Question 28 - Site 18 - Sharmans Cross Road

I am writing to oppose the inclusion of site 18- Sharman's Cross Road in the Local Development plan.

I oppose its inclusion for the following reasons:
* In 2013 a Solihull Council all party committee meeting affirmed as policy that they would not sell the freehold of the site or lift the covenants preventing the site being used only for sporting purposes. It is therefore totally inappropriate that this site should be included in the plan and earmarked for residential development.
* Paragraph 271 of the consultation document states that the 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 a true explanation of why planning was refused and distorts the facts
* The type of residential development proposed and rejected on this site - up to 100 homes, medium and high density is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area - as can be seen clearly from the aerial photos in the masterplan document which show houses with reasonable sized mature gardens. A development of this scale would change the nature of the area, destroying its character.
* The development would be 4-5 times as dense as the surrounding area
* The current road accesses onto Sharman's Cross Road - used currently by the Solihull Arden Club are narrow and would not be suitable for use by the volume of traffic a development on this scale would result in.
* A development of this scale would cause significant traffic problems for the roundabout between Sharman's Cross Road and Danford/Prospect Lane - where traffic jams are already frequent
* Pow Coppice, a valuable wildlife refuge would be adversely affected by a development of this scale so close to it.
* The Solihull Arden Club will be adversely affected as it already has a shortage of parking and this development will cause serious pressures on parking in the area

i am writing to object to the inclusion of the Old Rugby GroundArden club tennis site 245 in the Local Development Plan. I have objected to development on this site on three previous occasions, twice in 2009 and more recently in 2017 regarding proposed housing allocation 18 in your previous plan.

I set out below the reasons for my objections.

1) Loss of playing fields - my sons both played rugby locally and it was really unfortunate when they were no longer able to play on the playing fields on Shamans Cross Road as a result of Oakmoor acquiring the site and making it extremely difficult for sports clubs to play there. I understand there are local clubs that would like to play there and indeed the Sils football club pay regularly on the adjoining field, which our house backs on to.

I have recently become aware of commitments Solihull council made in 1965 and in 2013. It is my view that you must honour the 2013 all party policy on the rugby ground of maintaining the sports ground only covenant and not disposing of the freehold. Solihull clearly needs to retain amenity playing fields for the health of all in the borough.

2) Density of development - we already have considerable development in the area. Royal/Regent House on Homer Road is being redeveloped into 100 apartments and i understand there are options to convert wings in Sapphire House into apartments. Whilst these are sighted close to Solihull station in existing commercial buildings, this proposed site is close to existing residential areas and is out of character with the area and is highly likely to destroy mature trees and wildlife habitat. It is also difficult to see why the council would be supportive of development of even more dwellings given the addition of this large numbers of apartments on Homer/Blossomfield Road and potentially Streetsbrook Road. On the rugby club site itself the re is risk of three storey houses the most recent application for 100 houses suggests three storey houses which will destroy light for neighbouring properties and their gardens.

3) Traffic density has increased significantly over the 22 years I have lived here. So much so that in the morning the queue of cars is all the way back for Streetsbrook Road to beyond the school Crossing for Sharmans Cross School. As well as delays to travel this is highly unhealthy for both residents and children coming to school. I walk to Solihull station to commute into Birmingham and I am breathing in car fumes all the way for my house to the top of Dorchester Road. I have watched as the relatively small number of cars turning out of the Arden Club exit attempt to turn right into the traffic queue and i cannot imagine what this would be like if the extra cars for 100 new house were to attempt this each morning. Residents along Sharmans cross Road are essentially prisoners in their homes whilst this stationery traffic snakes along the road. All of this is particularly concerning given this is a cycle route and there are many children either walking or cycling on their way to school.

4) Infrastructure is inadequate to cope with this scale of development. The drains and sewers along Sharmans Cross Road are relatively old and were not built for this increased density of housing. We were perhaps lucky last summer with hot dry weather but flooding along the road near Sharmans Cross School usually occurs each year when there are several days of rain. Thee are also hard pressed local GP surgeries where it is increasingly difficult to obtain appointments.

5) I am told there were errors in Oakmoors LDP application and this leads me to wonder why this site has been included despite extensive objections in the past and this flawed application. SMBC should insist that Oakmoor make the playing fields accessible at a reasonable rent for local sports clubs instead of facilitating profiteering by a company that has been thorn in the side of the local community for the last 10 years.

In summary I object to the inclusions of site 245 in the LDP for the reasons i set out above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objection - Sharman's Cross Rugby Ground potential development Local Development Plan Site 245
As a local resident and long standing Silhillian I must insist that SMBC retain its previously agreed policy on the Sharman's Cross Rugby Ground to maintain it as a sports ground only and retain the existing covenants.
Any proposed development for houses on this site would be very detrimental to the character of Solihull. The density of proposed houses would be significantly greater than that of the surrounding houses. This would reduce the incentive for successful business people to come to Solihull and would therefore directly impact on jobs for the area.
Sharman's Cross is already a busy road, especially during school entry/exit times with parking a problem issue. Any further houses will just amplify this problem and risk children's safety walking to/from school.

It is important to retain the trees in the area and honour the tree preservation orders. The drainage problems of Sharman's Cross road are well known and therefore any further housing will put even more strain, lead to more flooding and likely cause accidents.
The area's medical and school facilities could not cope with a further influx of new residents.
Please retain the character and attractiveness of Solihull by stopping this awful proposed development and ensure the Rugby ground is retained as a sports ground for our children in the future.

Local Development Plan Site 245

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Development Plan Site 245

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Local Development Plan Site 245 - Ex Rugby Pitches Sharmans Cross Road


I would like to object to the above proposed development on the following grounds:-

1. Covenants: I believe the land has covenants restricting the site for sports use ONLY, and therefore wonder how it could even be considered for housing in the LDP. To maintain trust in the local democratic process, this site should be ruled out for housing. The sports pitches are excellent quality and would be extremely difficult to replace, particularly in such an accessible area.

2. Solihull Arden Club: Solihull Arden Rackets club abuts this site, and parking for this facility is already at a premium in busy times. It is quite easy to see that this (another sporting facility) could be precariously placed should this large scale infill development proceed.

3. Pow Grove: An historic SINC site of woodland also abuts the Rugby Pitches, substantial work has recently been undertaken to protect its future with thinning and a considerable number of new saplings planted. It is owned by SMBC and it should be well aware that the balanced nature of such areas is likely to be significantly affected by large scale development at its edge, both in the construction stage and afterwards

Sharman's Cross Rugby Ground Site 245 - OBJECTION
Dear Sir
I am writing to demand that the 2013 all party policy on the Sharman's Cross Rugby Ground, maintaining the sports ground only covenant and not selling the freehold, be retained.
The proposed new houses will lead to a density at least 4 times that of the surrounding area, not to mention the resulting increase in traffic. I already waste too much time sitting in queues during the morning and evening rush hour! Sharman's Cross Road is regularly flooded by heavy rain, requiring drivers to move into the centre of the road to pass. So hazardous! This would only be exacerbated by more development, limiting drainage in the area. Do we have adequate school places and capacity at our medical centres before encouraging another 60+ families into the area? If so - where?! Please maintain the pleasant character of Solihull by avoiding cramming in new builds with no gardens. I have respected the TPOs surrounding my property - in fact they were a major consideration in the original purchase - and I expect the council to do so too.
I beg you to respect your local citizens and prevent this destructive potential development from going any further.

Local Development Plan : Site 245 or 18

Old Rugby Club, Sharmans Cross Road

Comments and Objections

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

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

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

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

As regards the proposed development I object on many grounds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Development Plan Site 18 - Sharmans Cross Road
I write in relation to the Local Development Plan (LDP) and specifically the above - The old rugby ground/Arden tennis club site, off Sharmans Cross Road.

In 2013 SMBC, affirmed as a policy that SMBC would not sell the freehold of the site or lift relevant covenants regarding the site, which ensure that the site is only used for sporting purposes. I understand that it was in fact an all-party committee of SMBC that confirmed this policy. What is the position with regard to this policy now? Has it been changed? If not then arguably the site should never have been included in the LDP as proper procedures have not been adhered to. The site should be removed immediately from the LDP.

Comments within paragraph 271 of the LDP are not accurate and arguably distort the position.

The above points are powerful arguments that SMBC will no doubt face if matters proceed with the site.

However, regardless of legal challenges as above, there are many other reasons why this site should not be considered for housing and why SMBC should honour previous commitments. To name but a few:

1. the suggested density of housing would simply be inappropriate for the area, fundamentally altering its character and distinction.

2. traffic in the area is already a concern and by putting the density of housing on this site would only increase that problem.

3. parking problems that currently exist would be exaggerated.

4. Pow Coppice is vitally important for wildlife and needs to be protected. A housing development as suggested would not do this.

I oppose the inclusion of the above site in the LDP and I oppose any development of the site as has been suggested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.Contravene tree preservation orders.

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

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

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

and

7.Potentially harm the future of the Sports Club.

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

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

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

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

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

Old Rugby Ground Proposal
I am writing to register my opposition to the development of this site. I am dismayed at the continual rebuilding of homes in this area and the thought of a new development is beyond contemplation. The traffic congestion and noise would be considerable, but more than that, it would alter the feel of the area: an area that we have bought into and paid taxes to upkeep. The devastation to trees and wildlife also should be considered. The 'green' is what makes Solihull so special. The tennis club is a valuable asset to us the residents and the Rugby Ground should be used to its full potential. I demand that the 2013 all party policy on the Rugby Ground be maintained and that the freehold should not be sold or covenants lifted. The council has a duty to consider the wishes of its residents before the profits of developers.

I should like to object to your proposed inclusion of residential development of the Sharmans Cross sports area.

As a resident of Oaken Drive, my family experiences the problem of traffic in the Streetsbrook Rd and Sharmans Cross Rd area. Every day Streetsbrook and Sharmans Cross is nose to tail gridlocked from 7:30am - 9:15am with special difficulty with the junction that also includes Stonor Park Road and Dorchester Rd. Adding to this problem by adding
60-100 houses in Sharmans Cross would be a madness for the problems associated with: traffic, pollution and danger to cyclists, pedestrians and also vehicular traffic (as cars parked along Sharmans Cross cause a very tight bottleneck).

In winter travelling down Sharmans Cross is especially treacherous when the road is icy or heavily frosted as the passing area is very narrow when cars are parked all the way along.

I should also like to object to the loss of community sports potential.
As green space used for residential can never be recovered. It seems to be vitally important to preserve these spaces in the centre of town as children and also adults are disinclined to take advantage of sports facilities that are too distant from their homes whereas the facility is already at hand. If anything the sporting facility should be invested in.

Finally I should like to pose that considering the additional residential development and the associated traffic increase (approximately 2 cars/household) there will be additional traffic pollution resulting from SMBC's own action and this is at odds with your own traffic and pollution reduction plans (see SOLIHULL CLEAN AIR STRATEGY 2019 - 2024 and Solihull Planning Guidelines).

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 record my opposition to the above due to the demand that 2013 all party policy on the rugby ground on maintaining the sports ground only covenant and not selling freehold be retained.
Density would be 4-5 times at least surrounding area.
Destruction of character and diminishing the distinctiveness of the area.
Worsen already problematic parking in surrounding area.
Tree preservation orders
Drainage/flooding on Sharmans Cross with Victorian drains not coping.
Inadequate medical and school capacity
Damage to the future of the Tennis club and fitness to the public.

Local Development Plan Site 245 - Ex Rugby Pitches Sharmans Cross Road


I would like to object to the above proposed development on the following grounds:-

1. As I understand it the land has covenants restricting and thereby protecting the site for sports use, and if this were now to be ignored it undermines the local democratic process. I would very much like the Council to enforce the covenants and actively seek and enable such use.

2. POW GROVE: I am particularly concerned that the mixed broad leaf wood (SINC) known as Pow Grove (Grid Ref. SP136795) and owned by SMBC should be protected from any possible erosion that a housing development threatens. There is also a right of way from Welcombe Grove through the wood and I am concerned about how this would be managed?

I am writing to object to the inclusion of the Old Rugby / Arden Club Tennis Club Site 245 in the Local Development Plan. I have also objected to the development of this site in 2009 and in 2017 regarding proposed housing allocation18 in your previous plan.

I set out below the reasons for my objections.

1)Traffic Congestion and Air Pollution - Sharmans Cross Road is one of the main arterial roads leading into the centre of Solihull, which is already severely congested during the morning rush hour, specifically 7:50 - 9:00, reaching its peak at 8:00 - 8:30, with the queue already back beyond Sharmans Cross School and towards the Sharmans Cross Pub roundabout. It is NOT the Sharmans Cross Road and Streetsbrook Road junction which is the problem but the the traffic lights by the Fire Station and the right turn into the station, which restrictions traffic flow. Adding an extra 50 vehicles onto Sharmans Cross Road is just going to make this intolerable problem worse, with the queue blocking up to the Sharmans Cross Pub roundabout and causing the problem to effect Solihull Road and Prospect Lane. The queue, coupled the cars parking to drop children off at Sharmans Cross School, also effects traffic, and potentially emergency vehicles, travelling in the opposite direction. Although this queue is of great inconvienence it also creates a lot of air pollution, as most of these vehicles are still running cold before emissions migration systems and 'Stop / Start' engines have started working, increasing the amount of Nitrous Oxides, Carbon Particulates and Carbon Monoxide. Sharmans Cross Road is also a main route for pedestrians walking to the station and the centre of Solihull, plus children walking to Sharmans Cross Road School who will be adversely effected by this toxic pollution. These people are actually doing the right thing, leaving their cars at home and walking, but are having their health potentially severely affected by this air pollution. As Solihull Council is responsible for the health of their citizens it should be their policy to reduce air pollution and not add to it. Electrics vehicle would be the solution but with very few electric cars currently on the market and cars with over a 10 year life span, it will be at least 10 years before this makes any marginal effect and over 30 years before the air pollution is mitigated. That is a whole generation of pedestrians and children. Do not add to this already health threatening situation.

2)Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety - The footpath down the south side of Sharmans Cross Road is a designated pedestrian and cyclist route, into and out of Solihull, and is the major route for commuters to the railway station and Solihull plus children to Sharmans Cross School. At present there are no major exits on the south side of Sharmans Cross Road, crossing this footpath. The only multiple use entrance and exit is for the Arden Tennis Club which has very few vehicles arriving or leaving at the busiest time of the day, especially when school children are going to and from school. The addition of a side road, with potentially 50 vehicles exiting on to Sharmans Cross Road, will directly cross this much used footpath and it will only be a matter of time before somebody will be severely injured or even killed at such a junction. Therefore I would severely consider adding to the dangers on this much used footpath and cycle way.

3)Lack of Local Amenities - All the local infant and junior schools are over subscribed, with no prospect of increasing the number of classrooms. Adding extra school aged children, which affordable housing should be geared towards, will make the situation worse, with children having to travel further to schools increasing the already congested traffic. Also GP surgeries are over subscribed with appointments becoming increasing difficult to obtain, reducing the level of healthcare.

In summary I object to the inclusion of site 245 in the LDP and would argue strongly that it should remain as playing fields as the Solihull Council originally stated. Playing fields for, particularly teenage teams, are now at a premium and there are many local football clubs who would want their use and willing to maintain them.

Sharmans Cross Action Group - Old Rugby Ground
I wish to register my objection to the proposed construction of proposed nearby housing development of 67/100 houses on the Old Rugby Ground.

I refer to the 2013 all party policy for the former rugby ground in Sharmans Cross in which a covenant exists that the land is only to be used for sporting purposes. Since obtaining the lease from SMBC. Oakmoor (Sharmans Cross) Ltd. have to my knowledge made it impossible for anyone to use the land for sports purposes. They have not honoured their undertaking to allow use of the ground for these purposes at all. The only thing maintained is the grass which is cut on a regular basis, everything else has been allowed to deteriorate and eventually has been demolished. They have however submitted proposals for multiple dwellings on the ground. Surely Oakmoor have not fulfilled their part of the lease. What are you going to do about it? They obviously have no intention of fulfilling their obligation and ONLY want to erect multiple dwellings.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THIS SITE.
The land is covenanted for sporting purposes. How can you even consider such proposals? It should be used for sporting purposes only.
To allow a development of such a size will cause untold disruption to the whole area throughout the construction, which is likely to take a very long time. Can the roads take the extra use of heavy plant and construction vehicles during this time? There would be widespread disruption to the whole area surrounding. Extra air and noise pollution.
The Green Area which includes tree preservation, wooded areas and wild life will be lost forever. The Arden Club would also suffer should any large development be allowed to continue next to their facilities.
Population in the area is quite dense and would likely increase by at least 300 to 400 persons. Plus numerous extra vehicles in an already busy area, in particular during school hours. At present Sharmans Cross and surrounding roads are nigh on impossible to navigate during these times.
There is a shortage of Medical Centres and there is insufficient Schooling facilities. Sharmans Cross Junior School has over the last few years been dramatically extended with the addition of a sports hall and most recently new classrooms all on the rear of the school.
In 2013 SMBC affirmed they would not sell the freehold or lift the covenants. Yet despite this you have still left the site as suitable for approx up to 100 mixed properties. I would request the site be removed from the LDP and be used for their purpose, a sporting facility

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).

This site is a sports site and should be retained as such. 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. Solihull needs more investment in recreational and sporting facilities, not less. If approved, The housing density would be 4-5 times greater than the surrounding area. The character and distinctiveness of the locality in this mature suburb would be damaged beyond recognition and forever .
There is already inadequate parking in the locality and the surrounding roads would be overloaded by the additional traffic.
Loss of trees and other green infrastructure.
The local infrastructure would not cope with the increased number of residents (schools, GP surgeries, Solihull hospital, drainage, police, fire etc).

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: SITE 245

(Sharmans Cross Road)

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

Health challenges for the next decade and beyond

One of the biggest challenges of the next decade and, perhaps beyond, is the epidemic of obesity - particularly amongst the young. It is resulting in an exponential growth in health problems such as diabetes and heart disease that is costing the NHS an enormous amount of money.
Diabetes alone currently costs the NHS 1.5 million pounds per hour!
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 is now firmly suggesting 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 to the obesity epidemic there is another major challenge: the ever growing problem of mental illness that is affecting young people as a result of addiction to social media. Physical exercise - particularly that involving team sports - 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 request turned down by Oakmoor Ltd - even though there is a legal agreement that Oakmoor 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 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 associated pollution
The development will have a serious effect on highway safety. There will be increased volumes of traffic moving in and out of new site, most likely turning right out of 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 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 the safety and congestion through increased street parking. Parking is already chaotic during peak times and at school drop-off and pick up times.

Flooding

Sharmans Cross Road is already subject to flooding during heavy rain. The development will worsen this problem. The Victorian drains do not currently cope - something that is well known to the council and Severn Trent.

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 further increase demand leading to a degradation of services for residents.

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 worryingly inadequate and as Solihull continues to grow, their importance cannot be over-stated. The Council's all-party committee decision in 2013, affirming that the Rugby ground will only be used for sporting purposes, should not be overturned.

See attached letter

see attached letter