Question 28 - Site 18 - Sharmans Cross Road

see attached letter

See Letters

See Letter

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

SITE 245
Time is short and this will be brief, however i just had to write about my utter disgust that yet another green space especially one that has been and hopefully will be again used for sport and fitness, in a society of every growing obese individuals is being considered for house build in the future. Do we need to remind you of the 2013 all party policy on the rugby ground on maintaining the sports ground only covenant and not selling the freehold .

The extra pressure placed on both medical and academic choice for the existing population will be negatively effected if further homes are built on this site in the numbers suggested. People pay the higher house and rental premiums to live and enjoy the character and distinctiveness of the area, this would be destroyed to what degree we can only guess. Does the council not share the communities desire to see areas available for sport, exercise and general well being. Taking away such an area of land for development and replacing it with problematic parking, destruction of trees and possible drainage and flooding problems on Sharmans Cross Road is unpalatable.

I am sure there will be more contact with yourselves from the various people at the meeting, I do hope you take on board all of our concerns. I might not be able to put my feelings into words as well as some. But there must be areas of land, possibly previously industrial that could provide a more suitable replacement that would not antagonize ordinary hard working individuals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Dev Plan Site 245
I wish to register my concerns/objections,
Living in an adjacent road, I am fully aware of the current high levels of car parking in Streetsbrook Rd/Woodlea Drive et al delivering/collecting school pupils, so you would be adding a couple of hundred more cars doing same (on way to/from work)- and this is in addition to dozens more from the new Travelodge just around the corner which is soon to be operational. Its often chaos now...!
Also, anything up to 200 extra pupils to choke the school....and who would not have the Arden site for recreation - this is contrary to the site covenant which must be retained for current & future generations.
Solihull, where I have lived for 40 yrs, is now almost a full car park, Urbs in Rure is on its way out. Birmingham Airport planned ground retention (up to Lugtrout Lane) and new traveller facilities (arrivals hall etc) is designed to attract additional users=cars=more vehicular intrusion

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

1. Destroy the character of the neighbourhood. 100 houses are effectively 4-5 times the density of property on Winterbourne Rd. This is unacceptable overdevelopment of the site and will be both out-of-scale and out- of-character in its appearance compared to existing development in the vicinity.

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

3. Adversely affect the parking situation - In addition to cramped parking for the new development, Arden Club could lose approximately 75 parking spaces. This will affect safety and congestion through increased street parking. Parking is already chaotic during peak times/school drop-off and pick up/sporting fixtures.

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

5. Result in the permanent loss of sporting facilities - This is one of five sports grounds at risk in the LDP. As there is a shortage of pitches in Solihull, SMBC has a statutory requirement to ensure lost pitches are replaced with facilities of equivalent quality and accessibility. Sport England has found that Solihull is in the 3rd quartile nationally for over-16 participation in sport three times per week and continues to fall in the national league tables.

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

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

8. Be an inappropriate use of land - SMBC formally minuted in 2013 its policy about the use of the grounds only for sport and that they would not sell the freehold. We would like reaffirmation of this policy which implies that this development is inappropriate for inclusion in the LDP. One previous application for this site has been refused and another withdrawn.

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

As such, we kindly 'demand' that the "2013 all party policy on the Rugby Ground on maintaining the sports ground only covenant and not selling the freehold be retained" is upheld.

Thank you for referring the above consultation which we received on 30 January 2019. We apologise we have been unable to respond prior to now, and hope that you are still able to take our comments into account as the plan develops.
We have reviewed the above consultation document which is dated January 2019 and note the inclusion of additional sites for consideration for allocation.
We welcome the inclusion of Flood Risk as a potential 'Hard' issue in the site selection criteria as identified on page 18 and 19. We further recommend that Water Quality is added to the footnote in this section, with particular referenced to River Blythe's SSSI status. Further to this page 29 looks at what is required for the Blythe in the future and protection and enhancement of water quality should be included. Please see attached letter for our advice with regards to your site allocations, which incorporates comments previously provided, and adds additional comments in relation to your new sites. These comments should be used in preference to those previously provided as they have been updated

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

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

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