I have had the opportunity to see the response made by the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum to the Solihull Draft Local Plan, which proposes the siting of over 1000 new houses in Knowle and would endorse and support all the points they make, in particular:-
* The siting of over 1000 (in reality nearer 1400) new houses in Knowle is wholly disproportionate especially considering the new houses already built in the area over the last 4 years;
* The scale of development fails to take into account the impact on local services and infrastructure;
* There does not appear to have been adequate consideration of alternative locations;
* The proposed allocations do not accord with the Council's own policies;
* The proposed Housing Allocation 8 constitutes an unacceptable encroachment into highly performing Green Belt land.
In relation to the Hampton Road proposals (Proposed Housing Allocation 8) I would wish to make the following points:-
Whilst I appreciate that the boundaries of the proposed Allocation 8 are indicative only, the northern boundary of the hatched area to the north of Hampton Road includes an area which comprises the Wychwood Avenue Local Wildlife Site (LWS), which I imagine is an error and needs to be corrected. Any development in this area must take into account any possible impact on the LWS and include appropriate buffer zones and remedial measures in order to ensure that the development does not adversely impact in any way upon the LWS and the Purnells Brook.
Firstly, as I understand it, the existing football club premises to the south of Hampton Road would be available for housing only if an alternative ground can be found and the proposal is for this to be sited further east on the north side of Hampton Road, adjoining the Grand Union Canal (a site also in Green Belt). The reasons cited by the football club for requiring new premises are that the existing pitches are inadequate and the facilities are in poor condition.
Taking the latter issue first, the reason the club premises are in such poor condition is primarily because there has been a deliberate and consistent policy by the club over recent years not to invest any money at the existing ground because they could see a potential opportunity to relocate and to sell their existing ground for housing. This policy has become even more apparent since the inclusion of the adjoining land at Arden Gate in the 2013 SHLAA and its subsequent development for housing. The football club has no interest in maintain or improving its current site as it regards any investment there as being wasted. Its sole aim for many years has been to move to an alternate site, funded by the sale of its existing premises for housing, and the current dilapidated condition of the club premises has arisen as a direct result of this policy.
With regard to the football pitch itself, the club asserts this is in poor condition due to overuse. I inspected the pitch on Wednesday 1st February and found it to be in excellent condition with a good covering of thick grass even in the goalmouth where additional wear would normally be expected. A notice at the entrance to the ground indicated that a match had been played on 28th January 2017 with the next fixture being due to be played on 11th February 2016. One match every two weeks does not appear to me to be overuse, and the current condition of the pitch in no way indicates the intensive use suggested by the club.
Secondly, with regard to the issue of requiring additional pitch capacity, in its response to the Council's 2016 call for sites, the club stated that it has nearly 300 people "involved" in the club, however it does not state how many are actually members. In addition, closer inspection of the figures reveals that only 60 of these involved persons are adults, with over half of the number being children under 12 years of age. Out of a total of 23 teams, only 3 are adult teams, with 15 out of the total number of teams being comprised of under 12's who presumably do not require extensive pitch facilities. The club's response also fails to indicate how many of those associated with the club actually live in Knowle and it would appear that the village is being asked to accommodate significant numbers of new houses in order to finance a facility which may not be providing any great benefit to the inhabitants of Knowle at all.
The club's proposed alternative site set out in its submission to the Council in January 2016, showed a facility comprising "at least 4 full size pitches" which is completely excessive for the needs of the club of this size and proposes to provide the opportunity for an "enhanced sports hub" for the rest of Solihull. The siting of both the football facilities and this proposed sports hub is wholly inappropriate since they will be over 1km from the nearest access to public transport and will result in everyone using these facilities accessing them by private car. This is contrary to the Council's policies on sustainability and accessibility and the additional traffic generated will add to the already difficult junction of Hampton Road with the Warwick Road (A4141) which is in a Conservation Area. In addition, any new facility in this location will require a footpath (possible cycleway), and street lighting from the end of the existing footway on the north side of Hampton Road all the way to the Grand Union Canal. Some, at least of the proposed football pitches will presumably require floodlighting, and the perimeter adjoining the highway will require high level fencing, all of which will seriously detract from the current rural aspect of the eastern approach to Knowle.
The latest proposal tabled by the football club at a public meeting on 7th December 2016 showed the football club being relocated to the north eastern corner of the proposed new site, with a new cricket pitch adjoining the Hampton Road. This presumably is in anticipation of the possible move by Knowle Village cricket club from its present site to the proposed "sports hub" on the north side of Hampton Rad. Again this would be well over 1km from any public transport access, and vehicles accessing this facility (and the additional housing which would presumably be facilitated on the existing cricket ground) would simply add to the traffic congestion along Hampton Road and at the junction with the A4141. Also a cricket pitch immediately adjoining the rod would presumably require significant perimeter fencing/netting, significantly detracting from the current open aspect of this part of Hampton Road.
Any sports facility of the kind anticipated will require significant car parking provision otherwise a similar situation will arise to that which exists at the nearby Old Sills ground on the Warwick Road, where, despite having on-site parking provision for at least 40-50 vehicles, cars spill out and park in an ad hoc and haphazard fashion on the Warwick Road on a regular basis. This situation would be completely unacceptable on Hampton Road, especially given that the site is on the approach to a sharp left hand bend which has a history of fatal accidents. The provision of large areas of car parking, hard standing and potentially spectator provision is not an appropriate use of Green Belt land and will seriously detract from the openness and rural aspect of this area of Green Belt.
The current football club site has an area of poor quality woodland adjacent to it, which was included within the club's response to the 2016 call for sites (up to 3.4 hectares). If this were to be utilised by the club, it could provide at least one extra full size pitch together with further junior pitches/training areas which could easily fulfil the club's needs for additional playing surfaces. In addition, were the existing pitch to be upgraded (possibly to 3G standard) then this would easily accommodate much more regular and intensive use.
The existing club site is in a far better location and serious efforts should be made to enhance and upgrade these facilities, rather than relocating to a wholly inappropriate site, which is in Green Belt, which is much further out from the centre of the village and for all practical purposes (particularly given that 231 out of a total number of 291 people involved in the club are under 17 years of age) wholly inaccessible, other than by private car.
I am also aware that significant sporting facilities are proposed within Arden Triangle site, (Proposed Housing Allocation 9), including potentially a 4G football pitch and additional artificial surfaces. If these facilities are truly intended to be "community facilities" as is promised, then this would be a much better facility to which the club could relocate, as it is within the current built up area of Knowle and has much better access to public transport.
With regard to the proposed siting of new housing on the north side of Hampton Road, I understand a previous application for housing on this site was made some 10-15 years ago which was refused. I have made inquiries of the Council but have not been able to obtain any details relating to this, but I understand that the refusal was firstly on the grounds that the site was within Green Belt and secondly that the development would result in "skyline development" which was considered unacceptable. Given that the topography of the site has not changed, then presumably, the objection to the site on this second ground remains a valid one. Also, no evidence has been provided that 300 houses are in fact needed to finance a new football club, or how such a potentially large facility is to be maintained and supported. The club currently asserts that it has difficulty financially supporting its existing facilities so how would it support a much larger and more sophisticated one?
With regard to the site being within Green Belt, this has also not changed. The Council's recent Green Belt review resulted in Refined Parcels RP36 and RP 37 (which cover the proposed Housing Allocation 8 in the Draft Local Plan) being the two areas which scored most highly of all those parcels of Green Belt immediately surrounding Knowle and Dorridge. Indeed, with regard to Purpose 1 of Green Belt, namely to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, both RP 36 and 37 are category 3, (the highest performing), and are the best performing of any refined parcel of Green Belt immediately surrounding the KDBH are. It is therefore difficult to understand why Green Belt land within these two parcels should have been allocated for housing, in preference to any other sites. There appears to be no justification for this, based upon the Council's own review.
The siting of new housing on the north side of Hampton Road is poor in location terms, is well beyond the current built up area of Knowle and would constitute a significant and unacceptable encroachment into open countryside.
For the reasons highlighted above I would urge the Council to reconsider its proposed Housing Allocation 8 in the Draft Local Plan.