Question 25 - Infrastructure Requirements at Solihull/Mature Suburbs

LDP proposed Housing Allocation Site18
I would like to object to the above for the following reasons:-

1. The development would destroy the character of the neighbourhood. It will be out of scale and character in its appearance compared to existing development in the vicinity.

2. Increased traffic and pollution. Danger to children attending Sharmans Cross school.
The traffic situation is horrendous at school times. Also parking would be a big issue.

If I do not start out to go to work before 7 a.m. to go to Homer Road, my journey can take up to 40 minutes. It should be a 10 minute journey at the most.

3.Flooding- Sharmans Cross Road is already subject to flooding during heavy rain.

4.The loss of yet another sports facility, we have already lost Prospect Lane to developers.

5. Schools and medical centres are already struggling and this development would just add to the pressure that they are already under.

6. Use of land SMBC formally minuted in 2013 its policy about the use of the grounds only for sports and they would not sell the freehold. I would like reaffirming of this policy which implies that this development is inappropriate for inclusion in the LDP. One previous application for this site has been refused and another withdrawn.

Please let's have some common sense and reject this application.

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 245
I DEMAND that the 2013 all Party Policy on the Rugby Ground on
maintaining the Sports Ground Covenant and not selling the Freehold to be
retained. To my mind it is sheer madness to allow this to happen. The
Sports Grounds are one of the green Lungs of our Community along with
the Woodland and Tree preservation is what makes Solihull special as in
"URBS IN RURE".

The Tennis club is well used with many different activities; and
Sharmans Cross is not coping with Victorian Drains as it is. We struggle
to find Doctors, Dentists, School Places already. Bringing more houses
with even more traffic will cause enormous traffic jams as if it isn't
bad enough already.

Danford Lane all the way down to Olton is absolutely jammed every
working morning from 7.00a.m to 9 30a.m and 3.00 p.m to 6.30p.m in the
evening due to schools and workers to-ing and fro-ing. I have had to
stop going to a Church Club at 5.00p.m because it has taken 45/50 mins
sat in traffic there and back.

To build all these houses in this area is madness, it could possibly add
another 3 vehicles to every new house built. Where will everyone park ?
There is not enough parking spaces around this area as it is. Are all
these Councillors out to destroy Solihull, because the way this is
going, this is what will happen.

It is an acceptable fact that more houses are needed so why not use up
the BROWN SITES first not allowing back-garden grabbing and green
open-spaces. I do not think that these proposed hoses are 2 bedroom
starter homes, which is what is needed to get "first-timers" buyers
/renters on the housing ladder.

Please accept that attached as Catherine De Barnes Residents Association to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation . This response is the work of a joint working group comprised members of the RA and Hampton Parish Council.
Although almost identical to the response from Hampton Parish Council we have made a correction to para 6.8 where the word north has been replaced by south and there is an additional para.6.10 .


See letter

Reference: Local Development Plan Site 245 (adjacent Sharmans Cross Rd)

As a local resident and member of Solihull Arden Club, I wish to object to the inclusion in the Local Development Plan of a proposed development of 67/100 dwellings on the site of the rugby ground off Sharmans Cross Rd for the following reasons:

1. Use of land - The covenant and 2013 all party policy that the land is to be retained for sporting purposes must continue to be applied and the freehold retained by SMBC to ensure this happens. Solihull is short of sports fields and rates poorly, nationally and comparison with its peers, in terms of participation in sport. It appears the policy of the current lessor (not surprisingly) has been to make discourage the return of this land to sporting use. Removal of the threat of housing development combined with a policy by SMBC of active cooperation with potential sporting users would facilitate the return of the land to active use for sporting activities. The good geographical accessibility of the site would be particularly advantageous by minimising travelling for participants.

2. Increased traffic congestion - The vast majority of additional traffic from the proposed development would travel via Streetsbrook Rd or Damson Lane/Prospect Rd. Peak time congestion on these roads is already spiralling out of control with no meaningful prospect of relief. Additionally, the immediately adjacent Sharmans Cross Rd suffers from peak time congestion due to Sharmans Cross School with associated danger to pedestrians.

3. Suitability of proposed development - The proposed 67/100 homes on such a small site represents unacceptable overdevelopment that is out-of-scale and out-of-character with the surrounding mature suburb.

4. Overload of local facilities - Local schools and medical facilities are already oversubscribed. Further development would merely worsen the problem.

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.

Local Planning Site 245
I feel compelled (alongside many other local residents) to make contact with you reference the land owned by the council previously used by the Rugby Club and now leased by Oakmoor Sharmans Cross Ltd.

I write twofold..one as a long standing resident of Sharmans Cross Road and secondly as a long standing local estate agent.

Firstly, as a resident and a daily user of this lovely open land we have on our doorsteps, It would be a massive disappointment to many if the land would no longer be available for the community to enjoy. It is used on a daily basis throughout the year by dog walkers, children playing ball games and children accessing a short cut to school.

The nearest green site to this land is off Woodside Way and Woodlea Drive- but this land is not available for ball users.

It would be a shame if the local children were not able to use the facilty as it were intended for.

The wildlife would be disturbed, including foxes, badgers, birds of prey..

Surely as the landowners you have a duty of care to make sure the land is retained for its original purpose.

Sharmans Cross Road is already gridlocked at morning and evening rush hours and also at school times..do you not think that by allowing a developer the opportunity to build any number of houses on your land would add to the problem.

I have witnessed so many near misses with cars and buses, bikes and children and wonder why you could humanely allow such a development knowing this would lead to further congestion and potential accidents.

The council are already aware of the traffic issues as recently they have provided a Zebra crossing and double yellow lines to lighten the problem.

As a long standing resident I can honestly say I have witnessed many a time over the years when the road had flooded...I would imagine that you would also be aware of this and that by allowing a development to go ahead that this would only add to the drainage problems.

Now, as a local estate agent, I completely understand that developers have needs and will always be looking for an opportunity to acquire suitable land for development. B91 is like gold dust and Im sure that when Oakmoor stepped in to 'help out' there was always going to be an ulterior motive for leasing your land.
I also understand that many private land owners choose to sell off parts of their gardens or fields when approached by such developers as a way of financial gain, but I would assume that the council would have a duty to uphold the covenants placed on the land for the benefit of the community rather than for financial gain themselves.

I cannot understand how you could even consider selling the Freehold knowing that the developers would be in breach of the covenants. surely as the land owners you have a responsibility to make sure the covenants are adhered to alongside the conditions of the lease....which i believe are already being breached?

with national government statistics outlining a problem with childhood obesity, surely this would and should encourage you to make sure the land is used for recreational use only- as it originally designed for.

let the developers build on sites where they have room to make provision for incorporating new schools and medical facilities... rather than let them gain themselves financial but to the detrement of the local schools and surgeries which are already at maximum capacity,

I am hopeful that you will , as the Freeholders and the Local council act in the best interest for the community on this occasion.....

Objection to Local Development Plan site 245
I wish to object to the inclusion of site 245 in the Local Development Plan on the following grounds.

1. It's a sports field and we are short of sport's facilities in Solihull. With increasing obesity in young and old people in the area we should be encouraging sport not decreasing it.
2.The proposed density of housing is not in keeping with the locality.
3. We are already struggling with pressures on schools and medical facilities in the area, this level of development would have an adverse effect on the local Schools and GP Surgeries.
4. Traffic and parking is an issue in this area, increasing vehicle numbers would be detrimental to the environment in Solihull.

We hope you will take the above into consideration and remove site 245 from the Local Development and return the fields to a well used sports facility it used to be.

Opposing to the LDP on Sharmans Cross Road
I am a resident of Sharmans Cross Road and I am opposing 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 not selling the freehold be retained.
There are a number of reasons for why I am against this development.

Firstly the traffic on Sharmans Cross road is dreadful particularly at peak traffic times. This will only worsen with the addition of 67/100 houses, as Sharmans Cross will be the only road by which you can enter and exit the estate main road used as a bypass between Shirley and main Solihull. Especially as this is a key road used for commuters going between Shirley and Solihull town centre. In additional to this, I imagine the parking on the road will also worsen as I doubt there will be sufficient parking on the new estate for the number of residents. Please can you advise how you propose this issue?

In addition to this, there is the issue of inadequate school capacity. The schools in the surrounding area are already over subscribed. They barely have the capacity to accommodate the current population. Increasing the population in this area will indeed have a detrimental impact on children's education. How do you propose to overcome this issue? Have you set aside further funds in order to accommodate the increased demand on education?

Finally with the proposed development having 4-5 times more density than the rest of the area, it will be out of character with the rest of the surrounding area. How will you ensure the character is retained? Will you safeguard any trees with tree preservation orders? Not only for retaining the character of the area but more importantly protecting the environment.

Local Development Plan Site 245
I am writing to object in the strongest terms to the possible inclusion of the development of up to 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 would be irrational and is not a decision any reasonable local authority in the position of the Council can lawfully make. These include:

1 The size, scale and density of the development 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 privacy and local pollution issues for current local residents.

2 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 (including one this evening). 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.

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.

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.


The Council acknowledged this in 2013 confirming its policy regarding 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. I respectfully demand that the Council reconfirms that policy, actively enforces the covenant and ensures that the land is available for community sporting use.

4 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. The quality of the space and the need to preserve it is reflected in the number of tree preservation orders that exist in the area That would all be irreplaceable.


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 .

LDP Old Rugby Ground/Arden Tennis Club - LDP sites 245

I'm strongly apposed to ear marking the Old Rugby Ground/Arden Tennis Club for potential development.

Currently Solihull becomes grid locked at certain times of the day and adding a substantial development would cause significant issues.

The additional traffic would cause add environmental issues. There are also issues around the strain put on sewage and drainage systems.

There are several high density retirement developments underway in Solihull all of which are hugely impacting the quality of life for residents in Solihull.

We also need to keep our green spaces.

So please register my opposition to any change of use or development of the Old Rugby Ground/Arden Tennis Club site.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation Site 18
I object to the LDP Proposed Housing Allocation referenced above (subject line).

My reasons are as follows:-

- The density of the proposed development is completely out of keeping with the surrounding area.
- There are no plans that I am aware of to increase capacity in locals schools, junior and senior, therefore if the development is designed for families where will the children be educated?
- Existing drainage on Sharmans Cross Road struggles to cope in heavy rain, I believe they are still the original Victorian drains, the development would exacerbate that situation.
- What plans are in place to increase the number of local GP surgeries which would be required to cope with the influx of families?
- The covenants in place and agreed between SMBC and Oakmoor to protect the land for sports use, not housing.
- The National Planning Policy Framework requires developments to have access to local amenities within 800m/10 minutes' walk. The site is 1700m from Solihull town centre and 1000m from the station, therefore these criteria are not met.
- Increased traffic and associated pollution - The development will have a seriously detrimental effect on highway safety and the convenience of road users, including:
* Increased volumes of traffic moving in/out of new site via a single point, most likely turning right out of site towards town, increasing gridlock at the Sharmans Cross Rd/Streetsbrook Road junction. No plans in place to improve the 4 (four) way junction.
* Danger to pedestrians, unaccompanied children going to/from Sharmans Cross Junior School and secondary schools.
* Danger to cyclists, as this is a designated cycle route.
- I understand Sharmans Cross Road is a recognised emergency route, hence no speed bumps outside the primary/junior school. Any increase in traffic may adversely affect emergency vehicle movements.

Development of 67/100 houses on Sharmans Cross Road LDP Proposed Housing Allocation site 18
I wish to state my objection to the above proposed development. It was made clear in 2013 that there was all party policy on the Rugby ground maintaining the sports ground only covenant and not selling the freehold be retained. It was clear then and actually even clearer today that this policy should stand.
In particular the increase in Traffic in Sharmans Cross Road since 2013 has been significant. I live at 59 Sharmans Cross Road and in the morning rush hour the traffic heading towards Solihull now backs up from near the football club. That was not the case in 2013.
It is very clear that the road system in and around this proposed development simply will not cope with additional traffic. It is also clear that access in and out of the development is limited thereby adding to the existing problem.
Already Sharmans Cross Road at School opening ,closing and lunchtimes is congested. It is dangerous at the moment both for vehicle traffic but also for pedestrians and especially children. Any development will increase those significant risks. I know already that people working in Solihull are parking in the side roads to avoid parking charges and this just adds to the problem. I am concerned at the prospect of Emergency Vehicles being held up in the future caused by additional housing traffic.
Throughout the winter months Sharmans Cross Road is subject to flooding in the areas directly around the entrance to the Arden Tennis club. This would need to be addressed urgently before any development could take place and it is apparent that over the years all attempts to rectify this have failed. The development will add to the flooding problem.
One major concern is that there is no room to build new schools or create new medical facilities in an area already oversubscribed to accommodate increased housing in this location.
Education and medical access are vital to the wellbeing and comfort of a neighbourhood and this would be drastically reduced by this development.
I understand this is just one of five at risk sports ground in the LDP. Surely the Council has a statutory responsibility to ensure lost pitches are replaced with facilities of equivalent quality and accessibility. The fact is Solihull according to Sport England is in the 3rd quartile nationally for over 16 participation in sport three times per week and continues to fall in the Nation league table. This in itself is a primary reason for the Council to deny any development in Sharmans Cross Road.
In conclusion I and many others recognise that the Government policy is to increase housing and there is good reason for that. The fact is this proposed planed development is surely NOT something the Government intended in addressing what I accept is a serious issue.
There are other options and othe sites that do not remove sporting facilities that can be found.
I conclude by stating my objection to this proposed development.

Local Development Plan Site 245
As a local resident of many years, I write yet again to illustrate my real concerns surrounding the proposed development of the Rugby Ground situated on Sharmans Cross Road and adjacent to Arden Tennis Club, Solihull.

This is the third occasion in the last few years where attempts have been made to develop this site which is owned by Solihull Council and that has always been used for a sporting purpose. These sites should remain for the use of local communities. The current owner of the old Rugby Club Site, Oakmoor, clearly brought the ground for the purpose of developing the Land with no intention to continue with it as a sporting facility.

There is little doubt that many thousands of pounds may have exchanged hands between Oakmoor and the old Rugby Club and there can be little doubt that their intention from the outset was to prevent the use of this area for a sporting purpose.

I understand it was Solihull Council that purchased the ground many years ago to ensure that it remained available for sporting purposes, and on buying this ground they then leased it back to the Rugby Club for a modest sum of £250 a year.

We all know that the Rugby Club fell into financial difficulties and it was at this time that Oakmoor stepped in to buy the lease and probably spent many thousands of pounds to do so.

It can also be said that they did this, no doubt, to develop this land at a later date at a considerable profit.

We understand that the Developers have done much to deter other Sporting Clubs renting the land. The previous buildings which were on site were allowed to deteriorate so they had to be demolished. We now find out that despite all the history to this ground it is proposed to allow the development of in excess 67 mixed residential properties with no apparent problems identified that cannot be overcome.The density of such a site would be much greater than the surrounding area, completely altering the character and distinctiveness of this particular area of Solihull. We already have inadequate medical and school facilities for the current residents around this site and there is also already a considerable parking problem and dense traffic in surrounding areas particularly at peak periods.

There are very few green sites currently available within the residential areas of Solihull and we also know there are sites available on the outskirts. Local people keep being told that provision of sporting sites will be made available elsewhere but it is local people and local children that need sporting facilities within their communities so that they do not have to travel in cars or on buses to reach such facilities.

Another matter that raises considerable concern is the value of such a piece of land for housing development, I am not sure how much Solihull Council paid for this site, but it must be worth in excess of 5 million pounds. What is Solihull's proposal to obtain the true value of this ground from any prospective developer.

Finally the use of this ground for development will do nothing to satisfy the needs of the Community and the Council must listen to their local communities and ensure that land such as this, that is primarily for sporting purposes is not lost. There are many brown field sites around the Borough that could be used as an alternative.

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

With reference to the LDP - Site 245, I would like to state my objections to Site 245 (Sharmans Cross Road Old Rugby Ground) being included in the Local Development Plan:
1. My primary reason is the site has an existing covenant stating it is to be used for sporting purposes and ancillary facilities to sport. This has been in place since the 1960's and the council reaffirmed this as policy in 2013, as agreed by an all party meeting of the council. Therefore, the site must be maintained as a sports venue and not be re-designated as suitable for housing.
2. When Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross Limited) acquired the lease to the pitches and freehold of the adjacent site, they agreed to respect all of the covenants.
3. However, Oakmoor have consistently refused to honour these commitments to maintain the site as a sporting facility, and over the last ten years the site has been unused and become more derelict, unsightly and unsafe.
4. Solihull Council must honour its commitment to the residents of Solihull and their policy to ensure the site is used for sporting activities.
5. There is an obvious need for the site to be used as a sporting facility as various sports groups/organisations have approached Oakmoor to use the site thus indicating the need to retain the site for sporting purposes and not to be used for housing. These approaches have been consistently refused. It is clear Oakmoor are not abiding by their stated intention to meet the obligations of the covenant.
6. The country has an increasing issue with obesity and health related issues, therefore the council should be encouraging and promoting physical and sporting activities across a wide range of sporting venues.
7. Adjacent to the Site 245 are Solihull Arden Tennis Club, Solihull Football Club and Sharmans Cross Junior School, all with longstanding and well used sports grounds and facilities, of which the former Rugby Club was an integral part. The site should be maintained as a sports ground and the venue redeveloped to reinstate the former status quo. This will promote a cohesive sports facility enabling access by a wide range of ages, abilities and interests.
Further objections related to any proposed development:
1. Over Development: The proposed development of 67 / 100 houses is completely out of character with the surrounding area - roads such as Sharmans Cross Road, Winterbourne Road and Welcombe Grove. The 67-100 houses or dwellings would inevitably be accomplished by using buildings of multiple floors which is completely out of character with the surrounding area.
2. The proposal of 100 houses is 15% MORE than the 87 houses proposed by Oakmoor developers 8 years ago, which the council turned down.
3. Traffic Congestion: 100 houses would inevitably lead to increased traffic and congestion on an already very busy road. Some owners / occupiers may have no cars; many will have more than one.
4. Increased Dangers to Pedestrians and Cyclists: The greatly increased volume of traffic will create additional dangers for pedestrians and cyclists (who use the designated cycle route), including the many young school children who walk and cycle to the nearby Sharmans Cross Junior school. The Council's Road Safety Team has been working with the school to promote walking and cycling to school. The development would increase the dangers to the children.
5. Parking Congestion: The very high density of housing proposed would lead to parking congestion on site and nearby roads. New developments lack sufficient provision for owner or visitor parking. This will lead to vehicles being parked on adjacent roads such as Sharmans Cross Road, Woodside Way, Dorchester Road and Winterbourne Road.
6. Environment: The area is a well-established green space with many mature trees and areas of wildlife, including bats and badgers. I regularly see bats flying around my garden.

In conclusion, I believe the Site 245 must be retained for sporting purposes and must not be included in the Local Development Plan for housing.

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: SITE 245
(Sharmans Cross Road)

OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED DESTRUCTION OF THE RUGBY FIELDS IN SHARMANS CROSS ROAD

Health Challenges

Perhaps the biggest health challenge we face is obesity, particularly amongst the young. It is resulting in the growth in health problems such as diabetes and heart disease that is costing the NHS millions.
Diabetes treatment alone currently costs the NHS ten per cent of its budget.
Exercise is one of the most important ways to help prevent heart disease, and to both prevent and reverse type 2 diabetes.
An ever increasing body of scientific evidence firmly suggests that exercise can help to prevent a wide range of other illnesses including cancer; indeed, the breadth of this evidence is even surprising the scientific community.
In addition, there is an ever growing problem of mental illness affecting young people as a result of addiction to social media. Sport, in particular team sports, with its social interaction, is one of the most effective strategies for treating mental illness.
At public meetings the whole community has been very upset to hear that clubs asking to use the rugby field at Sharmans Cross Road have had their requests refused by Oakmoor Ltd - even though there is a legal agreement that they must not allow the land to be used for any purpose other than as a sports ground.
This is one of five sports grounds at risk in the LDP. As there is a shortage of pitches in Solihull, SMBC has a statutory requirement to ensure lost pitches are replaced with facilities of equivalent quality and, importantly, 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.

Density
The development will destroy the character of the neighbourhood. 100 houses are effectively 4-5 times the density of property that surrounds it. This is unacceptable overdevelopment of the site and will be both out-of-scale and out- of-character in its appearance compared to existing development in the vicinity.

Increased Traffic and Pollution
The development will seriously affect road and pedestrian safety. There will be increased traffic moving in and out of any new site, most likely turning right out of the site towards the town centre thus increasing gridlock on Sharmans Cross Road, Streetsbrook Road and adjacent side roads. Sharmans Cross Road is currently jammed from 7.45am to 9.00am. This increase will significantly add to the danger of pedestrians and unaccompanied children going to and from Sharmans Cross Junior School and local secondary schools. It will significantly add to the danger faced by cyclists, as this is a designated cycle route.

Parking
In addition to cramped parking for the new development, Arden Club could lose approximately 75 parking spaces. This will affect safety and congestion through increased street parking. Parking is already a serious problem during peak times and at school drop-off and pick up times. Street parking on Sharmans Cross Road already means that at times the road is effectively a single lane with cars having to pull in to let oncoming traffic pass.

Flooding
Sharmans Cross Road is already subject to flooding during heavy rain. The development will worsen this problem. The drains do not currently cope - something that is well known to the council and water authorities. The rugby ground also plays an important role in absorbing rain water. The amount of flooding in the road would be significantly increased if the rugby ground was built on.

Design and Appearance
This area of Solihull is highly valued for its environmental benefits and contains many mature trees with Tree Preservation Orders. Development of houses will destroy this space which is enjoyed by many residents. It is also a known habitat for bats and badgers.

Schools and Medical Centres
These amenities are already oversubscribed, and this development will inevitably increase demand leading to a degradation of services for all.

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

In conclusion, the number of playing fields in Solihull is totally inadequate and as Solihull continues to grow, their importance cannot be over-stated.
I, therefore, demand that the ALL PARTY policy decision of 2013, confirming the sports ground only covenant , and not selling the freehold, be upheld.

It is entirely appropriate that land currently used for business/retail purposes is recycled and used for the apparent housing need. Stop developing car showrooms and expensive retirement homes and use for affordable housing.

Local Development Plan Site 245
LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation Site 18

I write with reference to the above planning site for housing development in Solihull. I write to object to these plans on the following grounds:-

In 2013, SMBC formally agreed in its policy that the freehold of these grounds would not be sold and that they would only be used for sporting activities, in line with the covenants in place. I consider this policy suggests that the inclusion of this development in the LDP is wholly inappropriate.

I feel strongly that Oakmoor (Sharman's Cross) Ltd have deliberately neglected their responsibilities regarding this land and have made no efforts to use it for it's intended purpose as a sporting/community resource, even though their lease for the land clearly states it must only be used as a sports ground. I moved into Winterbourne Road some 25 years ago and certainly, with 4 young children, the local facilities available (including the rugby pitch) were very much part of my decision to move. My children have all been members of Solihull Arden Tennis Club and visited the rugby club regularly to watch matches. The sounds of cheers and roars from the grounds were always a pleasure to hear and I would welcome the return of fixtures on this ground. Oakmoor cannot be excused for the way it has treated this parcel of land. Changing room facilities were left to rot; a very much needed community resource in the way of a pre-school group was forced closed and again the building left to deteriorate.

I also consider that the above development is totally out of character with the surrounding houses on Winterbourne Road and Sharman's Cross Road. These are traditional houses and roads with reasonable density. The density of housing proposed on site above would be 4-5 times greater than its surroundings. Add onto this the additional cars the development would need to cater for, together with the possible loss of 75 car parking spaces at Arden Tennis Club, which are regularly used, parking in the vicinity will become a serious problem. Sharman's Cross Road is already a very busy road and further access from a housing estate can only add to this problem. Flooding along Sharman's Cross Road already causes regular problems in the area. Access from Sharman's Cross Road onto Streetsbrook Road or access onto the island at Danford Lane already causes huge traffic tailbacks at prime times throughout the day. Children attending local schools already battle with dense traffic on their journey to and from school, not to mention the additional school places /medical resources that will possibly be required.

As closure to this email, I strongly urge SMBC to remove site 245 from its LDP. I also think SMBC should be looking at ways to provide more affordable housing for first time buyers - this certainly would not be the case at the proposed site. Two of my children have had to leave the area in order to buy a property within their budget.

Local Development Plan Site 245
LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation Site 18

Dear Sir,
with reference to the above proposal, I submit my objections for your appraisal.

I believe, Sixty Seven to One Hundred, multi occupancy residences, crammed into a relatively small area, is inappropriate with this location and would destroy the demographic of this traditional, well established, desirable area.
I, as a local resident, (Winterbourne road) find it difficult to keep this objective as I bought into a future near a sports ground, not a housing development.
On a more objective note:
The drainage system is struggling to cope with currant demand and there is often flooding at the junction of Sharmans cross road and Streetsbrook road. Winterbourne road also suffers even with fairly moderate rainfall.
Local schools, particularly primary schools, are already oversubscribed, as are local Doctors, Dentists etc.

As 'Touchwood' has had a huge impact on local traffic, so has the continuous development of Blossomfield road. Replacing large family houses with multi occupancy accommodation, has brought chaos to a road system, which, with significantly more traffic, has remained unchanged.

This development would involve adding an access road next to Sharmans cross infant/junior school, adding extra danger to a road, already difficult to navigate, when parents collect their children from school.
Ultimately, I believe, a further development, would serve only in impacting negatively on an already oversubscribed area.
Finally, it is common knowledge, that there exists a covenant on this land, to furnish the need for a much needed sporting/recreational facility.
This has been ignored by the present owners 'Oakmoor' (Sharmans Cross)Ltd.
Indeed, the land has been deliberately neglected, and the changing rooms allowed to rot.
A pre school group, happy to rent the clubhouse for its purposes was forced to abandon the venture, leaving the building to deteriorate.
The site is now becoming an eyesore. A ploy, I am sure, intended to support Oakmoor's application.
I would urge SMBC to remove site 245 from its 'Land Development Program' and honour the agreement made in 2013. To retain the Freehold and force the owners to return the land to the purpose for which it was intended.

I object to the plans on Sharmans Cross Road ( Local Development Plan Site 245).

My reasons are outlined below ;

1. We need to keep sporting facilities for the future of our children . We should be encouraging sports clubs to grow & develop not use land which is useable to be built on! There is a shortage of sports grounds already in Solihull. The council has a requirement to ensure lost pitches are replaced with facilities & as Solihull is below national tables - we need to save this land for that.
2. The land will ruin our neighbourhood- the density will be out of scale in appearance with existing development in the area. Leading to part 3.
3. Traffic ! Its horrendous already ! Sharmans Cross Road is already blocked at many times of the day but this site will cause serious congestion if not grid locked at peak times . Pedestrians are also at risk from the increased traffic .Cyclists are also at risk with a huge increase in cars.
Sharmans Cross junior school is already full & has expanded to 4 form entry - this will create a increased demand on schools which haven't got the spaces / budgets to meet current requirements .
4. Parking - as a member of the Solihull Arden Club for many years - parking is an issue - this site would result in the loss of up approximately 70 car spaces. It could also damage the future of the Tennis Club which has a heritage in itself.
5. According to SMBC - the policy stated that the land would be used for Sport & Sport only & the land wouldn't sell the freehold . Surely this proposed site then is inappropriate for inclusion in the LDP ? As this would be against that policy !

In conclusion - the land needs to be used for sport - for the future of the children & people of Solihull

see letter of objection to site 18

see letter and photos

As a resident of Heathcote Avenue I feel I should write in connection to the above proposed development on the site of the old rugby ground in Sharmans Cross road. I strongly object to the plans to build houses on this site as it is my belief that this land should only be used for sporting purposes, indeed, in 1965 a 125 year lease was set up by the council to ensure the land remains as playing fields. How can it be then, with 71 years of this lease still applicable that the council wish to
renege on this lease since they are the leaseholders.

It is therefore surprising to me that the council sold the leasehold land to a firm of developers Since they acquired the land the new owners have made it virtually impossible for the land to be used as it was intended;

i.e. sporting purposes, by proposing an astronomical rent

If the proposed development went ahead it would be a disaster for the people of Solihull who would have lost a precious sporting site. Furthermore, if such a large number of houses were built on this site it would be absolute chaos; traffic is already heavily congested in this area. During rush-hour Sharmans Cross road would be a no-go area. Apart from the traffic, the schools in this area are already over-subscribed, as are the doctors

I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail in this matter and that the council will not allow the land to be used for anything other than sporting purposes.

I still believe there is a huge gap in the consideration of how residents can travel from Solihull train station to International Station without having travel via Birmingham. Is this possible by creating a new track from Widney Manor Station that could follow the motorway route to junction 6?
Not everyone wants to drive to International or travel by bus, if they are taking luggage or bags with them.

Please see covering letter

I strongly object to the above planning application on the following grounds

1. To build 67/100 houses on this piece of land would result in no end of problems - primarily caused by the sheer over density - the density would be 4-5 times at least that of the surrounding housing and would lead to the destruction of character and distinctiveness of the area. Inevitably there would be a massive shortfall in parking spaces on the proposed development and the widespread tarmacking that would take the place of the current grassland would no doubt lead to worsening flooding (as we are being constantly reminded) particularly as the current Victorian drains are already not coping. The shortage of parking on the proposed development would only worsen if Solihull Arden Club were to lose car parking spaces. There would inevitably be more chaos on Sharmans Cross Road, possibly causing overflowing cars to be parked on the road or indeed on the side roads off causing even more congestion. This would be particularly hazardous when Sharmans Cross School are starting and finishing - this area is always dangerously overburdened at peak times.

2. Sharmans Cross School is already having to make class sizes bigger and has undergone recent extension work to try and cope with the swelling pupil numbers in the locality and presumably this proposal takes no account of the additional children which*** need to be schooled from the new housing. Doubtless the same strain would apply to local medical centres which are already struggling. Local services would inevitably be diminished.

3. As already stated the development would be high density housing which is utterly devastating for the wildlife which live in this area and Solihull Council has just carried out significant Woodland Management Works in Pow Wood which borders the site in question - it had been hoped that the wildlife in these woods would thrive as a result of these extensive works (for which we have received funds from the European Development Fund). The housing development will only*** have a disastrous effect on the woodland wildlife which it is actively seeking to improve through its 'Solihull Habitat and Nature Improvements Project' !

4. This land has been carefully protected over the years for use of recreation/sporting activities, especially for the health and wellbeing of our local young people who have to travel much further afield to find rugby clubs, football clubs etc. Land earmarked for sporting facilities should be protected and used for such purposes - not high density housing. We owe this to our children and grandchildren.

Objection to development of Site 16 East of Solihull between Lugtrout Lane and Hampton Lane within existing green belt. No additional school places for primary or secondary education are proposed.
Protection of two Heritage Assets (Field Farm and 237 Lugtrout Lane) and their setting is essential.
Developers should guarantee that Sports Facilities (Coldland Colts Boys FC) shall be relocated prior to residential development. No consideration has been given to mains services to proposed housing, including electricity, gas, water supply, mains drainage and telecommunications. Section 106 agreement with developer to improve Site of Special Scientific Interest along Grand Union Canal.

Shirley has taken the brunt of housing provision.
Whilst there has been little doubt over the need for housing, the fairness of its distribution has been brought into question. The Parkgate and Powergen developments preceded this version of the Local Plan, though they still have a significant impact on Shirley.
In light of this fact, the distribution of housing in the Shirley environs (named Blythe here) has been remarked upon. Over a third of the allocated site provision is in or around Shirley. This should be cause for alarm at the processes followed. It should draw into question the functioning of the methodology that is producing these results. Any successful methodology should not appear ambiguous or arbitrary, nor should it draw into question the intentions of Planners.
On these grounds we do not appear to be succeeding.

The Solihull Masterplan should have been included in the Supplementary Update.
The contribution that the redevelopment of Solihull Town Centre can make to housing provision, needs to be the context within which other sites are considered.
Not only does Solihull Town Centre offer possibilities for sustainable and active transport that other areas cannot, it is of key strategic importance for the successful deployment of UK Central. It also offers an opportunity for development of housing for young people and a revitalising of the High Street, at a time when there is considerable uncertainty around retail commerce.
I can appreciate that there is considerable work to be done in drawing up, what may prove to be, the most substantial masterplan. That said, an understanding of the contribution it can make to housing need is essential when reviewing other sites. To facilitate a departure from car dependency, partners like "Car Clubs" should be brought on through the design phase on this element. When plans are brought forward, hopefully some detail on deliverable schemes can be included.

Many residents are happy Solihull station will not be relocated.
The plans would have been both costly, potentially unnecessary, as well as shifting the centre of gravity of the town centre considerably.

It would have been beneficial to have some indication of the direction of travel as it pertains to Shirley.
Powergen and Parkgate are significant developments, that have not been without opposition. Whilst there are elements that residents are happy with, there were many contentious points.
There is trepidation that further major change would be directed at Shirley High Street without prior warning. This is important for business to direct the necessary investment and for residents to be brought on-board with any proposed changes.


How Cranmore is 'recycled' is of interest and concern to residents in that area.
There has been sometimes strained relations between the business park on neighbouring residents. Whilst the area provides valuable employment opportunities for people in the area, it has been developed in a somewhat haphazard manner.
Redevelopment of the site may be welcomed by many residents, as it could offer the opportunity to address many of the issues it has created. For this to happen, residents would again need to be brought on that journey from early stages. Presenting plans for acceptance is a manner of 'planning' that causes friction with residents. It also prevents opportunities being missed and unnecessary conflicts being created.

When Sports grounds are relocated, it impacts the community.
Many sports pitches operate as informal Public Open Space. They also are a community asset that link people to locales. Whilst relocation offers opportunities for facilities improvements, it also can move them outside the sustainable reach of residents, increasing car dependency.

I notice a large number of persistently vacant offices in central Solihull. There should be a compulsory requirement for any offices vacant after say a year to be changed to living accommodation. The same could be applied to vacant shops.

I fully support improving transport links - though am very sceptical that congestion can be eased through more people using public transport. Great idea , does sometimes work, but these kind of ideas have been banded around many times before, like restricting the size of Work car parks to encourage people to commute using public transport. But it rarely worked and just pushed traffic and parking on to neighbouring streets. So yes, let's improve the commute (with parking) to and from solihull, but don't presume most will not arrive by car. And think in the same way for Knowle!