Question 25 - Infrastructure Requirements at Solihull/Mature Suburbs

I am writing to express my concern about the possibility of the former Bees rugby club ground off Sharmans Cross Rd being developed for housing. I have always understood that this land was set aside for sports facilities and when it has been used for that purpose in the past it has been a very valuable amenity for the local community. Surely at the moment when most politicians seem to agree that youth crime largely arises from a lack of things for youngsters to do, local authorities should be doing more, not less, to provide playing fields and other facilities for sporting and leisure activity.
Furthermore this particular site is wholly unsuitable for a large number of new dwellings. There are insufficient local facilities for schools and medical provision so more homes will simply put extra pressure on these resources.
A large number of new homes on this site will also cause parking and traffic chaos. Parking along Sharmans Cross Rd is already bad when there are events on at Sharmans Cross Junior School. In terms of traffic, the junction between Sharmans Cross Rd and Streetsbrook Rd is one of the worst in the borough for congestion and danger, particularly as Stonor Park Rd and Dorchester Rd also join Streetsbrook Rd at this point. In rush hour at both ends of the day there is significant congestion here which causes some drivers to take risks and pull out onto Streetsbrook Rd in dangerous circumstances. This would become far worse if there were a significant number of additional drivers trying to get out of a new estate.
I would urge the Council to re-think this issue if there is any prospect of the site not being preserved as open land

As a local resident I note with very great concern the inclusion within the Solihull Local Plan Review DRAFT Concept Masterplans January 2019 (Solihull Local Plan Site Allocations - Masterplans) Site 18: Sharmans Cross Road - the land used by the Arden Lawn Tennis Club and the land of the disused rugby pitches (former Birmingham and Solihull Bees), a 2.8 ha site which is located in a mature residential suburb to the west of Solihull town centre.

I am aware that in 2013 a Solihull MBC all party committee meeting affirmed as the Council's policy that the they would not sell the freehold of the site, nor lift the covenants regarding the sites only being used for sporting purposes and as ancillary to sport/recreation. I am therefore shocked to see that the site has been listed as available for up to 100 residential dwellings.

I would most respectfully demand that SMBC reaffirms and commits to adhere to the policy decision it took in 2013 - Solihull needs more investment in recreational and sporting facilities, not less.

Notwithstanding this, there are sound planning reasons why the land should not be developed as proposed in outline:

1. The housing density would be 4-5 times greater than the surrounding area.
2. The character and distinctiveness of the locality in this mature suburb would be damaged beyond recognition and forever .
3. There is already inadequate parking in the locality and the surrounding roads would be overloaded by the additional traffic.
4. Loss of trees and other green infrastructure.
5. The local infrastructure would not cope with the increased number of residents (schools, GP surgeries, Solihull hospital, drainage, police, fire etc).

I want to strongly object to the rugby pitches, accessed from Sharman's Cross Road, being approved for inclusion on the above Local Development Plan.
My objections are as follows: -
1. Permanent loss of sporting facilities - I have written and spoken to council employees and local councillors on many occasions about this matter. It is a crying shame that we have let (what once were) wonderful facilities just fade and decay into what they are now. I am 72 and I remember playing on these pitches, as did my son. I have had to watch them fall into disrepair over the last few years when I know that various local clubs would have loved to be able to use the facilities. However they have been prevented from doing so by Oakmore charging exorbitant rents so that they could then say that no-one uses the pitches and so enhance their opportunity to develop the land.
2. Use of land - I understand that SMBC have previously minuted its policy about the use of the grounds only for sport and that they would not sell the freehold. This presumably means that the land is not appropriate for inclusion in the LDP. Has this policy now changed and, if so, when and why?
3. Density - The proposed number of dwellings is considerably more than the density of property in the surrounding areas. The site will be both out of character and out of scale compared to existing development in the vicinity.
4. Design and appearance - This area contains several mature trees with Tree Preservation Orders. It has environmental benefits and is also home to bats, badgers and buzzards.
5. Increased traffic and associated pollution - the norm nowadays is for every adult to own a car. With the number of houses proposed for the site this will exacerbate what is already a very severe problem with traffic, causing gridlock, especially at school starting and finishing times. Sharman's Gross Road is already virtually impassable from 8am to 9am, at least. I really don't need to highlight the danger this would cause to pedestrians, unaccompanied children going to/from schools, cyclists (in what is a designated cycle route) and other vehicles. In addition to there being insufficient parking for the proposed new development, nearly 80 parking spaces would be lost at the Solihull Arden Club. This will obviously affect safety and congestion through increased street parking. Parking is already chaotic during peak times
6. Flooding - The development will worsen what is already a problem with flooding. I have to regularly clear the ditch at the back of my garden, on the rugby club side, to prevent my and my neighbour's gardens being flooded. Sharman's Cross Road is already subject to flooding during heavy rain.

7. Schools and medical centres - there are insufficient schools and medical services already and further development in this area can only cause a degradation of services for existing residents.
8. Sustainability - The site is nearly double the distance away from local amenities than is required in The National Planning Policy Framework so the criteria of that framework is not being met.
I would therefore ask that you remove the rugby pitches from the Local Development Plan for new houses and also that you retain the site as a sports ground as specified in the current SMBC lease with Oakmoor. It would also be in the interests of everyone if SMBC could work with Oakmore and existing or new sports clubs to ensure that the ground is used for sporting purposes in the future.
Finally, the 2013 all party policy on the Rugby Ground maintaining the sports ground only covenant and not selling the freehold should be retained. We need to create a structure for the ownership of the Rugby Ground which would protect it in the future.

I am writing to raise my objection to the SHARMAN CROSS PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, based on the following
1) the amount of traffic in the local vicinity has reached saturation point. The decision by the council to implement traffic lights at the top end of Danford Lane next to Alderbrook School has resulted in Danford Lane and the associated areas becoming a car park in the morning and early evening. Further housing developments will only serve to worsen the volume and the associated pollution to the atmosphere.
2) Local amenities such as GP's, Dentists, School places etc will be even more stretched than now.
3) Use the area for sporting facilities especially for younger people. There is a serious lack of such facilities in the area

I am writing to express my objections to the above proposed planning allocation for houses to be built on the the rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road Solihull.
I have many concerns in relation to this development, which, in my view render it inappropriate to consider this site for the construction as proposed.
Traffic congestion, safety issues, parking and pollution
The proposed development will have a serious impact on what is already a very 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 have serious 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. There have been accidents in the road given how busy it is.
This will also increase the risk to pedestrians, notably 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.
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. 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.
Schools and 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.
Suitability, design and appearance

The proposed development of up to 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 assume 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. 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.
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
There are existing drainage and flooding issues in Sharmans Cross Raod. Our back garden and lawn can 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. This is a serious concern which affects many in the area. The additional houses would require a complete upgrade to the local drainage infrastructure.
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.
In summary, for the reasons outlined above I am highly opposed to the inclusion of this land in the SMBC LDP and ask that it is not progressed any further.

REL: LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation Site 18 ( former Solihull Rugby Club pitches, Sharmans Cross road)

I do not believe that Site 18 should be included as an allocated site, I strongly object to it being included in the draft plan for the many reasons listed below.

1. This sports field is protected by a covenant for its use for sporting purposes only, and this protection was been confirmed in 2013 by an all-party council policy which agreed to maintain the sports ground only covenant and not sell the freehold. I therefore do not understand how it can possibly be included in the plan, and demand that the policy is respected and the site removed.

2. Solihull is desperately short of sporting pitches, with several in this locality being lost to development over recent years (Sharmans Cross Girls School, SC Boys School, former Lucas sports ground off Prospect lane to name a few). Local sports teams that my sons have played for have been forced to play their home games outside the local area, causing extra travel.

3. The field is also important to support local wildlife and the neighbouring Pow Grove ancient woodland, providing a buffer zone from local housing. Without this I believe that much of the wildlife will disappear.

4. Traffic volumes will increase with the additional load caused by an extra 100 or so houses. This will cause a significant increase in congestion and pollution.
Sharmans Cross road is already jammed at rush hours and school closing times, queuing at both ends of the road frequently overlap at these times making access for residents difficult.

5. The housing density proposed is markedly different to surrounding areas, at roughly 5 times the density it is entirely inappropriate and will change the character of the neighbourhood.

6. There will be a significant impact on 'on-street' parking in the area. Solihull Arden Club is likely to lose some 80 parking spaces, and the cramped parking on new developments means that at peak times the already chaotic parking and traffic mix in Sharmans Cross road will further deteriorate.

7. Sharmans Cross road floods in times of heavy rain. This development will increase local 'run-off' and add to the drainage problem


As a general comment, I believe the LDP is grossly misleading by wrongly indicating that a previous planning application was solely refused due to insufficient affordable housing, and bizarrely concludes that this indicates in principle it was therefore acceptable.
Quite the opposite conclusion should be drawn - the site was (and still is) entirely inappropriate for many reasons.
Please remove this site from the LDP, and ensure that it is excluded permanently.

We are writing to kindly but strongly object to the above proposed development - as it will:

1. Destroy the character of the neighbourhood. 100 houses are effectively 4-5 times the density of property on Winterbourne Rd. 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.

2. Increase traffic and associated pollution - The development will have a serious effect on highway safety and the convenience of road users, including:
a. Increased volumes of traffic moving in/out of new site, most likely turning right out of site towards town, increasing gridlock on Sharmans Cross Rd, Streetsbrook Road, inevitable increase of traffic on side roads. (SX Rd is currently jammed from 7.45am to 9.00am.)
b. Danger to pedestrians, unaccompanied children going to/from Sharmans Cross Junior School and secondary schools.
c. Create a danger to cyclists, as this is a designated cycle route.

3. Adversely affect the parking situation - 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 chaotic during peak times/school drop-off and pick up/sporting fixtures.

4. Negatively affect Flooding - Sharmans Cross Road is already subject to flooding during heavy rain. The development will worsen this problem.

5. Result in the permanent loss of sporting facilities - 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 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.

6. Negatively affect 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.

7. Overburden schools and medical centres - These amenities are already oversubscribed, and this development will further increase demand leading to a degradation of services for residents.

8. Be an inappropriate use of land - SMBC formally minuted in 2013 its policy about the use of the grounds only for sport and that they would not sell the freehold. We would like reaffirmation 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.

9. Not meet sustainability criteria - 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.

As such, we kindly '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" is upheld.

Subject: LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation Site 18

Site 18 - Sharman's Cross Road (capacity 100)

Please register my strong objection to the LDP including the site of the former Rugby ground in Sharmans Cross road. It is an entirely inappropriate site for the many reasons I list below. These have in the past meant that the site has been firmly rejected several times as being unsuitable for housing development.
I live in Sharmans Cross road, and the impact of any development here will adversely affect the character and amenities of the area.

My top 5 objections are:

* The sports field is protected by a covenant for its use for sporting purposes only. There exists an all party policy agreed in 2013 to maintain the sports ground only covenant and not sell the freehold. Therefore it is inexplicable to me that this field has been included in the draft LDP. This is one of the few remaining sports fields in the local area, which is desperately short of them - my sons in the past have had to travel out of the area as local sports teams have had to find their 'home' grounds elsewhere.
I therefore demand that the council honour the all party policy agreed in 2013 and remove this site from the plan.

* The sports field is important for wildlife. The locality is fortunate to have the ancient woodland of Pow Grove which provides a varied wildlife habitat, and the sports field provides an important and complementary supporting buffer zone. Without this, its very existence and viability is threatened.

* Development of this site would cause a significant increase in traffic volumes and associated traffic pollution.
During morning and evening rush hours, Sharmans Cross road is gridlocked at both ends (Streetsbrook road and Danford lane).
The queues are so long they frequently overlap outside my house, making entrance and exit at these times difficult, and causing significant air pollution.
The traffic generated by an extra 100 households will exacerbate an already unacceptable situation.

* Parking on the high density proposed will be cramped, there is likely to be an increase on street parking in Sharmans cross road, especially as Solihull Arden club will also lose 75 or so parking spaces. Sharmans Cross road is already chaotic during rush hour and school arrival/departure times.

* The density of the development will be significantly out of character with the neighbouring areas. It is entirely inappropriate as it will be 4 or 5 times density of existing housing.

Finally, the draft plan is very misleading in the way it describes the site, stating '......a previous planning application was refused solely because the proposals did not provide sufficient affordable housing, thus indicating that the principle for the development was considered acceptable'
This is not the case - there were many reasons for the site being regarded as unsuitable and in no way did the refusal indicate that the site was in principle acceptable.
Quite the opposite in fact.

Please consider my objections seriously and take this inappropriate site out of the plan permanently.

I am writing to object to the LDPs inclusion for housing and development of the old rugby ground on Sharmans Cross Road.

Development Density and Appearance

The proposal is wholly inappropriate. 60 - 100 homes would give a density of at least between 4 - 5 times that of properties in the surrounding area. It would constitute an over development for the size of the site. Importantly it would be completely out of character with, and not enhance, the local area. In addition, it would be oversized/out of scale.

Collectively, this would negatively impact the distinctiveness of the area. The site in question is a large green open space with mature trees including oaks with TPOs. The land offers a wealth of habitat, food and cover for wildlife including bats, badgers, foxes and species of birds. The destruction of the land will have environmental consequences and negatively impact enjoyment and positive health benefits.

Parking, Traffic and Pollution

Parking is currently a day to day issue given the volume of traffic in Sharmans Cross Road and adjacent side roads in particular. At key times, during school hours and the start and end of the working day, sees the road totally jammed and traffic at a complete standstill and impasse. The potential for incident and highway safety / accident increases. The road is a bus route, is used by heavy goods vehicles as well as growing numbers of motorists.

The road is a designated cycle route and is used daily by young school children who walk, cycle and use scooters, some unaccompanied as part of a drive to encourage them into a healthier lifestyle. The impact of the quantity of additional cars that would be associated with a housing development of the proposed scale would be detrimental to their health and well being. With childhood asthma and associated diseases increasing and the damage caused from vehicle emissions, whilst stationary, idling or crawling, on children and babies in buggies, will only get worse.

Flooding

Sharmans Cross Road is notorious for flooding following heavier rain falls. Any development and its hard standing areas would increase this further; our green fields provide valuable natural drainage and soak away.

Loss of Sporting Facilities

This is singularly the most issue and cannot be allowed to happen.

There is such a shortage of pitches in Solihull and others are at risk elsewhere in the area. The old rugby ground has excellent draining facilities and as a site, is accessible by foot, cycle, public transport and therefore perfect for youths to independently travel to, if it were again to be designated as a viable sports ground.

As SMBC minuted in 2013, its policy regarding the use of the ground only for sport and that they would not sell the freehold, this must be upheld. It questions why the land was ever included in the LDP. It must be withdrawn. It is clearly inappropriate for inclusion. The covenant must not be lifted. The site must only be used as originally intended - for sporting purposes in perpetuity.

I hope you will listen to the voice and concerns of local residents

LDP proposed housing allocation Site 18
I am writing to raise my objections to the above land being used for housing. My reasons for the objection are listed below:

1. This land was meant to be for sport and there is already a lack of sports pitches in Solihull we should be encouraging our young to participate in outdoor pursuits not robbing them of land that should be available for them.

2. There would be a strain on available school places and doctors surgeries which are already under strain in this area for instance it can take a week to get a doctors appointment which would only get worse with the density of this proposed development.

3. Traffic would be heavier around all the roads which at peak times are already under stress with long tail backs.

4. The density of the build would be totally out of character for the area.

5. With such a high density of housing it would be impossible for the developer to offer enough parking for the properties being built which means cars would be parked anywhere creating chaos in the surrounding area.

I believe it is time to stop giving all our green areas in town away for housing as it will turn out to have a detrimental effect on Solihull.

Firstly, removing this site from the green belt will reduce the desirable green gap between Solihull and Catherine de Barnes.

Secondly, the roads surrounding site 16 are frequently congested with traffic, and could not cope with the cars associated with 600 new dwellings.Field lane is too narrow to be useful.

Coldlands Colts is a community club which has been in operation for 37 years and currently supports over 150 children playing grass roots football. The club is located on the corner of Field lane and Lugtrout lane which is currently shown as being retained within the plans for the area 16 development, however the clarification notes within the Local Plan Review document indicate that the club may be relocated. We are broadly supportive (subject to not being moved) but do have some reservations which we would like you to consider. These reservations are given on the attached supporting document.

I would like to raise my objections to the proposed development on Sharmans Cross Road, for the following reasons:

1. The playing fields and the tennis club provide important outdoor sporting facilities for the local (and wider) community and any removal of these facilities, in favour of construction, would be a negative step.
2. The playing fields and surrounding environment provide an important open space which benefits both the wildlife and the health of local residents.
3. The development would create significant levels of noise and pollution both during construction phases and on completion, which would have a negative affect on the area.
4. The density of the development would not be in keeping with the characteristics of the local environment.
5. The existing road network around the site is not suitable for handling the increased levels in traffic that would be created by the development and this would lead to increased noise, pollution, congestion and risk to all road users and pedestrians.
6. The development would put further pressure on local services such as schools and medical services which would have a negative affect on both those services and the community

I would like to lodge along with many other locals, my objection to the proposal regarding the Sharmans Cross Road Rugby Ground in the LDP.
The land where the former Rugby club is located, is subject to a covenant as a sports facility for the people of Solihull. The council, therefore, should uphold the covenant allowing it to remain for sporting purposes in line with the 2013 All Party Policy on the Rugby ground.
The current Lessors allegedly with blessing from Solihull Council, have deliberately prevented the facility from being used by local clubs thus breaching the terms of their lease with no challenge from the council. Our area supports the sporting facilities that existed here and we therefore demand that steps should be taken to ensure the land continues to be used for that purpose which is sport!
Plans have been submitted to build 67-100 houses which is totally out of keeping with the local area and existing density and size of properties. Adjacent roads are already congested, more so at "school run" times. Another 100 families living in the area will only increase what can only be described as traffic misery. Pressures on sewers, drains and roadside parking should prevent the proposal alone. The area cannot support any further over-development.
In keeping with my opening statement, building on this land will destroy valuable green space and impact upon the landscape, established trees (some of which have preservation orders on them) and in some forms, wildlife.
Solihull Council should reflect on the comments above, as the negative effect on the locality really can't be exaggerated. The council should act to protect the covenant on the land and protect and enforce the terms of the lease, whilst removing it from the LDP (Land Development Plan).

Where will the next generation of children have open space to play sport and recreate. PLEASE do not further destroy Solihull.

See Letter

see attached document

1) The two plans 96&97 have some significant differences which could cause confusion eg. a) The access from Damson Parkway moves by 50 feet on each plan. b) Our property has been obliterated by trees in the plan on page 97 which is really insensitive.
2) Local amenities such as doctors and schools can not cope with current demand.
3) Traffic congestion at key times is terrible with Lugtrout Lane used as a cut-through due to additional congestion on Hampton Lane.
4) Concern for current wildlife bats, deer, birds.
5) ASB/Security concerns in open copse area if boundary not secured.

This greenbelt is mostly high performing agricultural land. It provides a buffer between urban Solihull and Catherine de Barnes. The current strongly defensible boundary of Damson Parkway would be breached. The proposed boundary to the east ( Field Lane ) is not a boundary to development between the canal and Lugtrout Lane. The proposed concept does not retain the notable wildlife habitat between Hampton Lane and the agricultural land or provide a wildlife corridor to the remaining Green belt. Field lane rural character will not allow meaningful traffic. Traffic on all boundary roads is currently excessive. Traffic measures are required.