Question 25 - Infrastructure Requirements at Solihull/Mature Suburbs

I object to development on green belt land. There are many brown field and derelict sites in Birmingham that should be developed before requiring Solihull to share their housing requirement. Solihull Council should make forceful representations on this point.
The majority of the roads around the surrounding areas of Solihull are inadequate to cope with additional traffic.
The whole character of the area is under threat from the scale of the proposed developments.

I refer to the above and Local Development Plan - item 245.

This area has for years been used as social and sporting. Since the demise of the Rugby Club it has been subject to speculation and concern by many.

Such a valuable natural facility is rare and should be cherished - once lost for development it will never come back. What wildlife considerations are made? Trees, Open spaces to enjoy, fresh air and a healthy area to be in once lost can not be replaced.

The proposal for housing is flawed. The road networks in that area are already stretched, the lack of other facilities in terms of Doctors must also raise concerns as well is there sufficient space in local schools?

It is appreciated that housing needs to be considered but there are so many more suitable areas in which such development could be made without disruption to life, nature or compromised road safety.

I wonder how traffic will enter and leave what would realistically be a new estate. Such of course not just attracting residents vehicles but all the necessary services, deliveries, and maintenance that go with it. You will appreciate many modern households probably have more than one vehicle.

Solihull used to be a fine area to live. We are in danger of loosing the title 'Urbs in Rure' for Development and seem to punish residents who will in turn lived in a confined space.

I would urge you and your colleagues to dismiss planning application / consideration and have the area returned to, and used by your residents for sporting, leisure and social activity. Please do not loose such a valuable open space but consider enhancing the same for the benefit of all present and future.

see attached letter

I wish to oppose the inclusion of the old Rugby Club Ground in Sharmans Cross Road in The Local Development Plan for new houses.

The Planning Committee must reiterate its 2013 all party policy on maintaining the sports ground covenant on this site.

The proposals for such a high density of houses, which is 4 to 5 times the density of adjacent housing, would be completely out of keeping and character with the surrounding area and take away from Solihull residents the beneficial effects of this green space asset. If this sports ground and open space is taken away it will never be replaced, countering the recognised benefits of retaining sports grounds and parkland within town and urban areas for the health and well-being for the community now and for generations to come.

Additional road traffic from and to the proposed development would overwhelm the current road system in the area, causing road traffic congestion and increase the risk to pedestrians and cyclists ( especially school children from Sharmans Cross Junior School ). It would almost certainly require major road work improvements at the junction of Sharmans Cross Road and Streetsbrook Road.

Other aspects of infrastructure such as school places, medical facilities and storm water and sewerage systems would not cope without hugely expensive ( to Solihull Council ) alterations to the already stretched existing services.

The impact of the proposals on wildlife and protected trees in the area and the adjacent Pow Grove would be extremely damaging.

The criteria for Sustainability are not met in that the National Policy Framework requires that developments have access to local amenities within 800m/10mins walk away. This site is 1000m from the train station and 1700m from Solihull town centre.

Bearing these points in mind, I ask that the 2013 all party committee meeting which affirmed the policy that they would not sell the freehold of this site or lift the covenants regarding the site only being used for sport be upheld and that this plot of land is left, as intended for sports use only.

Sharmans cross road development of playing fields
I am registering my objection to the proposed development of the playing fields in Sharmans cross road.

My reasons are quite simple
The density of properties is at its peak currently The roads, schools, doctors do not have the capacity to cope with a new development The traffic is already to heavy and any increase would be dangerous there are already issues with parking and air pollution from stationary traffic. The pavements are particularly small in certain areas and there will undoubtedly be increased danger to pedestrians, especially children who walk and cycle to school. There was a major incident only last night.
There are not enough sporting grounds in the borough, if any development goes ahead another sporting space would be lost forever, as I understand there is a commitment by the council to keep this land as sporting ground.

See Letters

letter of objection to local development plan site 245
(site 18 -Sharman's Cross road)

I live in Winterbourne Road. We have lived at our current address for almost 8 years. We both work in the local area and chose Solihull as the place we wanted to move to to bring up our two children aged 8 and 5. We are also members of the Solihull Arden Club.

I have recently reviewed the Solihull Draft Local Plan (DLP) and was alarmed to see proposed housing allocation 18 for 100 homes at Sharmans Cross Road. The statement that the proposal was previously rejected due to the lack of affordable housing and thus the principle of development was considered acceptable is simply not correct. The volume of objections received by the Council made it clear that the development was in no way considered acceptable particularly because of the impact on the wider community - I expand on this further below,

In response to Q28 in the DLP I do not agree that building 100 homes at Sharmans Cross Road is appropriate and my strong view is that it should be removed from the proposal allocation in the final version of the plan. I object to the site's inclusion for the following reasons:

1. Increased traffic

The roads around the proposed site cannot cope with the additional traffic that 100 new homes would bring. At rush hour times and other busy periods during week days and at weekends, it is virtually impossible to turn right out of Dorchester Road onto the Streetsbrook Road, for example. Similarly, it is almost impossible to turn right out of Sharmans Cross Road onto the Streetsbrook Road.

100 new homes would bring at least 100 if not 200 (with 2 cars per household) of additional traffic. This would have a serious impact on highway safety and increase the risk of accidents to pedestrians (in particular, children walking to Sharmans Cross junior school and other local secondary schools), cyclists (I understand that the Streetsbrook road is a designated cyclist route) and other road users. I have witnessed accidents on both of the junctions I mention above and I am very concerned about the dangerous impact of increased traffic in the area.

2. Permanent loss of sporting facilities

The proposal includes the land on the old rugby pitches being developed.


It removes the potential for any development of the site to enable it to become a focus for community sport for children, young adults and older generations. Having access to such facilities which is key to promoting well-being (physical and mental) in our community.

Oakmoor has mentioned previously that the site has been derelict and subject to vandalism for at least 6 years. My understanding is that Oakmoor has previously rejected any requests from local sports teams to use the site and where they have had conversations, there have been extortionate demands for rent for the use of the two pitches.

Section 11 of the DLP deals with Health and Supporting Local Communities. One of the key points made is that any developments will be expected to promote, support and enhance physical and mental health and well being. It goes on to say that healthy lifestyles will be enabled by "supporting the retention and protection of facilities which promote healthy lifestyles such as open space, including public rights of way to open space, playing pitches and allotments".

Maintaining the land at Sharmans Cross Road as sporting pitches falls squarely within the above objective. The Council's Health and Wellbeing strategy 2016-2019 has as one of its priorities tackling childhood obesity and one of the ways to tackle this is to increase the uptake of physical activity amongst children. Having sport pitches in the local area which can be used by local youth and adult teams is key in achieving this. The local state primary schools lack green space for the children to take part in sporting activities and having sports pitches which the children could use is vital in getting them engaged in sport from a young age.

The Council minuted in its 2013 policy that the grounds would only be used for sport and the freehold would not be sold. This implies that the site was and still is inappropriate for inclusion in the local development plan.

4. Suitability

Building 100 houses on the site would be approximately 5 times the density of the houses on Winterbourne Road and surrounding roads. The development would destroy the character of the neighbourhood. This is an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site and would be out -of - character with the existing housing in the vicinity. I understand that the previous planning application including houses of 3 stories which is totally out of keeping with the rest of the neighbourhood. This would inevitably result in loss of privacy and light. In addition, many of the trees around the boundary of the site are subject to TPOs and the impact on the environment of increased pollution, loss of natural habitat for wildlife etc does not appear to have been taken into account at all in the draft master plan.

5. Schools and Medical centres

Having two children of primary school age, I am very aware of the shortage of primary spaces. Similarly with GPs, whilst efforts have been made at our local surgery to increase the availability of appointments, this is still far from perfect and it is very difficult to get routine appointments. Amenities such as these are already oversubscribed and the proposed development would further impact on this without bringing benefits to the wider community (with the retention of what could be a fantastic sports facility in the form of the rugby pitches).

6. Conclusion

Putting 100 houses on this site is not, in my view, an appropriate way of contributing to to the housing need in Solihull. Whilst I understand the need for development in the borough (and there are a number of much higher volume sites available in the borough), this should not come at the price of sporting facilities which could benefit the wider community as a whole (which in itself would help the Council deliver its other key objectives of promoting health and well-being in the borough). In addition, the development should not be shoe-horned into a site which is not appropriate for development because of the detrimental impact it will have on the local area as a result of:
* increased traffic which with it brings significant highway safety issues;
* pressure on local services which are already oversubscribed;
* the overdevelopment of the site.

Local Development Plan Site 245
I have no doubt that you will have had many objections to the putative usurping of the 2013 all party policy on the sports ground only covenant on the Rugby Ground. Selling the freehold for residential development would be both ill-advised and short sighted. The following reasons support this contention, viz:

The density would be 5 times that of the surrounding area.

The character and distinctiveness of the surrounding area would be diminished.

Parking in the surrounding area would become a nightmare.

There are a number of tree preservation orders in operation.

The Victorian drainage system is already fully stretched. And would, almost certainly, break down completely if forced to cope with an increase in capacity.

The existing medical/educational facilities would be sore pressed to cope with the influx that would result from proposed residential development.

Please take this email as formal objections to the Plan from myself and my wife.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation Site 18
I am writing to state I believe the 2013 all party policy for the Rugby Ground to maintain the sports ground covenant and not sell the freehold should be enforced. I am deeply concerned if the plans go ahead and feel the council should listen to all the objections.

There will be a complete change in the area if it goes ahead - it wouldn't be in the same scale as the existing housing in the area and out of character.

Already, Dorchester Road is seeing a huge increase in traffic as Streetsbrook Road is becoming a standstill traffic jam most mornings, if the development goes ahead the traffic volume would increase beyond what I feel the roads can carry and would cause a huge disruption to residents and commuters alike.

My children walk or ride to school where possible and we walk regularly round the area and I truly worry about their safety should the development go ahead and there would subsequently be an increase in the amount of cars in the area.

Parking would be a major issue, Sherman's Cross Road is already heavily congested at peak times and this would increase and become a danger to school children, pedestrians and road users.

Flooding is another issue I am concerned with as the development would only add to and ever increasing current situation.

The schools in the area are already over subscribed and adding more houses would only add to this situation.

As I understand, l the National Planning Policy framework requires developments to have access to local amenities within 800m/10mins walk and this site doesn't fulfil that, being 1700m from Solihull and 1000m from the station so it has no validity.

I urge the council to make the right decision and not allow the plans to go ahead and retain the grounds for what they were intended.

I am writing to express my multiple concerns in relation to the proposed housing development on Sharmans Cross Road. As a home owner of 42 Winterbourne Road, we back onto the site. My objections are as follows:-

1) Sporting Facilities - I understand the Rugby pitch has a stipulation which requires the site to be used for sporting purpose.
As a football coach of a Solihull based u12's football team, and having been so for 6 years, I know how difficult and expensive it is to find local facilities.
We currently have to travel twice a week, both times for an hour in rush hour traffic, to north Solihull to find adequate facilities to train on. Additionally, we also have to move out of the area to play our home matches on Saturday, both due to the lack of, and over subscription of the current sporting facilities available locally.


Not withstanding the inconvenience this causes, for parents all of who live in the B91 area, I know that as just one team I pay around £4,500 -£5,000 for training grounds, match day pitches and club facilities/hospitality, which I would much prefer to spend helping my local facilities and businesses.


I, myself would be interested in leasing/using the facilities, however I understand the holders either do not respond to enquiries, or price the site unrealistically, so that it makes it unviable for the use it was intended.
It feels that the current leaseholders are not interested in using this as a sports facility and this really feels like an underhanded approach by the holders.


I believe with this stipulation that these grounds are inappropriate for inclusion in the LDP, even though multiple attempts for planning permission have been put forward.

My concern is that grounds for sport will disappear with these plans for building and others in the area. We really need to invest in our youth to ensure a healthy lifestyle. Taking away facilities does not support this philosophy. This experience is supported by the data from the National league tables for participation in sport 3 or more times a week which indicates that Solihull is the 3rd quartile (in the 50th to 75th spot).


2) Local Amenities - As a dad of 2 children (aged 13 & 12), I am concerned about the lack of local amenities to service an increased community/population as a result of 67-100 properties being built i.e. school & college places, doctor, hospitals etc.

3) Flooding -We already experience issues with flooding on Sharmans Cross Road and in the gardens running along Beaminster Road. The drainage systems are not equipped to cope with additional usage from an additional 67-100 families.

4) Additional traffic and issues with parking - I am concerned from a safety perspective (my children walking to school) and also the increase congestion and gridlock in the morning and evening.

5) 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

6) Schools and Medical
Centres. These amenities are already oversubscribed. When calling to make an appointment for my son this week, I found myself number 36 in a queue and had to wait on hold for 35 minutes to get a doctors appointment, having called within 1 minute of the surgery opening at 8am.
This development will further increase demand leading to a degradation of services for residents.

I am really concerned with these plan, and would appreciate you an acknowledgement.

With reference to the Local Development Proposed Housing Allocation Site 18, I understand that in 2013 there was a SMBC all party committee meeting which agreed that the freehold for the Solihull Rugby Ground on Sharmans Cross Road would not be sold and that the covenants for the ground be honoured, with the land only to be used for sporting purposes. The LDP Proposed Housing Allocation Site 18 is in direct conflict with this and I urge the rejection of this proposal.

Furthermore I also understand that Silhill Football Club have requested use of the pitches for football and have approached Oakmoor the leaseholder who have proposed an annual fee of £60,000. This is outrageous as Oakmoor pay just £250 per annum. Oakmoor clearly have no interest in using the ground for sporting purposes nor the local community and wish to use the ground for their own gain. I consider this a disgrace and SMBC should rescind the lease with Oakmoor and ensure the use for sporting purposes as intended.

Additional points relating to LDP Proposed Housing Allocation Site 18 which concern me are:

* Loss of sporting facilities and green land - as Solihull continues to grow, the sporting facilities should grow with it and not be reduced. This proposal is a further loss of green land and reduced recreational facilities in the centre of Solihull. I believe that there is already a shortage of rugby and football pitches in the area which need safeguarding. I have lived in Solihull for 57 years and over this time have been saddened to see our parks, playing fields and green spaces eroded. These valuable and essential spaces need protecting for a health future of Solihull.

* Scale & Density - The proposed development plan of 67/100 houses would represent a density of 4 - 5 times that of the surrounding area. This is completely out of character and inappropriate for the location.

* Traffic issues / Access & Egress - The area is already very busy with traffic and the addition of a significant number of dwellings will compound the situation. Parking is also a major issue in this area. LDP Proposed Housing Allocation Site 18 will only compound the situation.

* Drainage & Sewage - The area already suffers from poor drainage, excess surface water and when there is heavy rainfall there is sewage overflow. The loss of pitches and a new housing development will exasperate the situation and put increased pressure on the already inadequate drainage system

* Solihull Arden Rackets Club - The club (of which I am a member) currently utilises parking on the rugby club ground. Despite this at peak times there is inadequate parking space. The reduced parking for the rackets club would cause serious difficulties which would compound the above mentioned traffic and parking issues. In addition I fear that with the potential disruption during the lengthy building process, this could result in the loss of many members which ultimately could result in the closure of the club, leading to the potential loss of more green land and further reduce the recreational facilities in the centre of Solihull.


I do not consider LDP Proposed Housing Allocation Site 18 to be in the interest of Solihull and I urge the rejection to this proposal.

See attached letter. The Open Spaces Society is Britain's oldest national conservation body, founded in
1865. The Society's aim is to protect, increase, enhance and champion open spaces,
common land, village greens and public paths.
Consequently, sections 96 to 98 of the NPPF headed Open space and recreation are
seen of particular importance.
The questions addressed by the Society are those headed Do you agree with the
infrastructure requirements? for each area. These are Questions 3, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 29, and 31.
No equivalent question was asked about the UK Central Hub, so a comment has been made in response to Question 44.

I am writing to express my multiple concerns in relation to the proposed housing development on
Sharmans Cross Road. As a home owner of 38 Sharmans Cross Road,
My objections are as follows:-

Firstly may i ask if you are planning to build a new primary school & secondary school, as there has been planning for a large housing estate on the stratford road, where are you planning on putting all the extra children, as the schools in Solihull are already over subscribed, as are the hospitals, dentists,
doctors and colleges, as a mother of two children I am very worried about this.

Flooding
We already experience issues with dreadful flooding on Sharmans Cross Road . The drainage systems are not equipped to cope with additional usage from an additional 67-100 families.

Additional traffic and issues with parking - I am concerned from a safety perspective (my children walking to and from school) and also the increase congestion and gridlock in the morning and evening.

Please Send your traffic control personal to come down and take a look at Sharmans Cross Road between 8 am - 9 am & 3.45-5.30 it is so congested so to add another 67 - 100 houses to an already over populated area seems like madness to me.

What about all the building traffic, the road is already far to dangerous as it is.

Sporting
Facilities - I understand the Rugby pitch has a stipulation which requires the site to be used for sporting purpose. I also understand that there have been multiple enquiries to lease holders to use the site for sport e.g. football training. The holders either do not take the enquiries, or price the site unrealistically, so that it makes it unviable or the use it was intended. This really seems to be an underhanded approach by the holders. I understand with this stipulation that these grounds are inappropriate for inclusion in the LDP, even though multiple attempts for planning permission have been put forward.

My sons play for Local teams and my concern is that grounds for sport will disappear with these plans for building and others in the area.

I am really concerned with these plan, could you please reply to me with your plans for all the above.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation Site 18

I wish to object strongly to the inclusion of the former Rugby ground in Sharmans Cross road in the LDP (Site 18).

This is an entirely inappropriate site for many reasons which has in the past led to the site being firmly rejected several times as being unsuitable for housing development.
As a resident who lives in Sharmans Cross road, my objections are:

1 This is valuable and accessible local sports field within the community which has a covenant for its use for sporting purposes only.
The Council itself has recognised this in 2013 when they passed an all party policy to maintain the sports ground only covenant and not sell the freehold.
I therefore think I am entirely justified to demand that the site is removed permanently from the development plan.
This area has already lost several sports fields over the last few years and Solihull is in the bottom quartile nationally in over 16 participation in sport.
We are already desperately short of pitches, teams I have played for in the past have had to travel out of the area for their 'home' pitches.

2 There will be a significant increase in traffic volumes and associated traffic pollution. Sharmans Cross road is already gridlocked at morning and evening rush hours, with queues of traffic both ways to Streetsbrook road and to Danford lane.
These queues overlap outside my house and cause significant pollution and making access and exit at these times extremely difficult.

3 The density of the development would be out of character with the neighbouring areas. It is likely to be 4 to 5 times the density and is entirely inappropriate.

4 Parking on any new development is likely to be cramped and cause an increase on street parking in Sharmans cross road. Partaking is already chaotic during peak times and school start and finish times. Solihull Arden club will also lose 70-80 parking spaces which will increase this problem.

5 The field is an important buffer zone for the ancient woodland of Pow Grove. We are privileged to have a wildlife habitat for a wide variety of birds and animals.
building on the sports field will remove this buffer zone and threatens its very existence.

I trust you will consider my objections seriously and take this inappropriate site out of the plan permanently.

We act for the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (CCWMP) and are instructed to make representations on local development documents in respect of securing policy reference in such documents
see details in attached letter

see attached documents

We write on behalf of our client, IM Properties Limited (hereafter referred to as 'IM'), in response to the Solihull Local Plan Review (SLPR) Draft Local Plan (DLP) Supplementary Consultation, which was published for consultation in January 2019.
IM Properties own and are actively promoting several sites and assets within the Borough, including Mell Square, Blythe Valley Park and Fore Business Park.
IM Land, the strategic land division of IM, also has existing and emerging land interests within the Borough; separate representations have been submitted
in relation to IM Land's interests.
see attached letter

See Letter

I would like to add my voice to the general protest about the development of the sports fields at the Arden tennis Club. I moved to Solihull just over three years ago attracted by the area, the schools, the supposedly reduced traffic compared to Birmingham etc. I am also impressed by the commitment of the borough to try to keep some semblance of character to the town - something I think Birmingham has done very poorly by knocking down historic or characterful buildings everywhere and letting anything get built (see the new eyesore tower blocks near the old McLaren building as an example).

For me Sharmans Cross Road is very much at the tipping point between being a pleasant place to live and a place that is just a thoroughfare. The traffic is already an absolute nightmare and is clearly getting worse. Traffic from Blossomfield Road typically goes up to around 56/58 Sharmans Cross Road in one direction and from the Junior School all the way to the Sharmans Cross roundabout in the other. Two days ago there was a major collision on the road just outside the Arden Tennis Club and this type of driving is only getting worse because of the number of cars combined with the impatience of drivers as they get frustrated and begin to cut corners. The traffic around my son's school (Blossomfield) is so bad that drivers now regularly drive on the pavement to get past.

And now we are facing another request to develop the Rugby fields and generate yet more traffic. I have to say if this goes ahead it will send a very clear signal on the direction and priorities of the borough which is revenue first, people second. I'd have to seriously consider moving out simply because the roads would be becoming so dangerous I dread to think of 18 months from now when my son has to cross the road to Sharmans Cross Junior; crossing a busy roads with totally inadequate parking, impatient drivers and going to a school which would need to have yet another intake added.

I write as a local resident from B91 1QE which is in the neighbourhood of the above proposed housing allocation Site 18.
I am exasperated and feel harassed with the ongoing battle which it seems we residents must fight regularly in order to save this vestige of remaining open space.

Here are some reasons why the proposal is untenable.
* Perhaps the most important negative impact on the surrounding area may be the amount of traffic which already exists on the roads in the area during the morning and the afternoon school and business hours. It already is excessively high. So much so that there is frequently gridlock at the round-about (which flows more smoothly than the jam caused by the newish lights at the top of Danford Lane) where Sharmans Cross Road meets Prospect Lane , Danford Lane and Solihull Road. The same is also true at the top of Sharmans Cross Road attempting to access Streetsbrook Road, despite two outlets up there. This in turn causes severe queues which lead all the way back to Stratford Road - making the journey into Solihull itself from Shirley prolonged, stressful and polluted. Main arteries are severely delayed if not blocked in all these areas by a general increase in traffic over the last few years. On Friday 8th March 2019 traffic leading to Blossomfield Road was still trailing as far as 113 Danford Lane by 9;10am.
*
* There are not enough amenities to cater for such an influx in the population in the area. Northbrook Doctors surgery has no appointments available at all for a month. That surgery will also be impacted by your development of additional flats at the Poppy round-about on the Stratford Road. This poses a direct threat to the health of the community.
*
* Relating to the last point this traffic is already creating a large Health and Safety issue and any further increase to the area will result in further hindrance, frustration and anxiety amongst all who use it or live in the vicinity.
*
* If there are no other natural open areas for young and old to frequent and you are removing all possibility of employing the field for its original purpose for sport by developing it. Where would you propose any sports clubs or recreation groups to go to? The 2013 all party policy on this Rugby Ground and maintaining the 'sports ground only covenant' and not selling the freehold should be retained because it is the will of this community and its people. Groups cannot play regular football, cricket or any other sports in nearby Prospect Park due to the roads, lack of facilities and also the numbers of people who enjoy using the park with their dogs - and rightly so. Rugby is a game which needs this site and the council should be promoting it.
*
* The adjacent Sharmans Cross Juniour school is and will be oversubscribed. Funding for education is in difficulty and the school will need to be stretched beyond its means if the population here were to be increased further. In addition to this, an expansion of the school would eat into more of the greenery which its plot of land currently owns. Children see precious little of the countryside as it is. I know this as I work with children.
*
* The local convenience shops on Prospect Lane do not have the capacity to serve the amount of people and cars which will need to use them if 67 - 100 more homes are built here. Parking is an issue. Drivers are already forced to park on kerb sides and often double park. The Sharmans Cross pub car park is used by shoppers and frequently full with their own clients, especially between 3pm and 5pm causing traffic to get caught up on Prospect Lane.
*
* Pavements as well as roads on Sharmans Cross Road are perilously overcrowded at school closing times.
*
* The rate of crime has risen in the area. This is a fact. Each shop on Prospect Lane was broken into, some twice, over the Christmas period 2018. How will you police this when Shirley Police Station has now gone and Solihull Police Station is under threat of closure. Neighbours in Danford Lane have reported more recent thefts from their back gardens. My car had valuable items stolen from it. When there is a rise in population and space, stress is created. Crime will rise further.
*
* The Council should be promoting the use of green spaces dedicated to community activities such as this space was before the current owners Oakmore Ltd removed the sports facilities which existed there. The Arden Tennis Club is an asset to the area.
*
* The Council should be making an effort to encourage the community to use this space to promote social interaction such as increasingly popular and carboot sales and fetes which are a great source of revenue etc thereby encouraging community cohesion and well-being in what is becoming an increasingly diverse community around Sharmans Cross.
* Site 18 is a different type of park that has natural beauty where people can really feel the moto 'Urbs in Rure' makes some sense. It is where owners can allow their pets off leash without fear of them being run over (unlike in Prospect Lane where roads run through the land.) The nearby woods are remains of the ancient Forest of Arden and should be retained for community use. They may become a place of danger if situated in an overcrowded area and then no doubt the council would seek to destroy them also. Currently they support a variety of wildlife, as do the surrounding hedgerows and are a place for respite.
*
* As more permission is given to house owners in this area for expansion from 3 - 5 bedrooms, two houses to be joined up to make one and cars with four vehicles on their drives, the population here is already very high and becoming stressed and could become as some of the suburbs of London - socially disconnected.
* I recognise the need for further housing in England however the increasing area of greenbelt land which is being developed and all the development going on by the M42 junction, Dickens Heath and surrounds all need to have open space incorporated into their plans for the above reason - As the countryside which began at Whitefields Road is a distant memory, developing Site 18 simply detracts from such a vision for community needs.

I wish to formally oppose the planned development of the site in Sharmans Cross Road
previously used for Rugby and currently for Football and other sports at the Arden Club.

We have far too few green spaces in Solihull allways being greedily eyed by developers
to make a handsome profit and once completed retreat to their more sulubrious properties in the country .
Solihull has a great tradition of excellent housing stock and this must be protected to ensure the borough does not lose its magnetism for those people wanting to move to Solihull with their jobs .

Never should any consideration be given to the "fast buck" philosophy but instead care for that which is worth keeping in perpituity .

The poposed building site will have significant impacts on access and egress from and to it with high risk of accidents in Sharmans Cross road and the environs. Traffic volumes will significantly increase and quiet roads around the area will become congested and potentially dangerous .
Along with congestion on the roads the parking will become a major problem.(Just look at the parking in Woodside Way every day when 20/30 vehicles reduce the road to a single roadway )
A younger population will undoubtedly increase noise pollution and destroy the character of the area .
Finally the drainage in the whole area is already on a knife edge and no doubt the effect of this development will have added complications which the Council will be faced with in issues of flooding .
Please stop now!!

As a resident of Solihull near the Rugby Ground, I am writing to object in the strongest terms to any proposals to redevelop the Rugby Ground for housing and any allocation therefore in the Local Development Plan.

This site is of significant local interest to the community and should be retained as a sports ground and for recreational use. You will recall the 2013 all party committee affirmed that the Council would not sell the freehold of the Rugby Ground nor lift the covenants restricting the use of the site for sporting facilities. Can I ask therefore why the Ground has been listed as available for residential mixed use? This is directly contrary to the commitments made.

Recreational and sporting facilities are in decline in the borough and the Council has a responsibility to the residents of Solihull to ensure it is doing what it can to preserve opportunities for such recreation and open space generally.

The Council appears to want to shoe horn residential development into every available spare corner - much like 'garden grabbing' tactics deployed by developers- which will destroy the character of Solihull as a borough and will be particularly detrimental to the area around Sharmans Cross Road and the Rugby Ground. I chose to live here because of the character of the neighbourhood. The proposals are totally out of keeping with that and must be thrown out. They will materially adversely impact on the appearance, quality, use and amenity of the surrounding area and hence will devalue the neighbourhood.

The proposals for residential development on the site are objectionable for a number of other reasons also:

1. The development is not in keeping with the character of the area.
2. Dense development would add a considerable burden on the surrounding roads, drainage, infrastructure and amenities.
3. Parking and traffic would be intolerable.
4. Solihull is known for its greenery and many trees in and around the site are protected by TPOs. Trees should not be felled for this sort of development. The adverse impact on ground conditions and climate generally is well documented. Also, if these trees are felled then what's to stop other landowners gaining permission to do the same? Removal of green space will also destroy natural wildlife habitats.
5. Solihull is already struggling severely with demand for things like GP appointments and school places. Trying to get an appointment with a GP can take weeks. Slotting in dense developments of the sort proposed will make this problem considerably worse and that is simply unacceptable.
6. Crime rates in Solihull are already high - dense developments increase populations locally but there is no policing in the borough to cope with that.

Whilst Solihull does require more housing, the Council should look for other sites which have more space for the associated infrastructure demands and look to release land in greenbelt for proper, considered development which can deliver better quality housing. We don't need more flats and shoebox size mixed tenure residential development but actual homes which are created in a less dense urban environment.

Strong objections were raised when a previous application of this nature was made in respect of this site. Those objections have not disappeared.

I trust that these objections will be taken fully into consideration and any application or allocation for residential development on this site be categorically refused.

This is the response of Generator Group and Minton to the supplementary
consultation by Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The
purpose of the response is to comment on the draft Plan and promote the site on land adj Harpers Field, Kenilworth Road Balsall Common for inclusion as a housing
allocation within the Plan. The response is by question order. Whilst we have
responded to each question, the detailed points in relation to our site are set out under question 39 and your attention is specifically drawn to this part of the response. It should be noted the site is developer owned and delivery of the site can therefore come forward early in the plan period

This is the response of Rosconn Strategic Land to the supplementary consultation by
Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the
response is to comment the draft Plan and promote three sites for inclusion as
housing allocations within the plan. The response is by question order.
The 3 sites are:
Land at Three Maypoles Farm Shirley
Land at r/o 2214 Stratford Road Hockley Heath
Land adj 161 Lugtrout Lane Solihull

The responses on the three sites to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation
are attached and which highlight the reasons why the sites should be allocations
within the Local Plan.

This document should also be read in conjunction with the Ecology Report and
Heritage Assessment in relation to land adj to 161 Lugtrout Lane, Solihull.
Your attention is also drawn to the attached Masterplan for land r/o 2214 Stratford
Road Hockley Heath.

Not withstanding that this is an informal consultation we consider that the document
should be accompanied by an up to date SA.

This is the response of Stonewater to the supplementary consultation by Solihull
Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the response is
to comment the draft Plan and promote the site at the Firs Maxstoke Lane (west of
Meriden proposed allocation site 10) for inclusion as a housing allocation within the
Plan. The response is by question order.
The original response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation is also
attached which highlights the reasons why the site should be an allocation within the
Local Plan (Site Ref 137).

see detailed comment in attached letter

This is the response of Mr Taj Khan, Sid Kelly and John Green to the supplementary
consultation by Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The
purpose of the response is to comment on the draft Plan and promote the site at 15,
59, & 61 Jacobean Lane Knowle for inclusion as a housing allocation within the Plan
and land north of Jacobean Lane being removed from the Green Belt and to support
the removal of land from the Green Belt to rectify anomalies and for consistency.
See detail response in attached letter and appendices

This is the response of Minton to the supplementary consultation by Solihull Council
on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the response is to
comment the draft Plan and promote the site at Oak Farm Catherine de Barnes for
inclusion as a housing allocation within the Plan. The response is by question order.
The original response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation is also
attached which highlights the reasons why the full Oak Farm site should be an
allocation within the Local Plan. We have also carried out our own Green Belt
Assessment a copy of which is attached

To Whom it may concern
I am writing to you to object to the proposed housing allocation for the Old Birmingham & Solihull Rugby Club/Solihull Arden Tennis and Sports Club on Sharman's Cross Rd.
I have recently moved into the area from another part of Solihull it to be an idyllic place to raise a young family. With the introduction of the proposed development I believe that this will have a detrimental effect to the area because of the following.

1) Increased Traffic
Our children still walk to school and we have noticed that during the peak periods the traffic from 0715hrs to 0900hrs the Sharman's Cross Junction with Stoner/Dorchester Rd and Streetsbrook Rd is extremely busy, they walk further down the road so they can cross at a safe place. The extra traffic would increase the difficulty in crossing the road.
2) Pedestrian Safety
The road system just about copes with the peak periods but you find that passing traffic, in order to gain access to Streetsbrook Rd, tend to take chances to squeeze into the flow of traffic, which again causes grid lock both ways towards Solihull and Birmingham. There is a distinct possibility that the two queues of traffic could meet, tail to tail.
3) Vehicle Parking
With modern society, it has been noticed that on average most households have 2 motor vehicles per family until the children are old enough to drive and then it increases to 4 vehicles, add the visiting partners and this is increase to 6. When the developers are trying to squeeze in 100 properties on a small piece of land this will increase the street parking problems that the area already has during the peak school run periods, at present it is difficult to pass with cars parked by the junior school.
4) Schooling
The primary and secondary schools in the area are already oversubscribed and in granting the permission for the development this would mean that the local authority would have to either increase the admissions to the schools or build another, both adding to the problem.
5) Local Amenities
The local shops and health care facilities struggle to cope with demand as the parking at Sharman's Cross precinct regularly spill
6) Pollution
Extra traffic associated with the new house will create more pollution affecting the welfare of both the residents and the local wildlife.
7) Wildlife
We have noticed since we have been here that there is an abundance of wildlife especially during the early mornings and dusk periods. Ranging from rabbits, foxes, badgers and bats taking the habitat away will reduce the number drastically.
8) Character of the Area
The introduction of 100 extra house to the area will drastically alter the character of the area, changing it from an established 1930-1950's style. There would be a necessity to add buildings over 2 stories high as the land space is limited therefore reducing the light in the area overshadowing properties in the local area
9) Sporting Facilities
Part of the area is used by Arden Sports club which offers a good variety of Racket sports, Gym and health spa along with the function area. Parking for this will be reduced again adding to the street parking problems in the area. On busy club evenings the members park their vehicles in the area previously used by the Rugby club already.With Silhill Football Club playing on the field next to the old Rugby ground, it would be more in line to allow them to have access and keep the area designated to sport as per the minuted SMBC meeting in 2013 with regard to the area being used for sports only and not selling the freehold. The area is also used for exercise by both young families, kicking a ball around, exploring the wooded area and dog walkers also use the area.

I would be very concerned if the development was to happen, although appreciating there is a need for affordable housing, I believe that the above reasons highlight that this particular area could not cope with the increased number of houses and families within such a small area, creating more problems for the community as a whole rather than solving the short term housing requirement.

I am writing to you to object to the proposed housing allocation for the Old Birmingham & Solihull Rugby Club/Solihull Arden Tennis and Sports Club on Sharman's Cross Rd.
I have recently moved into the area from another part of Solihull it to be an idyllic place to raise a young family. With the introduction of the proposed development I believe that this will have a detrimental effect to the area because of the following.

1) Increased Traffic
Our children still walk to school and we have noticed that during the peak periods the traffic from 0715hrs to 0900hrs the Sharman's Cross Junction with Stoner/Dorchester Rd and Streetsbrook Rd is extremely busy, they walk further down the road so they can cross at a safe place. The extra traffic would increase the difficulty in crossing the road.
2) Pedestrian Safety
The road system just about copes with the peak periods but you find that passing traffic, in order to gain access to Streetsbrook Rd, tend to take chances to squeeze into the flow of traffic, which again causes grid lock both ways towards Solihull and Birmingham. There is a distinct possibility that the two queues of traffic could meet, tail to tail.
3) Vehicle Parking
With modern society, it has been noticed that on average most households have 2 motor vehicles per family until the children are old enough to drive and then it increases to 4 vehicles, add the visiting partners and this is increase to 6. When the developers are trying to squeeze in 100 properties on a small piece of land this will increase the street parking problems that the area already has during the peak school run periods, at present it is difficult to pass with cars parked by the junior school.
4) Schooling
The primary and secondary schools in the area are already oversubscribed and in granting the permission for the development this would mean that the local authority would have to either increase the admissions to the schools or build another, both adding to the problem.
5) Local Amenities
The local shops and health care facilities struggle to cope with demand as the parking at Sharman's Cross precinct regularly spill
6) Pollution
Extra traffic associated with the new house will create more pollution affecting the welfare of both the residents and the local wildlife.
7) Wildlife
We have noticed since we have been here that there is an abundance of wildlife especially during the early mornings and dusk periods. Ranging from rabbits, foxes, badgers and bats taking the habitat away will reduce the number drastically.
8) Character of the Area
The introduction of 100 extra house to the area will drastically alter the character of the area, changing it from an established 1930-1950's style. There would be a necessity to add buildings over 2 stories high as the land space is limited therefore reducing the light in the area overshadowing properties in the local area
9) Sporting Facilities
Part of the area is used by Arden Sports club which offers a good variety of Racket sports, Gym and health spa along with the function area. Parking for this will be reduced again adding to the street parking problems in the area. On busy club evenings the members park their vehicles in the area previously used by the Rugby club already.With Silhill Football Club playing on the field next to the old Rugby ground, it would be more in line to allow them to have access and keep the area designated to sport as per the minuted SMBC meeting in 2013 with regard to the area being used for sports only and not selling the freehold. The area is also used for exercise by both young families, kicking a ball around, exploring the wooded area and dog walkers also use the area.

I would be very concerned if the development was to happen, although appreciating there is a need for affordable housing, I believe that the above reasons highlight that this particular area could not cope with the increased number of houses and families within such a small area, creating more problems for the community as a whole rather than solving the short term housing requirement