Objection to Draft Solihull Local Plan

I write to express my full support for the objection prepared by the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum to the Draft Local Plan. I agree that the sites proposed for housing in Knowle are far too large and are not justified by the Council's evidence base. The impact on the social, physical and transport infrastructure of Knowle and Dorridge will be hugely adverse, to the detriment of the village character and rural "feel" of the village which is so valued by existing and aspiring residents.

I wish to make some additional points in relation to the Arden Academy and Arden Triangle proposed allocation.

No evidence has been presented to substantiate the numbers of houses needed to cross fund the school. The first proposals put forward by the school were relatively modest and based on the need for about 250 houses on what is now Phase 1 and 2 of the current proposals. The plans then expanded and the figure of around 350 houses was stated. The latest figure is 450 houses. No viability evidence has been provided to substantiate this. In addition, no evidence has been advanced as to why funding from other sources could not contribute to the costs, thereby reducing the number of houses required to enable the development.

It seems clear from the Call for Sites submissions that the new Academy is dependent on other landowners in the Triangle to provide adequate land for playing fields and access. This potentially places the Academy in a ransom situation and raises the prospect that far larger tracts of land are being allocated for housing in locations (particularly in the south west part of the site) that have previously been rejected and that are not sustainable. One landowner has expressed this explicitly (See Parcel 150 submission relating to Lansdowne Farm): "If the Arden triangle project goes ahead, this field will be made available as a school playing field , subject to the development of the rest of Lansdowne Farm". This could result in the community effectively being ransomed by this landowner if it wishes to secure better school and leisure facilities for the benefit of all.

I am aware that the Academy has very recently amended its plans in an attempt to show that it is not dependent on the Lansdowne Farm land to meet its playing field requirements. It would clearly be beneficial if this could be achieved; however, the area now shown for the development looks too small to accommodate a new Academy of the size proposed and it is very worrying that such basic matters have not yet been addressed.

The overall scale of housing proposed appears to be an opportunistic response by the Council, the landowners and the Academy, at the expense of the local community in terms of the numbers of houses, loss of Green Belt, and impact on landscape and local character. This is not an appropriate or acceptable planning solution. The Council, if it wishes to support the Academy, should be prepared to adopt alternative means of securing the desired end result such as compulsory purchase. This would be a wholly appropriate way to resolve issue: and affordable given capital returns from the proposed development.

The issue of potential ransoms is also a matter of concern in relation to the delivery of promised community benefits. There is a significant risk that the promised community benefits being offered in exchange for more housing may not be delivered. This, together with the lack of evidence on environmental, social and transportation impacts, are grounds for objection to the proposed Arden Triangle allocation.

I trust the Council will take these additional comments into account in considering proposed additional housing in Knowle and the wider KDBH area.