Question 28 - Site 18 - Sharmans Cross Road

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.

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.

Please do not deprive us of very necessary sporting facilities which are so useful for maintaining good health. The Rugby Ground should not be replaced by new houses and the tennis club should be protected from encroachment. These amenities will never be regained once they are lost.

In 2013 the policy was affirmed by an SMBC all party committee that they would not sell the freehold of the Rugby Ground site or lift the covenants regarding sole use of the site for sport. These commitments must be upheld. As a council tax payer I insist upon this.

Apart from these very important issues, 67 more houses in this area would create many problems. There are not medical or school facilities for all the extra people and the increase in cars would make the existing congestion in Sharmans Cross Road much worse. The roads would become unpleasantly busy with queues, delays and traffic jams causing increased fumes and pollution. With our current strange weather patterns heavy rain could make the drainage system inadequate to cope with the demands of 67 tightly packed extra houses. This could lead to flooding which is a terrible prospect.

I hope you will protect our facilities and not allow this very detrimental development to take place.

I wish to object to the possible development of the old rugby club site on Sharmans Cross Road. I understand that the land is subject to covenants which stipulate that the land can only be used for sporting activities and purposes ancillary to sport. Indeed, the council reaffirmed that these covenants would continue to be applied as recently as 2013.
Sporting facilities make a significant contribution to the overall quality of life in the borough and should be protected for, not only the benefit of existing residents, but for generations to come. There are many proven health and social benefits that flow from the provision of these facilities and I hope that the council will reject the proposed development and encourage the land to be used as originally intended, as a valuable sporting resource.

LDP sites 306/245. Allocation site18
I write as Chaiman of the Sharmans Cross Action Group (SXAG) in objecting to both above sites being included in the LDP as anything other than Category Red.

Before I go into the detailed reasons for objection and a few brief comment on SXAG. This Group originates from the initial attempt by Oakmoor Estates ( now Oakmoor(Sharmans Cross) Ltd) to develop the Sharmans Cross Road Rugby Ground as a residential site in 2007/8. We communicate with newsletters to some 1600/1700 households in the area surrounding the Rugby Ground plus around 250 electronically ie a total of 1850/1950 households. When key stages of the Planning/LDP processes arise we top up our newsletters with public meetings which are usually attended by 90-150 people. They can be very animated.

The reason for SXAG existing is simple - the preservation of the Rugby Ground as a sports ground for the benefit of the residents of Solihull. The history of the ground will go some way to explaining this.

HISTORICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND.

There are 3 sports clubs in a green lung behind the houses on Sharmans Cross Road - Solihull Arden Tennis Club, the old Rugby Club, and a soccer club Silhill FC. These have been sports grounds for 99, 50+ and 80+ years. If one of them goes we are concerned that the others will find it even more difficult to survive e.g. the Tennis Club requires around 150 car parking spots and are expecting to introduce 'Padel Tennis' later this year which will increase car parking needs. The 150 could move quite quickly to 175/200. Loss of the Rugby Ground would leave the club with c75 spots or over 100 shortfall. Without these the Club, in my view, will fade away because of the aggro over Parking. Historically they have shared the current 130/150 parking spots

In the 1950s the Rugby Club played just off Blossomfield Road but with SMBC's large scale residential building programme in that period they bought the Sharmans Cross site in 1952. They planned their move in the early 60s but found that the drainage on the two pitches was so bad that they were unplayable for much of the season. In 1962 they applied for planning permission for residential properties on the site. It was refused. They went to Appeal. Rather than face the Appeal the Council entered into a unique deal to buy the ground and lease it back to the Club after installing a high quality En-tout-cas drainage system. All of this was done on the basis of the following:-

1. A 125 year lease starting 1965 (71 years to go) costing £250 a year.
2. The Club retaining the freehold of the car park and the land where the buildings were.
3. The Council were intent on the land remaining as playing fields so they imposed 2 covenants.
i. On the leasehold land - the leaseholder "will not use or permit or suffer (the site) to be converted or occupied for any purposes other than a private sports
ground."
ii. The freehold land will only be used for purposes ancilliary to a sports ground.

THE ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE OF THE COUNCIL WAS THAT THE GROUND SHOULD BE A PRIVATE SPORTS GROUND FOR AT LEAST 125 YEARS.

At a public SMBC committee meeting in 2013 it was proposed and unanimously agreed that the covenants on the Rugby Ground should not be lifted and the freehold should not be sold. In addition it was stated and agreed that the Council should make every effort to bring the Ground back into sporting use.

IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW - CONTRARY TO THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF THE COUNCIL, AND THE 2013 RE-AFFIRMATION OF THAT POLICY THAT INCLUSION IN THE ALLOCATED SITES IN THE PROPOSED LDP CAN EVEN BE CONSIDERED. YOU WILL HAVE NOTED THE STRENGTH OF FEELING ON THIS ISSUE AMONGST LOCAL RESIDENTS FROM THE LETTERS OF OBJECTION THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED ALREADY. THESE EXTEND TO LOCAL RESIDENTS RAISING QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COUNCIL FAILING IN ITS RESPONSIBILITIES ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES ON TO THIS FACILITY:-

1. Why was the transfer of the lease from a sports club to a Developer (Oakmoor) agreed when the Developer had the declared intent to seek Planning permission for residential development?
2. Why has the Council not made more effort to have the Ground maintained as a sports ground?
3. Why has there apparently been no attempt to require Oakmoor to promote the use of the ground as a sports ground at a sports ground rent?
4. The SMBC objective in purchasing the Ground plus installing the very high quality drainage system there was so that that the ground should be used as a private sports ground and not left fallow for nearly 10 years. The 125 year lease and the 2 covenants only emphasised their intentions
5. Why have the two ex Rugby Club sites been considered for inclusion in the LDP?

These are the questions that are raised time and time again.

The reason why Oakmoor got to a position when they could be considered as freeholder/leaseholder for the Rugby Ground started in the early 2000s.The Rugby Club over extended itself with the advent of semi-professional Rugby. Oakmoor appeared as a 'white knight'. It provided financial support and developed a plan over a number of years, with increasing debts at the Rugby Club to help the Club to find another ground or ground share with substantial investment by Oakmoor to give them a viable future. This was to be funded by Oakmoor acquiring the freehold land plus the leasehold pitches at sports ground cost and obtaining Planning permission for the site to become a residential development. It would also have required them acquiring the freehold on the leased land, and the covenants being lifted. (This was glossed over and ended up with them seeking to obtain these free of charge in return for them helping the Rugby Club move). Figures of over £4m benefit to the Rugby Club were suggested. Oakmoor maintained, incorrectly, that there was a surplus of 'pitches' in the Botough. The first Planning Application was withdrawn. The second was rejected on the basis of no provision for Affordable Housing. Oakmoor went to Appeal , but withdrew their application less than 24 hours prior to the hearing.

It has been suggested by Mr G. Palmer in his email of 18.2.19 that the only reason for rejection was 'the lack of affordable housing. This illustrates that there was no land use principle that would have otherwise prevented development coming forward.

THIS IS A SERIOUS OVER SIMPLIFICATION OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. In the submission of objections we put forward a very extended and detail explanation of why the whole Funding/business plan upon which the Application was based, including the move of the Rugby Ground elsewhere was not viable and involved a funding deficit of over £3,000,000 . We were never question on any issue and I personally was told by a Senior Officer of SMBC that SMBC did not have the skill or the experience to adequately assess the Business Plan forward and that they more or less had to accept the business case put forward by the Applicant. To make matters worse the Applicant appeared to expect that the covenants would be lifted and the freehold of the land would be given to them.

SXAG then became a 3rd party to the Planning Appeal, and could identify any Planning issue. Having taken legal and professional advice we prepared our case on the basis of the inaccuracy, and misrepresentation of the Applicant's Business case. The key issue was that there was a £4-5m deficit on the project. Our Expert's analysis of residual land value and the property costs and revenue won the day.The Applicant withdrew his Appeal the night before the it was due to be heard. Affordable Housing could have been resolved, but the scale of the deficit was beyond resolution.The lack of substance in the Appeal was demonstrated by the Inspector awarding us and SMBC our costs.Until the LDP process starred Oakmoor appear to have done little or nothing to pursue Planning permission for the sites.

WHY DO I GO INTO SO MUCH DETAIL ON THIS TOPIC?

If this had been simply a matter of Affordable Housing the issue would have been resolved. However the real issue was that the project was not viable. This did not appear to have been appreciated fully by SMBC or presented as such as the issue at the Planning Committee meeting. The Appeal evidence brought this evidence to the fore.

WE THEREFORE DO NOT ACCEPT THE PROPOSITION THAT THE 'NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING' FACTOR AT THE PLANNING COMMITTEE STAGE WAS ULTIMATELY THE ONLY REASON WHY THE APPLICATION FAILED AT THE APPEAL STAGE. THIS VIEW APPEARS TO BE ENDORSED BY MR PALMER'S COMMENT IN HIS EMAIL OF 18/2/19
"IT IS NOW 8 YEARS SINCE THAT DECISION WAS MADE AND LAND VALUES ETC HAVE CHANGE SUCH THAT THE VIABILITY OF A SCHEME CAN BE RE-ASSESSED".

IRONICALLY THE INCREASE IN LAND VALUES MAKES THIS PROJECT LESS VIABLE NOT MORE. WHY - THE VALUE OF THE FREEHOLD AND THE COST OF GETTING RID OF THE COVENANTS - WHICH ARE MONEY TO BE PAID TO SMBC - HAVE , IN OUR VIEW,RISEN FROM £5/7m to around £7/10m.

What then has happened over the last 9/10 years?

Oakmoor have had a consistent approach in avoiding making this perfectly situated sports ground available for the playing of sport.

* The replacement Rugby Club were charged in the region of £40/60k pa for the use of the ground, changing rooms, social facilities compared to the Ground rent of £250 paid by Oakmoor to SMBC.
*. The playgroup who had used around 40% of the buildings for pre-school classes were given 24 hours to close down and were refused a tenancy. Profit from this operation had been going to the Rugby Club.
* Under pressure from SMBC Oakmoor cut the grass 4 times a year for 6/7
years. Last year it dropped to twice, and they now appear to be prevaricating
on cutting it at all.
* They boarded the windows of the various buildings but within weeks these
were broken into and routinely vandalised. Oakmoor were slow to respond
and and carry out repairs. Eventually, 3/4 years ago the buildings were
demolished. Everything at the ground has been allowed to steadily deteriorate
This appeared to be a deliberate policy of steady deterioration into
dilapidation and from that to Planning permission on the basis this was a
derelict Site.
* No attempt of any sort appears to have been made by Oakmoor to encourage
any sports club to use the pitches or the facilities when they existed. One club
wh. o approached them weretold ' we have other plans
for the site'. We are happy to produce evidence that teams
have had to find pitches for training and matches outside the Borough.
* SMBC have progressively shut changing rooms at, we understand, every
park with pitches.
* On the latest information we have available to us SMBC is in the 3 rd quartile
downwards in England for participation by over 16 year olds in sport 3 times
a week. And yet we are progressively decreasing sports grounds and/ or their
facilities.
* Since the 2013 policy decision on sustaining the covenants and the lease
nothing has been achieved in getting it back into sporting use.

It is fully realised that this is a difficult issue. However our discussions with a great many local residents make it clear that they feel very strongly that this and future generations of Solihull residents are being badly let down by by The Council in pursuing housing at all costs and ignoring to a large degree the amenities and facilities that are needed to go with that extra housing and increasing population on top of the needs of the existing population.

Further Objections.
1. The LDP suggests that replacement sports facilities would need to be provided.
We understand that these 'must be of at least equivalent standard, and accessibility.'
On accessibility - it simply is not possible to replace this private sports ground in Solihull with anything that is as close to the Town centre and with the same access on foot, on cycle, by public transport or by car. There is no alternative to the existing site.
To fudge the issue is self defeating. The further you move out from the centre of population the harder it gets for sports clubs to survive. The social and community sides of Clubs weakens and survival gets more difficult.

On equivalent standards. Oakmoor took this facility over with changing rooms,a bar and social amenities, plus community facilities in the pre- school facilities. These were not the best in the world but they were functional. These would need to be replicated in any new facility.
There are 2 pitches. The first team pitch has probably the best drainage in the Borough - installed to a high specification 45 years before Oakmoor acquired the ground but still very effective and with a guarantee from SMBC on the maintenance of the of drainage. The same principle, on a slightly lower specification applied to the second pitch.

To replace the 2 pitches with drainage quality such as they have will be very expensive, particularly with the existing guarantee of 71 years maintenance of the drainage, and all for £250 a year.

We would suggest that it is not possible to replace this facility in total - pitches and ancillary facilities with the same or better accessibility. Even if the accessibility could be resolved the cost of providing at least equivalent facilities with drainage maintenance would probably be beyond the means of Oakmoor.

Whilst this key issue is without a definitive solution, with cost undertakings agreed, we would suggest site 245/18 should not be included as Green Site or Amber Site in the LDP. There can be no confidence that it can become available at any time until this issue is resolved.

2. Sustainability.
By SMBC own criteria this is not ' sustainable' when measured against distances to facilities, and walking time. Oakmoor distances are incorrect and always have been in their various documents.

3. Lease/covenants.
These were implemented in 1965 to protect both sites at the Rugby Ground for 125 years to prevent exactly what is now being proposed. The reasons for it were clearly spelt out in the purchase documents and the deeds. They provided an amenity, as part of a green sports lung along the back of local properties. In 2013 this policy was re-affirmed by reprentatives of all political parties. Oakmoor were well aware of the lease and covenant terms when they set out on the path of acquisition . They also must have understood the risk they were taking.

We object to the very principle that these contracts can be treated as an arbitrary decision that can torn up and another facility createdeffecting future well being of residents in a way we do not understand.These facilities are part of the well being of the residents of Solihull for the long term. We object most strongly to this future being diminished in an irreplaceable way.

Our contention is very simple. The lease should never have been transferred to Oakmoor.
SMBC are the guardian of our interests and should again be re-affirming the lease/ covenant terms contained in the 1965 deeds and re-affirmed in 2013. Those policies are there to protect part of the public amenities and well being.

4. Health and Well being.

The health and well being of all generations is becoming more and more an issue of concern whether it be obesity, mental health or a host of other issues. What appears to be pretty universally recognised is that greater physical activity is a core component to both physical and mental well being at all ages. But in the LDP drafts this gets scarcely a line. Over the next 15 years Solihull populations looks , on the basis of housing increases, to be likely to grow by around 40,000, but 5 sports grounds are likely to go under the LDP. Pushing any replacements further and further out will reduce participation and the use of these amenities as community centres.
The potential loss of the old Rugby Ground with a replacement 'somewhere' will be another notch in the downward participation path In the Borough. Combine this with no changing rooms in Public Parks and we see an erosion continuing in participation.

Physical activity is a key component of health and well being in society.

5. Drainage

There is no doubt that for local residents drainage and surface flooding are on going and worsening problems. Severn Trent might tell you how under control things are but they are wrong. There are too main problems.
i. Victorian drains in Sharmans Cross Road, and limited capacity in Winterbourne/Beaminster.
Sharmans Cross Road has regular flooding actually in the Road. Perhaps even more critical is the regular flooding of gardens. This is not small scale but eg 6 inches of water. The drains simply cannot cope with the water volumes in the Road. In the gardens the problem largely stems from the layers of marl that predominate in the area. The Rugby Ground has this in a large degree but it is covered up by the En Tou Cas 10 -12 inch top surface that acts as a sponge before drainage off site. The building works would damage/destroy this whole system and leave a major surface water issue. THIS SHOULD NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED.
Foul water will also be a problem
WINTERBOURNE Road,
In the last Planning Application there was supposed to be a feeder sump to feed surface water away from the site. At the time, because of the mark problem, this looked inadequate.

I raise this issue because it already effects a large number of homes every time there is a any significant rain fall.

6. Density.
The draft LDP has a significant error in it.
Site 18 on allocations is supposedly site 245 state 100 houses on the old Rugby Ground.
Site 245 indicates 62houses on the old Rugby Ground.
Site 306 indicates 113house on the old Rugby Ground plus the Tennis Club.
I think this makes the LDP allocated sites 33 out in houses.

Density in the immediately surrounding areas is of the order of 10/12 houses per hectare.
These exclude road areas.
If on site 18/245 we assume 62 houses, 20% for roads,access, 0.2 hectares for 75 Tennis Club car parking spots, houses per hectare - 31.
If on site 18/245 we assume 100 houses, 20% roads,access, 0.2 for 75 Tennis Club car- parking spots , houses per hectare - 45.

These represent 3 to 4.5 times the density in the immediate area. In the area North iof Sharmans Cross Road 1400 plus house have an 'Estate Covernant' with each other and SMBC forbidding garden grabbing ie there can only be one house on each plot.

You must be aware that this difference is very significant and would be changing the distinctiveness of this mature suburb, contrary to Planning Policy.
We there question the whole question of why Site 245 is included?


7. Car Parking

In the rejected Planning Application car Parking was a significant issue for local residents. That has become far more critical now. Woodside Way is now a significant risk area for car Parking being solidly parked up from Sharmans Cross Road fork around 100m every day from 8-15 am until 5-30pm at least. Sharmans Cross is a tearaway with cars speeding at well over 50 mp.h. The last Planning Application allowed only around 1.5 cars per household compared to the 2 plus in the locality. The situation is now significantly worse.

This issue must not see ignored with or without this estate.

8. School and Medical services.

All of these are oversubscribed in the area. 67/100 more households will will take azll of these nearer to breaking point. This issue also cannot continue to be ignored.

9. Viability.

The nature of this site - the lease, the covenants, the necessity for affordable housing contribution, the Marl etc etc. - make it very difficult to see how this site can be viable The current site value as a sports ground has dropped, we would suggest, from c£6/700k with pavillion etc , to £250/400k because of the covenants and lease. With planning permission this varied between £6m and £9m with the latter ultimately being on the high side.

We would suggest that in the last 9/10 years these will have increase by at least 20%. This gives site values of £7.5m to £10m. The value of lifting the covenants and selling the freehold must be £6.7m to £9m. If SMBC - against our wishes - do lift the covenants and sell the freehold we would expect the price would be at least the £6.7M. Then there is the cost of a new sports ground with pavilion, drainage etc -£1.0m to £1.5m. Also Affordable Housing Contribution (AHC).
That means Oakmoor will try to avoid AHC by claiming non-viability.

We will resist this path all the way and be very protective of SMBC getting full market value, and that the new sports ground is up and running before any work starts on Sharmans Cross Road

LDP sites 306/245. Allocation site18
I write as an individual objecting to both above sites being included in the LDP as anything other than Category Red.

Before I go into the detailed reasons for objection and a few brief comment on SXAG. This Group originates from the initial attempt by Oakmoor Estates ( now Oakmoor(Sharmans Cross) Ltd) to develop the Sharmans Cross Road Rugby Ground as a residential site in 2007/8. We communicate with newsletters to some 1600/1700 households in the area surrounding the Rugby Ground plus around 250 electronically ie a total of 1850/1950 households. When key stages of the Planning/LDP processes arise we top up our newsletters with public meetings which are usually attended by 90-150 people. They can be very animated.

The reason for SXAG existing is simple - the preservation of the Rugby Ground as a sports ground for the benefit of the residents of Solihull. The history of the ground will go some way to explaining this.

HISTORICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND.

There are 3 sports clubs in a green lung behind the houses on Sharmans Cross Road - Solihull Arden Tennis Club, the old Rugby Club, and a soccer club Silhill FC. These have been sports grounds for 99, 50+ and 80+ years. If one of them goes we are concerned that the others will find it even more difficult to survive e.g. the Tennis Club requires around 150 car parking spots and are expecting to introduce 'Padel Tennis' later this year which will increase car parking needs. The 150 could move quite quickly to 175/200. Loss of the Rugby Ground would leave the club with c75 spots or over 100 shortfall. Without these the Club, in my view, will fade away because of the aggro over Parking. Historically they have shared the current 130/150 parking spots

In the 1950s the Rugby Club played just off Blossomfield Road but with SMBC's large scale residential building programme in that period they bought the Sharmans Cross site in 1952. They planned their move in the early 60s but found that the drainage on the two pitches was so bad that they were unplayable for much of the season. In 1962 they applied for planning permission for residential properties on the site. It was refused. They went to Appeal. Rather than face the Appeal the Council entered into a unique deal to buy the ground and lease it back to the Club after installing a high quality En-tout-cas drainage system. All of this was done on the basis of the following:-

1. A 125 year lease starting 1965 (71 years to go) costing £250 a year.
2. The Club retaining the freehold of the car park and the land where the buildings
were.
3. The Council were intent on the land remaining as playing fields so they imposed
2 covenants.
i. On the leasehold land - the leaseholder "will not use or permit or suffer (the
site) to be converted or occupied for any purposes other than a private sports
ground."
ii. The freehold land will only be used for purposes ancilliary to a sports ground.

THE ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE OF THE COUNCIL WAS THAT THE GROUND SHOULD BE A PRIVATE SPORTS GROUND FOR AT LEAST 125 YEARS.

At a public SMBC committee meeting in 2013 it was proposed and unanimously agreed that the covenants on the Rugby Ground should not be lifted and the freehold should not be sold. In addition it was stated and agreed that the Council should make every effort to bring the Ground back into sporting use.

IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW - CONTRARY TO THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF THE COUNCIL, AND THE 2013 RE-AFFIRMATION OF THAT POLICY THAT INCLUSION IN THE ALLOCATED SITES IN THE PROPOSED LDP CAN EVEN BE CONSIDERED. YOU WILL HAVE NOTED THE STRENGTH OF FEELING ON THIS ISSUE AMONGST LOCAL RESIDENTS FROM THE LETTERS OF OBJECTION THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED ALREADY. THESE EXTEND TO LOCAL RESIDENTS RAISING QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COUNCIL FAILING IN ITS RESPONSIBILITIES ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES ON TO THIS FACILITY:-

1. Why was the transfer of the lease from a sports club to a Developer (Oakmoor) agreed when the Developer had the declared intent to seek Planning permission for residential development?
2. Why has the Council not made more effort to have the Ground maintained as a sports ground?
3. Why has there apparently been no attempt to require Oakmoor to promote the use of the ground as a sports ground at a sports ground rent?
4. The SMBC objective in purchasing the Ground plus installing the very high quality drainage system there was so that that the ground should be used as a private sports ground and not left fallow for nearly 10 years. The 125 year lease and the 2 covenants only emphasised their intentions
5. Why have the two ex Rugby Club sites been considered for inclusion in the LDP?

These are the questions that are raised time and time again.

The reason why Oakmoor got to a position when they could be considered as freeholder/leaseholder for the Rugby Ground started in the early 2000s.The Rugby Club over extended itself with the advent of semi-professional Rugby. Oakmoor appeared as a 'white knight'. It provided financial support and developed a plan over a number of years, with increasing debts at the Rugby Club to help the Club to find another ground or ground share with substantial investment by Oakmoor to give them a viable future. This was to be funded by Oakmoor acquiring the freehold land plus the leasehold pitches at sports ground cost and obtaining Planning permission for the site to become a residential development. It would also have required them acquiring the freehold on the leased land, and the covenants being lifted. (This was glossed over and ended up with them seeking to obtain these free of charge in return for them helping the Rugby Club move). Figures of over £4m benefit to the Rugby Club were suggested. Oakmoor maintained, incorrectly, that there was a surplus of 'pitches' in the Botough. The first Planning Application was withdrawn. The second was rejected on the basis of no provision for Affordable Housing. Oakmoor went to Appeal , but withdrew their application less than 24 hours prior to the hearing.

It has been suggested by Mr G. Palmer in his email of 18.2.19 that the only reason for rejection was 'the lack of affordable housing. This illustrates that there was no land use principle that would have otherwise prevented development coming forward.

THIS IS A SERIOUS OVER SIMPLIFICATION OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. In the submission of objections we put forward a very extended and detail explanation of why the whole Funding/business plan upon which the Application was based, including the move of the Rugby Ground elsewhere was not viable and involved a funding deficit of over £3,000,000 . We were never question on any issue and I personally was told by a Senior Officer of SMBC that SMBC did not have the skill or the experience to adequately assess the Business Plan forward and that they more or less had to accept the business case put forward by the Applicant. To make matters worse the Applicant appeared to expect that the covenants would be lifted and the freehold of the land would be given to them.

SXAG then became a 3rd party to the Planning Appeal, and could identify any Planning issue. Having taken legal and professional advice we prepared our case on the basis of the inaccuracy, and misrepresentation of the Applicant's Business case. The key issue was that there was a £4-5m deficit on the project. Our Expert's analysis of residual land value and the property costs and revenue won the day.The Applicant withdrew his Appeal the night before the it was due to be heard. Affordable Housing could have been resolved, but the scale of the deficit was beyond resolution.The lack of substance in the Appeal was demonstrated by the Inspector awarding us and SMBC our costs.Until the LDP process starred Oakmoor appear to have done little or nothing to pursue Planning permission for the sites.

WHY DO I GO INTO SO MUCH DETAIL ON THIS TOPIC?

If this had been simply a matter of Affordable Housing the issue would have been resolved. However the real issue was that the project was not viable. This did not appear to have been appreciated fully by SMBC or presented as such as the issue at the Planning Committee meeting. The Appeal evidence brought this evidence to the fore.

WE THEREFORE DO NOT ACCEPT THE PROPOSITION THAT THE 'NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING' FACTOR AT THE PLANNING COMMITTEE STAGE WAS ULTIMATELY THE ONLY REASON WHY THE APPLICATION FAILED AT THE APPEAL STAGE. THIS VIEW APPEARS TO BE ENDORSED BY MR PALMER'S COMMENT IN HIS EMAIL OF 18/2/19
"IT IS NOW 8 YEARS SINCE THAT DECISION WAS MADE AND LAND VALUES ETC HAVE CHANGE SUCH THAT THE VIABILITY OF A SCHEME CAN BE RE-ASSESSED".

IRONICALLY THE INCREASE IN LAND VALUES MAKES THIS PROJECT LESS VIABLE NOT MORE. WHY - THE VALUE OF THE FREEHOLD AND THE COST OF GETTING RID OF THE COVENANTS - WHICH ARE MONEY TO BE PAID TO SMBC - HAVE , IN OUR VIEW,RISEN FROM £5/7m to around £7/10m.

What then has happened over the last 9/10 years?

Oakmoor have had a consistent approach in avoiding making this perfectly situated sports ground available for the playing of sport.

* The replacement Rugby Club were charged in the region of £40/60k pa for the use of the ground, changing rooms, social facilities compared to the Ground rent of £250 paid by Oakmoor to SMBC.
*. The playgroup who had used around 40% of the buildings for pre-school classes were given 24 hours to close down and were refused a tenancy. Profit from this operation had been going to the Rugby Club.
* Under pressure from SMBC Oakmoor cut the grass 4 times a year for 6/7
years. Last year it dropped to twice, and they now appear to be prevaricating
on cutting it at all.
* They boarded the windows of the various buildings but within weeks these
were broken into and routinely vandalised. Oakmoor were slow to respond
and and carry out repairs. Eventually, 3/4 years ago the buildings were
demolished. Everything at the ground has been allowed to steadily deteriorate
This appeared to be a deliberate policy of steady deterioration into
dilapidation and from that to Planning permission on the basis this was a
derelict Site.
* No attempt of any sort appears to have been made by Oakmoor to encourage
any sports club to use the pitches or the facilities when they existed. One club
wh. o approached them weretold ' we have other plans
for the site'. We are happy to produce evidence that teams
have had to find pitches for training and matches outside the Borough.
* SMBC have progressively shut changing rooms at, we understand, every
park with pitches.
* On the latest information we have available to us SMBC is in the 3 rd quartile
downwards in England for participation by over 16 year olds in sport 3 times
a week. And yet we are progressively decreasing sports grounds and/ or their
facilities.
* Since the 2013 policy decision on sustaining the covenants and the lease
nothing has been achieved in getting it back into sporting use.

It is fully realised that this is a difficult issue. However our discussions with a great many local residents make it clear that they feel very strongly that this and future generations of Solihull residents are being badly let down by by The Council in pursuing housing at all costs and ignoring to a large degree the amenities and facilities that are needed to go with that extra housing and increasing population on top of the needs of the existing population.

Further Objections.
1. The LDP suggests that replacement sports facilities would need to be provided.
We understand that these 'must be of at least equivalent standard, and accessibility.'
On accessibility - it simply is not possible to replace this private sports ground in Solihull with anything that is as close to the Town centre and with the same access on foot, on cycle, by public transport or by car. There is no alternative to the existing site.
To fudge the issue is self defeating. The further you move out from the centre of population the harder it gets for sports clubs to survive. The social and community sides of Clubs weakens and survival gets more difficult.

On equivalent standards. Oakmoor took this facility over with changing rooms,a bar and social amenities, plus community facilities in the pre- school facilities. These were not the best in the world but they were functional. These would need to be replicated in any new facility.
There are 2 pitches. The first team pitch has probably the best drainage in the Borough - installed to a high specification 45 years before Oakmoor acquired the ground but still very effective and with a guarantee from SMBC on the maintenance of the of drainage. The same principle, on a slightly lower specification applied to the second pitch.

To replace the 2 pitches with drainage quality such as they have will be very expensive, particularly with the existing guarantee of 71 years maintenance of the drainage, and all for £250 a year.

We would suggest that it is not possible to replace this facility in total - pitches and ancillary facilities with the same or better accessibility. Even if the accessibility could be resolved the cost of providing at least equivalent facilities with drainage maintenance would probably be beyond the means of Oakmoor.

Whilst this key issue is without a definitive solution, with cost undertakings agreed, we would suggest site 245/18 should not be included as Green Site or Amber Site in the LDP. There can be no confidence that it can become available at any time until this issue is resolved.

2. Sustainability.
By SMBC own criteria this is not ' sustainable' when measured against distances to facilities, and walking time. Oakmoor distances are incorrect and always have been in their various documents.

3. Lease/covenants.
These were implemented in 1965 to protect both sites at the Rugby Ground for 125 years to prevent exactly what is now being proposed. The reasons for it were clearly spelt out in the purchase documents and the deeds. They provided an amenity, as part of a green sports lung along the back of local properties. In 2013 this policy was re-affirmed by reprentatives of all political parties. Oakmoor were well aware of the lease and covenant terms when they set out on the path of acquisition . They also must have understood the risk they were taking.

We object to the very principle that these contracts can be treated as an arbitrary decision that can torn up and another facility createdeffecting future well being of residents in a way we do not understand.These facilities are part of the well being of the residents of Solihull for the long term. We object most strongly to this future being diminished in an irreplaceable way.

Our contention is very simple. The lease should never have been transferred to Oakmoor.
SMBC are the guardian of our interests and should again be re-affirming the lease/ covenant terms contained in the 1965 deeds and re-affirmed in 2013. Those policies are there to protect part of the public amenities and well being.

4. Health and Well being.

The health and well being of all generations is becoming more and more an issue of concern whether it be obesity, mental health or a host of other issues. What appears to be pretty universally recognised is that greater physical activity is a core component to both physical and mental well being at all ages. But in the LDP drafts this gets scarcely a line. Over the next 15 years Solihull populations looks , on the basis of housing increases, to be likely to grow by around 40,000, but 5 sports grounds are likely to go under the LDP. Pushing any replacements further and further out will reduce participation and the use of these amenities as community centres.
The potential loss of the old Rugby Ground with a replacement 'somewhere' will be another notch in the downward participation path In the Borough. Combine this with no changing rooms in Public Parks and we see an erosion continuing in participation.

Physical activity is a key component of health and well being in society.

5. Drainage

There is no doubt that for local residents drainage and surface flooding are on going and worsening problems. Severn Trent might tell you how under control things are but they are wrong. There are too main problems.
i. Victorian drains in Sharmans Cross Road, and limited capacity in Winterbourne/Beaminster.
Sharmans Cross Road has regular flooding actually in the Road. Perhaps even more critical is the regular flooding of gardens. This is not small scale but eg 6 inches of water. The drains simply cannot cope with the water volumes in the Road. In the gardens the problem largely stems from the layers of marl that predominate in the area. The Rugby Ground has this in a large degree but it is covered up by the En Tou Cas 10 -12 inch top surface that acts as a sponge before drainage off site. The building works would damage/destroy this whole system and leave a major surface water issue. THIS SHOULD NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED.
Foul water will also be a problem
WINTERBOURNE Road,
In the last Planning Application there was supposed to be a feeder sump to feed surface water away from the site. At the time, because of the mark problem, this looked inadequate.

I raise this issue because it already effects a large number of homes every time there is a any significant rain fall.

6. Density.
The draft LDP has a significant error in it.
Site 18 on allocations is supposedly site 245 state 100 houses on the old Rugby Ground.
Site 245 indicates 62houses on the old Rugby Ground.
Site 306 indicates 113house on the old Rugby Ground plus the Tennis Club.
I think this makes the LDP allocated sites 33 out in houses.

Density in the immediately surrounding areas is of the order of 10/12 houses per hectare.
These exclude road areas.
If on site 18/245 we assume 62 houses, 20% for roads,access, 0.2 hectares for 75 Tennis Club car parking spots, houses per hectare - 31.
If on site 18/245 we assume 100 houses, 20% roads,access, 0.2 for 75 Tennis Club car- parking spots , houses per hectare - 45.

These represent 3 to 4.5 times the density in the immediate area. In the area North iof Sharmans Cross Road 1400 plus house have an 'Estate Covernant' with each other and SMBC forbidding garden grabbing ie there can only be one house on each plot.

You must be aware that this difference is very significant and would be changing the distinctiveness of this mature suburb, contrary to Planning Policy.
We there question the whole question of why Site 245 is included?


7. Car Parking

In the rejected Planning Application car Parking was a significant issue for local residents. That has become far more critical now. Woodside Way is now a significant risk area for car Parking being solidly parked up from Sharmans Cross Road fork around 100m every day from 8-15 am until 5-30pm at least. Sharmans Cross is a tearaway with cars speeding at well over 50 mp.h. The last Planning Application allowed only around 1.5 cars per household compared to the 2 plus in the locality. The situation is now significantly worse.

This issue must not see ignored with or without this estate.

8. School and Medical services.

All of these are oversubscribed in the area. 67/100 more households will will take azll of these nearer to breaking point. This issue also cannot continue to be ignored.

9. Viability.

The nature of this site - the lease, the covenants, the necessity for affordable housing contribution, the Marl etc etc. - make it very difficult to see how this site can be viable The current site value as a sports ground has dropped, we would suggest, from c£6/700k with pavillion etc , to £250/400k because of the covenants and lease. With planning permission this varied between £6m and £9m with the latter ultimately being on the high side.

We would suggest that in the last 9/10 years these will have increase by at least 20%. This gives site values of £7.5m to £10m. The value of lifting the covenants and selling the freehold must be £6.7m to £9m. If SMBC - against our wishes - do lift the covenants and sell the freehold we would expect the price would be at least the £6.7M. Then there is the cost of a new sports ground with pavilion, drainage etc -£1.0m to £1.5m. Also Affordable Housing Contribution (AHC).
That means Oakmoor will try to avoid AHC by claiming non-viability.

We will resist this path all the way and be very protective of SMBC getting full market value, and that the new sports ground is up and running before any work starts on Sharmans Cross Road.

On behalf of our Client Mrs M Joyce, we now formally submit on her behalf representations in connection with the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation.

The key question raised in the DSLPRSC is Question 39, which offers
an opportunity for our client to confirm she wishes her site to be included and the
reasons for that. In addition, this representation also addresses the following
questions: 2, 7, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 39 and 44.

see letter attached

We write on behalf of our Client, Kendrick Homes Limited, who have an interest in land to the north side of School Road, Hockley Heath - referred to as Land adjacent 84 School Road (Site Ref: 49) within the Council's current Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation (DSLPRSC).
see details in attached letter

We write on behalf of our Client, Belle Homes Limited in respect of Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Numbers 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green, Solihull B90 4JE. This letter is submitted in response to the current Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation (DSLPRSC
See detail in attached letter

We write on behalf of our various Clients, who jointly own land described below:
Proposed Allocated Housing Site 22 - Trevallion Stud, Wootton Green
Lane, Balsall Common CV7 7BQ
Also including consideration of land west of No. 32 Wootton Green Lane Site
Reference 160
see detail in attached letter

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.

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.

See Letter

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

Please accept this email and the document attached as my formal objection to the LDP and its residential development plans

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

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.

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

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal in the LDP that the old rugby ground in Sharman's Cross Road be used for a major (67 mixed properties) housing development.

In particular, I note that as recently as 2013 a SMBC all-party committee affirmed, as policy, that they would not sell the freehold of the site or lift the covenants regarding the sites only being used for sporting purposes and as ancillaries to sport. i would, therefore, expect these covenants and the council's affirmation to be honoured. Sporting amenities / playing fields once lost will never be recovered.

In addition, the number of housing units proposed is very significantly (four times) above the housing density of the surrounding area. At the same time, such a level of new building would create a significant increase in traffic flow and concomitant parking problems in and around Sharman Cross Road. In the last five years traffic congestion has become a significant problem in this part of Solihull and the above level of building can only make it worse. Any idea that the traffic problem could be alleviated by running a road out on to Winterbourne Road would be total folly, as well as be damaging / fatal to the future prospects of a first class tennis club.

There would also be significant new pressure on medical and school capacity, which are already under strain.

I, therefore, urge the PSP, council officers and councillors, as well as the Solihull M.P. to maintain the historic covenants and seek the removal of this development from the L.D.P., as son as possible.

I write to voice my objection to plans for housebuilding on the old rugby ground. This is for a number of reasons:
The infrastructure of Solihull already fails to cope with the volume of housing, traffic and residents' needs. The proposed housing development would significantly compound this problem which detracts from the quality of life for local residents.
Proposed housing densities are very high and out of character with surrounding neighbourhoods.
The development is out of character with the area and would diminish Solihull's attractive distinctiveness.
This is an ideal site for engaging people in sport and physical activity. There is overwhelming evidence that lack of physical exercise is a serious threat to people's long term well-being and is a major factor in the the UK's epidemic of obesity, especially amongst young people. The area should be valued as an important area of open space - a green oasis - and somewhere that, with appropriate sports development, could be an important local hub for promoting health and physical recreation.
Please do not earmark this area for housing development; it would be such a sad and unnecessary loss of the borough's historical green-space.
Thank you for giving my views your consideration in this public consultation.

Local Development Plan - Site 245
Please consider the following comments in response to the recent consultation
1. Sports pitches will disappear. In 2013 SMBC agreed to protect the use of the rugby ground for sport but high rental costs have meant that local teams cannot afford to use it; this non-use is now being put forward as an argument to allow building on the land. It has been suggested that the developer has imposed these high costs. Solihull Arden Club has used Sport England grants to build courts and then allowed them to fall into disrepair so that they have been unused. SMBC has a duty to promote participation in sport in every way possible. Permanent removal of the neighbouring facilities will threaten the survival of the tennis club.
2. The style and density of the development will be very different from the local area which has family homes. To fit 167 homes, flats will have to be included. Existing residents will lose privacy and there will be increased noise.
3. The traffic situation is already terrible in and around Sharmans Cross Road with rush hour gridlock affecting people going to and from work and schools. Their safety could be compromised and their health affected by traffic pollution.
4. There will be more demand for on-street parking spaces nearby; this is already a source of distress for some residents.
5. GP surgeries are already overstretched. 167 extra homes will put even more pressure on NHS resources.
6. Local schools are already full; extra families will put even more pressure on a stretched system.
7. There are some very old trees and many shrubs and bushes on the site which support local wildlife including some rare, protected species such as bats. Developing the site will damage the biodiversity.
8. The area is prone to flooding, affecting gardens in Winterbourne Rd and Sharmans Cross Road. When Sharmans Cross Road floods, there is traffic chaos. High density development of the suggested site can only worsen this situation.
9. National Planning Policy Framework - the development is too far from Solihull Station and the town centre to satisfy the accessibility requirements.