Question 25 - Infrastructure Requirements at Solihull/Mature Suburbs

By increasing the housing in the Sharman's Cross area will significantly increase the traffic. Currently there is a fundamental problem with traffic volume along Sharman's Cross Road and with the junction with Streetsbrook Road. During rush hour it is nose to tail for 1.5 - 2 hours causing pollution due to the stationary traffic. During school run time Sharman's Cross is quite dangerous due the the parked traffic along the road, reducing it to one lane. Therefore in combination with school runs and rush hour the whole Sharman's Cross/Streetsbrok Rd area is both dangerous and polluting.

With further reference to the Solhull Council Revelopment Plan. I note that land between Hampton Lane and Lugtrout Lane is planned for the development of around 650 homes.

My query is this:

1. Current schools in the area are at over capacity for pupils. You will have to build new schools. Where are all the teachers going to come from when the current system has a serious shortage of trained teachers and the government has to introduce cash inducements to attract people to the profession.
2. How are local roads (Lugtrout Lane, Hampton Lane) going to cope with the extra traffic. This applies to all the areas earmarked for development. Solihull's roads are continually gridlocked with the current traffic levels. There is not enough land available to build new roads and public transport in the area is currently inadequate.

3. Lugtrout Lane/Hampton Lane is part of the Meriden Gap. Any new housing development in this area will be detrimental to the area.

I wish to register my objection to the proposed housing allocation 18 and planning application.

It would be unsuitable for such an intense development to occur in this location as the density is out of keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, which consists of detached and semi-detached houses.

The traffic in Sharmans Cross Road, and surrounding roads, including Solihull town centre is already at grid lock point at certain times. I live in Sharmans Cross Road and work in Homer Road in the town centre. I have experienced it taking me an hour by car to get home on occasion, which is outrageous when the distance is just a mile. I have a bike but am extremely reluctant to use it for work as the traffic is far too bad for me to feel confident enough to cycle on these roads, which have little effective provision for cycling. I walk from time to time but it is uncomfortable breathing the heavy traffic fumes.

Solihull cannot cope with the traffic levels as they are currently, it will destroy further the quality of life within Solihull if more traffic, be it cars or public transport is added to the already congested roads.

The traffic around Sharmans Cross Junior school is a major problem. I have witnessed cars, buses and lorries mounting the pavement to get around oncoming traffic. Pedestrians and cars reversing from drives onto the road are put in considerable danger. The additional housing would also put even more pressure on already oversubscribed schools and medical centres with the locality.

Sharmans Cross Road has problems with flooding in heavy rain and it would be short sighted to worsen this problem with increased development.

Given the problems with traffic pollution in the area, it would be inadvisable to remove valuable green spaces from near the centre of Solihull.

I would like to know that Solihull Council will not renege on their agreement in 2013 that the grounds should only be used for sport and they would not sell the freehold.

See Letter

Solihull Draft Local Plan Supplementary consultation

The above policy consultation has aspirations references the following.

256. Redevelopment of Solihull Rail Station - Solihull rail station will be redeveloped to provide more modern facilities capable of handling the predicted increase in passengers in future years, following the decision not to pursue its relocation to the south-east. Improvements to the pedestrian route to and from the Town Centre, some of which have already been implemented, will make the redeveloped station more accessible to commuters, students and visitors.

Chiltern Railways are aware of the proposal and will liaise with the council.

The term Green Belt Enhancement is almost laughable. Who comes up with this type of terminology! What it actually means is using existing Green Belt, redefining the boundaries which is totally pointless as in the next decade or so it will just be eaten away at and 'Enhanced' again.

Traffic around the centre and all surrounding roads is frankly a nightmare at commute times. Without major demolition of existing properties I see absolutely no chance of sorting this out.

I see that the Supplementary Consultation Site Assessments document designates the Green Belt fields on one side of Widney Manor Road ( between 70- 120WMR) as RED ie not to be included in Plan because any housing development would have severe negative impacts. I totally agree that this land should remain undeveloped green belt. ( Rus in urbe). I am alarmed that developers have apparently bought part of this land ( near Lovelace) and are hoping to build houses on this land. My fellow residents are totally against any such development, and expect the Council to refuse any planning application.

Sound sensible

Acess to a modern , well presented town centre is esental for local areas, fully support the plan

I would like to express my strong objection to any commercial or residential building taking place on the covenanted land at the rugby/tennis site in Sharmans Cross RD. every effort should be taken to preserve these sporting facilities, which have been left to degenerate by Oakmore Development for obvious reasons. Since the 60's the population of Solihull must have more than doubled, yet public amenities and sporting facilities have disappeared, I would therefore demand that the 2013 all party policy on the rugby ground maintaining the sports ground only covenant, and not selling the freehold be maintained.

The suggested construction of 67/100 houses would be 4 to 5 times the density of the surrounding area, this would also mean at least 150 extra cars on Sharmans Cross Rd at peak hours, this in the addition to the increased use of this road by diesel buses and heavy goods vehicles would exacerbate traffic chaos outside the school, with increased levels of pollution, is the air quality here monitored I wonder. The character of the area would be diminished, drainage/flooding already a problem would increase. We do not have adequate school and medical capacity at the moment in this area. Maintaining this open space would also be a provide a haven for wildlife which is under threat everywhere and hardly ever considered.

I am writing to object to the proposed development on the rugby ground, Sharmans Cross Road that was meant to be used for sports. The 2013 policy stated that this land should be used for sport only and local residents demand that this should be how the area is used.

I believe that this development will put immense strain on the local environment. Traffic is already at dangerously high levels in this area especially around Streetsbrook Road. The parking and extra cars will only add to this.
Will they be including a new school or medical surgery in this development? As these local resource are already under strain and over subscribed.
Please consider my objections and concerns to any residential development plans for these sports fields.

See Letter

See letter

Solihull Draft Local Plan Supplementary consultation

Network Rail is a statutory consultee for any planning applications within 10 metres of relevant railway land (as the Rail Infrastructure Managers for the railway, set out in Article 16 of the Development Management Procedure Order) and for any development likely to result in a material increase in the volume or a material change in the character of traffic using a level crossing over a railway (as the Rail Network Operators, set out in Schedule 4 (J) of the Development Management Procedure Order.

The policy consultation has aspirations for Solihull Railway Station.

256. Redevelopment of Solihull Rail Station - Solihull rail station will be redeveloped to provide more modern facilities capable of handling the predicted increase in passengers in future years, following the decision not to pursue its relocation to the south-east. Improvements to the pedestrian route to and from the Town Centre, some of which have already been implemented, will make the redeveloped station more accessible to commuters, students and visitors.
Network Rail welcome the decision to look at options to redevelop the station in its current location.

I live in 33 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 67 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 was a grave error of judgement for the Council to agree to the transfer of the lease (with a historical restricting clause for only sporting usage) to a company of developers in 2007/8/9. This needs to be rectified by buying the lease back and reverting the facility for its original use.

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

Whereas the need for additional human habitation dwellings
is an ever increasing problem that has to be addressed there
is also the need for recreational facilities and that is what this
land is covenanted for.
There are many a varied reasons that further housing particularly
with high density would be problematic at this site not least
of all the chaos by way of traffic the length of Sharmans Cross Road
at certain times of morning and evening.
I hope this whole venture is abandoned and a return to sports
activity happens . However that appears to need to some strong dealing
with Oakmoor from what I have read.

I am also concerned about the amount of traffic in the area. At present during rush hour or JLR shift changes Damson Parkway is heavily congested. Also with the proposed additional development by JLR next to Solihull Moors this can only get worse. Also how will the local doctors surgery and schools cope with such an increase in the local population? Surely these will need to be addressed before any proposed development of site 16.

Local Plan site 245
Sharmans Cross Road

see letter of objection

Damson Parkway needs to be dual carriage way from Solihull bypass A41 to the A45, to take the extra traffic from new homes, and JLR

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

I strongly object to the proposed development of the rugby pitches for the reason listed below.

As an Olympian I am horrified to find a proposal for more sporting facilities to be eroded. I believe Solihull is already poorly off for sports venues and, at a time when children and adults are encouraged to do more activity, the thought should be on expansion rather than on reduction of such facilities.

I understand that SMBC, some time ago, said that the site would only be used for sporting purposes.

If the development went ahead then there would be a considerable number of extra cars in the immediate, crowded area. Many unaccompanied children walk or go on scooters to school and the extra traffic would make them more vulnerable. To make sure the children are safe, their parents might then decide to take then to school by car causing even more traffic problems in an already congested area.

The number of dwellings suggested far exceeds the existing density of the surrounding area and therefore out of character. The general area is not like Dickens Heath with its crammed in and high buildings.

The local Schools and Medical Posts are already bursting at the seam and would be unable to cope with extra personnel.

If the development went ahead, I am sure the natural habitat around the houses would be destroyed. There are many mature trees in the area, some of which already have a preservation order placed on them and it is a home for many urban animals and plants.

Proposed development of Sharmans Cross Rugby Ground / Arden Tennis Club
I wish to voice my concerns and objection to the proposed development of the ground at Sharmans Cross Road. I am disappointed that, despite a cross-party agreement to only use that site as a recreational ground, this has been tabled as a potential site for redevelopment. I would ask that the Council does not renege on its commitment and instead, invests in the site for the benefit of the community. Specifically, I have the following concerns:

* There is already inadequate provision in the local area for young people to play sport outside of school. Any existing space is not close to the centre of Solihull and is therefore difficult to access for most people.
* Even if an alternative recreational ground was tabled to compensate, new out-of-town grounds would do very little to promote sport. I am very concerned that, without adequate provision, young people will not have the outlets to channel their energy.
* The density of the proposed housing is by far in excess of the neighbouring surroundings.
* The provision for parking is far less than that typically required in the average Solihull household.
* There would be pressure on existing infrastructure, in particular the school and the road.
* There is no provision for new infrastructure, for example a doctors surgery.

Instead, I hope you consider new ways to invigorate the site into a place that brings the community together. There are ways to attract sport to the site, and there must be alternatives that offer benefit to the local community, for example extending the school or a community garden, which is an initiative that is being run in central Birmingham to promote wellbeing and connect the community.

Local Development Plan Site 245

My reasons for objecting to the above plan are as follows:

The Rugby Club ground was gifted to the Council with the condition that it was retained for sports purposes. The current SMBC lease with Oakmoor ( Sharmans Cross ) Ltd contains this stipulation. Solihull has already lost too many sports facilities at a time when the Government policy is said to encouraging fitness of the population.

Oakmoor have done everything possible to discourage sports clubs who have expressed an interest in renting the site in order to prove there is no sporting interest in the site.

In response to earlier development proposals the following points were made in objections made at that time

The proposed high density scheme was entirely out of keeping with the surrounding area.

Sharmans Cross Road already experienced serious congestion at peak times whilst attempting to enter the traffic flow on Streetsbrook Road. Since then in common with the rest of Solihull the traffic has increased considerably and the introduction of bus routes has not helped matters. The proposed 67/100 new homes will only make the situation worse.

Whenever it rains heavily the road floods to such an extent that it enters our drive and although Severn Trent have cleared the drains it has not improved matters.

Both medical services and schooling are under considerable pressure without the influx of these extra families unless you are planning to provide extra facilities in these areas

Local Development Plan Site 245

I wish to register my objection to the above plan for the following reasons:-

The Old Rugby Ground should not even be considered for housing since the use of this land remains as playing fields. It is subject to a 125 year lease, starting in 1965 at £250 a year for 2 pitches (there is still a remaining 71 years to go). The Corporation were desirous of ensuring that the said land remains as playing fields and the freehold land will only be used for purposes ancillary to a sports ground. The present lessor (Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross) Ltd} will not "use or permit or suffer to be converted or occupied the premises for any purpose other than as a private sports ground...", Additionally the Club retains the freehold of the car park and the land where the buildings were.

In 2007/8/9 The Rugby Club raised funds by selling the complete site to Oakmoor, at a sports ground valuation. Subsequently the Club went into Administration. In the process of acquiring the ground, Oakmoor, through their Solicitor, signed a letter undertaking to honour all of the covenants and obligations. Having signed this undertaking, Oakmoor did a number of things which appear to be aimed at keeping sport or sports clubs away from the ground.

A new Rugby Club emerged from the demise of the old club. They appeared to be facing a rent of £60,000 a year which they could not afford and they were forced to leave. There has been no apparent effort to secure any sports club to rent or use the pitches. In fact the opposite is true, as when other possible parties were interested, they were largely ignored or been told "We have other plans for the site."

The successful and profitable pre-school occupying part of the premises were shut down and refused an option to rent their premises.

The buildings were neglected and allowed to deteriorate until they had to be demolished.

In 2013 SMBC's all party committee confirmed as policy, that they would not sell the freehold of the site nor lift the covenants regarding the sites being used for sporting purposes and as ancillaries to sport.

Despite this the Ground has been listed as available, and suitable for 67 mixed residential properties, with no apparent problems that cannot be overcome. Let me list some of them for you.

Permanent loss of sporting facilities - This is just one of the sports grounds which is at risk in the LDP. There is already a shortage of pitches in Solihull and SMBC has a statutory requirement to ensure that all lost pitches are replaced with facilities of equivalent quality and accessibility. It makes more sense to keep what already exists and build houses on more suitable ground elsewhere. You would not have to break any covenants then. Solihull is already rated in the downward quartile in the 50th to 75th position in the National league tables for participation in sport three or more times per week. Not the hot spot Solihull wants to be known by.

Density - The construction of these houses on a smallish site would be about 4-5 times the density of surrounding properties.

Traffic - Traffic is an increasingly difficult problem in Sharmans Cross Road and was made worse by the introduction of several bus routes. In the morning it is very difficult to get out of the house and drive into Solihull and beyond as there is a continuous line of traffic waiting to turn right at Streetsbrook Road. The queue can stretch a very long way up Sharmans Cross Road. The junction of Sharmans Cross and Streetsbrook Roads is quite complex and dangerous and will be made even worse with extra housing.

Parking - It is difficult to see how sufficient parking can be accommodated since most houses have two cars these days and I wouldn't like to see any overspill on Sharmans Cross Road where parking is already a problem.

Flooding - Flooding problems have been raised at least two times previously. It floods very badly during heavy rain because the drains can't cope. It will be far worse if the natural soak away of the rugby ground is concreted over.

Design, Appearance and Environment - This part of Solihull much is valued for its environmental benefits, enjoyed by many residents. Many of the lovely mature trees have tree preservation orders on them and housing will completely destroy this much loved space.

Schools and Medical Centres- Schools are over-subscribed as are medical centres, all struggling to meet demand which will only get worse for everyone with the addition of the occupants of these proposed new houses.

Use of Land - In 2013 SMBC formally minuted its policy for the use of ground to be for sport only and they would not sell the freehold. I would like to see your re-affirmation of this policy, particularly as I understand that the land was gifted to the Council by a lady who specified it be used for leisure purposes only. It has no business being included in the LDP. Previous applications for this site have been refused or withdrawn.

Local Development Plan : Site 245 or 18

Old Rugby Club, Sharmans Cross Road

Comments and Objections

Sport is a vital part of a full life. Sports require physical exercise, which results in better blood circulation and overall improved physical stamina. It makes the body more flexible, agile and responsive. Further, in today's times , it can combat the epidemic of obesity. It also helps people mentally, improving mental agility also some studies have shown it can reduce the incidence of dementia by 50% and can help prevent and treat depression. Sport also helps develop social skills.

One would expect Solihull residents to be near the top of people involved in sport, however in national league tables they in the third lowest quartile for participation in sport. To improve this there needs to be accessible sporting facilities available. The Council recognised this in 1965 when they leased the land to the Rugby club and again in 2013 when an all party committee of SMBC confirmed the policy that the site only to be used for sporting purposes and that they retain the freehold. I feel strongly that the Council should not only remove the site from the Local Development Plan (LDP) for new houses, now and in the future, but put pressure on the lease holder (Oakmoor) to make the land available for sporting use.

In the Council's draft plan of January 2019 regarding this site it states in point 271 "This site is in a largely residential area close to Solihull Town Centre. A previous planning application was refused solely because the proposals did not provide sufficient affordable housing, thus indicating that the principle for the development was considered acceptable". I consider other relevant points in the plan`s refusal were the existing covenant on the land requiring it to be used for sporting purposes solely and other objections raised by the hundreds of local residents who wrote to the council. Further point 272 states "Whilst the former sports ground has been disused for a number of years, compensation for the loss of playing pitches will be required." The site has remained unused for sporting purposes not it seems because of lack of local demand but apparently as a result of a decision made by Oakmoor to try and utilise the land for development rather than encourage local sports use in line with their undertakings.

The land is in the centre of a mature residential area and allows easy access to many people who would use the area for sporting purpose. I suggest that they would not travel miles to some other site.

As regards the proposed development I object on many grounds:

The development would worsen traffic and parking problems in the area. In Woodside Way, just across from the proposed development there can be up to 25 cars parked during the day effectively making a one way road.

The development would have a housing density 4-5 times that of the surrounding area thus destroying the character of the area.

There would be inadequate medical and school facilities for the proposed increased population.

The development would put extra strain on already stretched drainage and flood prevention capacity.

There would be a risk to the viability of Solihull Arden Tennis Club because of difficulties with access and parking.

In summary, the tennis club, football club and old rugby club areas on Sharmans Cross Road should provide for the sporting use in a mature distinctive district of central Solihull. I encourage the Council to make the old rugby club ground available for sporting use in perpetuity.

I strongly object to the development of the site for any housing now and the future.

Local Development Plan Old Rugby Ground Sharmans Cross Road Site 18 or 245
I write to make my observations on the LDP with reference in particular to the above site. I am a local resident having lived in the area since 1990.

When we first moved to our home the rugby club was thriving. Since that time the club has had to move and the site has been unoccupied and left to decline since that time.

It is my understanding that the site was purchased by SMBC in 1962 to prevent the land being used for housing development and that it was leased back in 1965 on a 125 year lease to the Rugby Club. The freehold land was deemed to be used only for purposes ancillary to a sports ground and the leaseholder entered into a covenant that they will not "use or permit or suffer to be converted or occupied the premises for any other purpose other than a private sports ground..."

The Rugby Club then to raise funds decided to sell the site to Oakmoor, at a sports ground valuation so I understand, at some point between 2007 and 2009. In this process undertakings were given by Oakmoor through their solicitor that they would honour all the undertakings and obligations which would presumably include the usage for sporting purposes only. The rugby club went into administration and the new club which emerged had to leave the site. There would seem to be evidence that Oakmoor wished to charge that club rent at a level which they simply could not afford and they had therefore to leave the site.

Since that time this land has not been used for any sporting activity. We have been told anecdotally that possible interested parties have been either ignored or discouraged from using the site.
The pre school group was shut down and all the buildings have now been demolished. There is no evidence at all of any effort by Oakmoor to utilise this site for sporting purposes. To the contrary they have tried to obtain permission to develop the site for housing.

There is a dearth of available and affordable sporting grounds in Solihull and if this site is given up for housing then it is gone for good. Despite being a wealthy area Solihull is low, in the 3rd downwards quartile, in the national league tables for participation in sport.
There is a responsibility on SMBC to do what they said they would and retain this land for sporting use and ensure that Oakmoor follow the terms of the restrictions placed on the land.

The Supplementary document to the draft LDP at point 271 does not at any point mention the sporting covenants and this is totally misleading.
The all party policy declared by SMBC in 2013 that the sports use covenants should be retained.

This area of Solihull is a leafy mature suburb and the density of housing which is proposed would be 4/5 times at least of the surrounding area. This development if permitted would destroy the character and diminish the distinctiveness of the area.
Parking has become an increasing problem in the area. Upwards of 25 cars can be parked at the Sharmans Cross end of Woodside Way on a daily basis particularly at the beginning of the week during term time. This has rendered the road a one way only street at that end. Vehicles frequently have to reverse back to let oncoming vehicles through sometimes onto Sharmans Cross Road. At present many commuters also park on the vacant land at the rugby ground. There will be increased parking problems caused if this land is developed. Also if the tennis club loses some of its parking facilities this will again put further parking pressure on local roads.
Many letters have been sent by ourselves and other residents about this issue over the years but absolutely nothing has been done.

The junction with Sharmans Cross Road and Streetsbrook Road is dangerous and busy. Again this development would put strain on that junction with probably an extra 200 cars plus coming onto Sharmans Cross Road. Even if there was access through a road leading onto Dorchester Road that would still put strain on Streetsbrook road at the junction of the four roads.

There are tree preservation orders on the area and this has helped to retain the character.

There has also been flooding/drainage problems in the area and development of this high density would put a strain on that and increase the problems.

There would be inadequate medical and school capacity. It is difficult enough to get an appointment with local gp practices.

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.

As a resident of Sharmans Cross Road, I very strongly oppose the development of a new housing estate. I demand that the 2013 all party policy on the rugby ground on maintaining the sports ground only covenant and and not selling the freehold be retained.

There is already a huge shortage in NHS funding and by removing sporting facilities in the area will only lead to further compounding the obesity levels and in turn the strain on the NHS.

If the above reasoning is not sufficient alone, then I would like to ask how building either 67 or 100 houses will be supported by the local area? This large number of homes is at least 4-5 times the density of the surrounding area where there is already a huge demand on schooling and healthcare. What additional provisions are to be provided to support the existing infrastructure?

Traffic on Sharmans Cross road is also horrendous at peak times, this will further increase naturally due to the huge developments currently in progress in Shirley, then adding at least another 100-200 cars in to a compact housing estate which are only able to enter and exit via Sharmans Cross road will have an exponential effect to the traffic on Sharmans Cross road and surrounding areas. Equally will there be sufficient car parking space provided by the developers? If I was to hazard a guess then I would say no as maximising on houses is much more profitable that car parking.

As mentioned above the development is already out of character for the area with the proposed density of the plans, therefore what assurances will be provided that the actual houses being built will be kept with in character of the existing area?

Please could you also confirm that all trees protected by TPOs will be retained for the benefit of the environment?

Please could you also advise if this development is given the go ahead despite such strong opposition, what proposals are in place to replace or upgrade the current drainage system on Sharmans Cross road to prevent flooding.

In case the proposals are astonishingly given the go ahead then I would be very grateful to receive answers to the questions above.

Local Development Plan Site 245
I write with regards to the above Development Plan and demand that the 2013 all party policy on the Rugby Ground maintaining the sports ground only covenant and not selling the freehold be honored and retained.

The policy was agreed in the first place because any substantial property development on the site would :

1.Destroy the character and reduce the distinctiveness of the area.

2.Create further parking problems in an area already besieged with traffic issues.

3.Contravene tree preservation orders.

4.Create further drainage/flooding problems in an area of Sharmans Cross which already has severe drainage problems . All to often a heavy downpour results in drains overflowing causing traffic problems and a danger to public health.

5.The density of properties would be in the order of 4/5 times the surrounding area.

6.Result in further pressure of an already strained medical and schooling facilities.

and

7.Potentially harm the future of the Sports Club.

Local Development Plan Site 245
I have received your letter about the Proposed Housing Allocation 18 at Sharmans Cross Road and I have seen the information and studied the plans. There are various concerns that I have about these.

There is already a Tree Preservation Order on trees on the land between Arden Tennis Club and houses no.28 to no.36 in Winterbourne Road. T.P.O. No 174. dated 31st March 1989.

I understand that this land should be for sport. SMBC minuted in 2013 that the use of the grounds was only for sport and that they would not sell the freehold. I am shocked that SMBC has not maintained the only covenant on the Rugby Ground. Also SMBC has not made Oakmore keep their covenant and so keep the land for sports. In fact it appears that Oakmore have actively discourage sport by putting a very high rent and so discouraging clubs to use the land,and then letting the land and building deteriorate. There is a shortage of pitches in Solihull, less than the national target and loosing this land would be a loss of sports in the central town area. Children are not having access to sport to help them grow up fit and active. The Arden Lawn Tennis Club is a vibrant, active club with all the facilities it needs and adequate parking and so no cars are left on nearby roads. It is on freehold land and so has access to assets for building projects. This would be lost if it was moved to leasehold land. Houses built too near ALTC would suffer from flood lights and noise from the club.

The amount of housing suggested in this area would be very dense and probably require flats to make up to a hundred dwellings. This would be totally out of character with the surrounding houses in the area.

Living in this area I am concerned about all the extra cars turning into Sharmans Cross Road. It is already a nightmare with cars parking near the school at the beginning and end of the day, with buses and cars trying to get through.There is no extra capacity in local schools, no infant school near by, and already overcrowded medical centres. Buses don't run often and the train station is 25-30mins walk away. This would put more cars on Sharmans Cross Road and to the junction with Streetsbrook Road, already a dangerous junction with queues at busy times.