the land for that purpose.

Since the present holder acquired the lease in 2010/11? no sporting event has been held on this ground. Although I believe that the owners have been approached on numerous occasions for permission to use the ground but all have either not received any reply or on one occasion was asked to pay a disproportion amount for a small amateur club that they could not possibly afford. I understand the ground rent paid by the owners is only £250. To make it more unattractive for clubs to use, the club house and changing rooms have been demolished.

As it would appear that the owners have no intention of ever allowing this ground to be used for sport. I believe they have broken the terms of the lease and therefore the lease should revert back to Solihull MBC.

LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation 18

As a householder in Dorchester Road I wish to object to the above proposal to build
100 houses on the former BEES Rugby Club site on Sharmans Cross Road on the
following grounds:

* The traffic situation at the junction of Sharmans Cross Road, Streetsbrook Road,
Stonor Park Road and Dorchester Road is already chaotic and dangerous at peak
times, and additional traffic from so many new houses can only make the situation
worse.
In addition school traffic increase in Sharmans Cross Road and surrounding roads
will cause additional danger to school children and parents.

* We have concerns that Schools and health services in the local area will struggle
to accommodate additional residents and the resulting quality of services provided
will deteriorate. I note that Tudor Grange School has already lost its top Ofstead
rating.

* As a former player at the rugby club I wish this facility to be returned to supporting
local area field sporting activities.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I would like to register my objection to the proposed housing allocation 18 and planning application fro the following reasons.

The traffic in Sharmans Cross rd at school times does not exceed 5MPH, With excess of 12 single and double decker buses per hour using Sharmans Cross rd, the majority being diesel engined, I would be concerned that any further traffic increase would expose the school children to dangerous levels of diesel fumes.

The traffic grid lock at peak hours causes drivers to use the pavement to continue there journey, any increase in traffic will again increase the safety concerns for pedestrians.

The extra housing would put even more pressure on the currently oversubscribed schools and medical centres with the in Solihull.

The intensity of the development is out of keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.

There are less public amenities and parkland now in central Solihull than there were in 60's, yet the population has more than doubled, this development will only add to the imbalance. Maybe you should change the town motto.

There are badgers, foxes and bats living within the area and these will all lose valuable habitat should if this development is accepted. Maybe you should change the town motto now.

I would like to know if Solihull Council still intend to honour their agreement in 2013 to uphold the covenant that the grounds should only be used for sport and they would not sell the freehold.

(LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18)

I understand that Solihull Metropolitan Council has been asked to approve planning permission for this proposed development. Whilst I am aware that the Government requires affordable housing to be built, in my opinion this development is far too big in scope.

Consequently the 50 houses identified to be 'affordable homes' and likely to be housing association properties should be approved for building to commence in due course.

However NO more than 50 homes should be built because any more properties agreed will be detrimental for the area. This is because greatly increased traffic movement will be a hazard for pedestrians in the vicinity of Sharmans Cross School. Also I am aware that at times flooding is already an issue in the area.

I understand that previous applications have stalled at this stage in the proceedings.
Consequently I thank you for your consideration for this development to be passed as amended.

LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I am writing to object to the proposal for the development of 100 houses on Sharman's Cross Road as included in the LDP.

I would like to make the following points-

1. Loss of sporting facilities.
I am very concerned that this land, which is designated to be used solely for sport, will be lost to the area. It is vital for the health and well being of our children that their need for sporting opportunities is prioritised. I am particularly aggrieved at the devious approach taken by Oakmoor in this regard. In their submission they imply that, since the land was vacated by the rugby club, it is no longer in demand for sporting purposes. They present it as derelict, having fallen into disuse and being subject to vandalism. However, the reality is that the land is very much sought after for sporting purposes. I am aware that the adjoining football club,as well as many other children's football clubs, have approached Oakmoor to use the pitches. However, their approaches have either been disregarded by Oakmoor or the costs have been prohibitively high. I feel that Oakmoor has deliberately prevented this land being used for sporting purposes in order to forge ahead with their plans for a residential development.

2. Loss of green space
This land is highly valued by local residents as a green space with environmental and community benefits. When not in use for rugby and football, we have taken our children there for picnics, walks and community cricket and rounders. For us it would be detrimental to our quality of life for this valued green space to disappear.

3. Increased volume of traffic
The development will impact considerably on traffic congestion in the area. This is already a problem on Streetsbrook Road, Sharmans Cross Road and Blossomfield Road. Further traffic entering and leaving the proposed site would cause unacceptable havoc. It would also increase the risks to road users and unaccompanied school children.

4. Lack of infrastructure to support the development.
In order to support such a dense development, attention needs to be given to ensure the necessary infrastructure is in place. I would be concerned about the availability of local school places and health provision.

5. The implications for Solihull Arden club members As a club member I am assured that the club is not party to any agreement with Oakmoor in terms of relocation and selling the land it owns. There has been no consultation with members on the issue and it would not seem to be in the club's interests to proceed in this way. In these circumstances I feel that the application is based on a false premise and should not proceed without full consultation and the agreement of the club.

6. Parking
The proposal allows for 1 car parking space per unit. This is not realistic and would mean residents of the proposed new development parking on Solihull Arden car park or in local roads. This would add to the congestion, particularly as many local roads are very narrow. In addition I would suggest that Oakmoor has provided inaccurate information about the accessibility of the development to Solihull, possibly to justify allowing only 1 car parking space per unit. In my view any proposed development would need at least 2 car parking spaces per unit and thus a proposal for 100 houses on the site is impractical as well as undesirable.

I hope you will consider these objections and recognise the importance of continuing to use this land for sport.

Sharmans Cross Development

To whom it may concern,

It a was a real shock when I heard of the proposed housing development on the land currently occupied by the rugby and tennis facilities. I strongly object to these proposals and give below some objections which require serious consideration;

1. Solihull Council are committed to reserving space in the borough for sports and recreation facilities necessary for the education and general wellbeing of children and residents. In view of the current emphasis on sporting activities, the local loss of the rugby and tennis facilities thus aggravating the current shortage of sporting facilities.

2.The high density of the proposed housing and the character of the buildings are not in keeping with surrounding properties. It is also suggested that some of the properties will be more than two stories high leading to loss of privacy and overshadowing of existing properties. A limit of two stories must be imposed.

3. The exiting of residents of the proposed site on to Sharmans Cross Road will create further chaos to the existing problems of congestion and gridlock situations. Thereby creating safety hazards for children,cyclists, pedestrians and other users of this very busy road. Also the exit is close to the Sharmans Cross Junior School thereby creating further safety problems for children and parents.It has been suggested that a further access could be created in Winterbourne Road which is a narrow road serving local residents and not suited to volume traffic.

4. It is of some concern that the news relating to the Tennis Club was published and handled in such a devious way.

Solihull Local Plan Review - Sport England consultation response
Sport England would like to make the following comments:

Borough wide Challenges
Sport England support the identification of Challenges H, J and K. These Challenges are consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and are consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.

Policy P15: Securing Design Quality
Sport England, in conjunction with Public Health England, has produced 'Active Design' (October 2015), a guide to planning new developments that create the right environment to help people get more active, more often in the interests of health and wellbeing. The guidance sets out ten key principles for ensuring new developments incorporate opportunities for people to take part in sport and physical activity. The Active Design principles are aimed at contributing towards the Government's desire for the planning system to promote healthy communities through good urban design. Sport England would commend the use of the guidance in the master planning process for new residential developments. The document can be downloaded via the following link:
http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/active-design/

Through our statutory role, non-statutory role (major housing schemes) and our involvement with strategy development (evidence base Para 73 of NPPF) and our involvement through the local plan process we seek to ensure that Active design is utilised in the determination of planning applications and is embedded in Planning Policy P15 in order to influence the design and promote healthy communities and active lifestyles.

Policy P18: Health and Well Being
Support is offered for the principle that provides support for proposals which encourage healthy and active lifestyles. This is consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.

The use of Health Impact Assessments for larger developments is welcomed as these can help ensure that developments give appropriate consideration to how environments can be created which allow healthy and active lifestyles to take place.

Policy P20: Provision for Open Space, Childrens Play, Sport, Recreation and Leisure
The protection and provision of sports facilities is supported. However it is not clear whether or not the reference to the protection of existing facilities in Part A of the policy includes playing fields. It would be useful to provide clarity in this regard.

Sport England considers that Part A of the policy should be more specific as to the clear evidence required to demonstrate that sports facilities (particularly if these include playing fields) are surplus to requirements. Sport England would only accept a robust and up-to-date strategic assessment (e.g. a Playing Pitch Strategy or Built Facilities Strategy).

Sport England object to the section of Part A of the policy which allows the loss of playing fields and other sporting facilities where there is a substantial community benefit. This approach does not accord with the relevant national planning policy contained within para 74 of the NPPF and it is not clear what 'substantial community benefit' would involve. The NPPF requires that the proposed development is for alternative sports provision, the need for which clearly outweighs the loss.

Part B should also reference the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy as the evidence base to demonstrate the need for playing pitches associated with the additional demand created by new housing developments. The occupiers of new development, especially residential, will generate demand for sporting provision. The existing provision within an area may not be able to accommodate this increased demand without exacerbating existing and/or predicted future deficiencies. Therefore, Sport England considers that new developments should contribute towards meeting the demand that they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. The level and nature of any provision should be informed by Solihull's forthcoming Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) and any future Built Facilities Strategy (BFS). It is anticipated that the Solihull PPS will be completed before the publication of the revised Solihull Local Plan.

If this demand is not adequately met then it may place additional pressure on existing sports facilities, thereby creating deficiencies in facility provision. In accordance with the NPPF, Sport England seeks to ensure that the development meets any new sports facility needs arising as a result of the development. Solihull Local Plan should reflect this need in its local policies.

Site Allocations
Sport England would object to the allocation of any sites which would result in the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities unless evidenced by a robust and up-to-date evidence, as required by paragraph 73 NPPF.

Sport England are aware that work is currently underway on the completion of an up-to-date Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS). The PPS should be used to determine whether or not the playing field proposed for allocation is surplus to sporting requirements by demonstrating that there is an excess of playing fields in the catchment. If this cannot be demonstrated then the playing field or formal recreation land would need to be replaced with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality.

In the absence of an up-to-date PPS to justify the loss of playing field (and other sporting facilities) or confirmation of replacement with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality Sport England object to site allocations 4, 8, 15, 16 and 18; these site allocations would result in the loss of playing field land and other sporting facilities. Sport England will also object to any other site allocations which involve the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities without the necessary evidence or replacement facilities.

I am writing to you to formally object to the proposed development of Sharmans Cross Rugby/Tennis ground -
LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18.

As a resident of Beaminster Road I am extremely concerned that if this proposed development had estate access from Winterbourne Road that the route using Dorchester Road and Beaminster Road would unofficially become the principal entrance to the estate as it provides a shortcut from Solihull and from M42 motorway exits 4 & 5 via Blossomfield Road. This would bring with it serious issues of road and pedestrian safety plus increased levels of pollution to the residents.
Beaminster Road is a very narrow road and it is already tricky to negotiate past parked cars - It was never designed or constructed to be a thoroughfare to a housing estate.
Moreover, the mature residential character of Beaminster Road and Winterbourne Road would be completely shattered.

The infrastructure of the area is already at bursting point with over subscription of schools and limited amenities for residents plus there are already serious issues with drainage in the area. 100 extra houses would tip this into becoming an absolute serious problem.

This area does not have suitable roads or infrastructure to safely facilitate an additional 100 extra houses.

LDP-Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Sharman's Cross Road Rugby Ground

I wish to inform you of my objection to the change of use from sporting facilities to housing for the above site.

The permanent loss of sporting facilities should not be permitted and the council have the power and responsibility to ensure that such facilities are preserved for all.

In 2013 the Solihull MBC stated its policy not to sell the freehold and these grounds were to be only used for sport. If this is the policy, why now has this site been included in the LDP?

I strongly urge you keep and fight for the retention of this policy.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18

I am shocked and disturbed by the application to build 100 houses on the rugby ground in Sharmans Cross Road.

All the extra people would produce a great deal more traffic than there is already making it very difficult at rush hours. There is already much traffic and more would make it very unpleasant queuing and crawling along the roads. Extra traffic causes extra pollution.

We need sports grounds to provide facilities for practising sport to maintain health. Solihull has low participation in sport and if this land were taken it would not help the situation.

Increased population would put extra pressure on local services such as schools and surgeries. This would cause longer waiting times for GP appointments and overfull classrooms or longer journeys to school.

To allow this development would lead to problems of overcrowding ans would change the character of the area.

Yours faithfully

Proposed Housing Allocation 18

Dear Sir/Madam.

Once again I find myself writing to the council with regards to the proposed development of the sports ground on Sharmans Cross road. I understand that the developer proposes 100 dwellings for this site. This is very reminiscent of a proposal in 2013 when SMBC formally minuted that these grounds could only be used for sport and would not sell the freehold. Since that time there has been increased interest by both central and local government in increased participation in sport to improve the health of the nation and ease the pressure on the NHS. It therefore seems inappropriate to even be considering such a proposal as this.

However the developer is obviously keen to realise some return on their investment in the old rugby club and hence this further application. Perhaps SMBC should encourage the developer to put the land to the use it was meant for, i.e. a sporting facility. Perhaps this would not generate the profit they require.

Traffic Congestion. On a practical note, traffic congestion during both the morning and evening rush hours on both Sharmans Cross and Steetsbrook road is considerably greater than it was in 2013. This development if allowed to go ahead would increase that, with the attendant dangers to children at the Primary school. (pollution and accidents)

Suitability. It would seem likely that in order to fit this number of houses onto what is quite a small site that housing density or house type will be totally out of character to the surrounding area. again I suspect this is the developer wanting to maximise their profits at the expense of the environment.

Solihull regularly features well in surveys for the best place to live in the UK. I know it is difficult for council members to juggle demand for more housing and the environment. Generally I think SMBC manage pretty well. Often new developments improve the town and it's desirability. e.g. Parkgate, Touchwood, Dickens Heath and the removal of the old Powergen building. (whatever goes in there will make it better). However vested interests from developers should be resisted when the only gain is to that developer. I see this proposal as just one of those and therefore encourage the council to reject it again, and hope that this will be the last time such a proposal takes up valuable council time.