Consultation on Draft Local Plan for Knowle

Regarding the current consultation on the draft local plan for Knowle which is currently open for initial consultation: I write to express my view that the strength of statement in the submission of the Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum (KDBH NF) regarding the parcel 153 (aka "the Arden Triangle") and the issue of house building linked to a rebuilt Arden school may not fully reflect the view of the whole community.

I have no criticism of the NF who have gone to significant lengths to engage all residents in this matter. Nonetheless, their own analysis of their survey respondents shows a response rate of 14% with a statistical skew (comparing survey response to 2011 census data) toward the 55+ age group.

As a local resident and parent of three children in the area in two separate schools I believe the under representation of families with school age children in the survey which has informed KDBH NF's response introduces the potential for a skewed conclusion. My sense based on many discussions with families in the currently under represented group suggests that the statement on page 9 of the (currently only available in draft) KDBH NF submission is an overstatement of the strength of feeling within the community (viz "A view is emerging that a new school could be of benefit to the community but the price to pay for those uncertain benefits in terms of 750 houses and consequential impacts on infrastructure, landscape, and access to countryside is unnecessary and too high. The scale of 750 houses is not justified by the Council's evidence base: nor is it justified by the need to fund the new Academy. On this basis, the NF objects to the proposed allocation") . In making this statement I am not claiming that my conversations are themselves an unbiased sample; I do claim however that they are relevant but not fully represented in the KDBH NF's conclusions.

I believe the source of KDBH NF's over-statement of the objection to parcel 153 is the statistical bias in the survey and subsequent interpretation of the data. Again, this is not to criticise KDBH NF who can only work with the response they have received; that said, I personally cannot find the evidence within the full survey responses (available at http://bit.ly/2ks4BJm ) that justifies the strength of the quoted statement. For instance education appears in all three lists of 'top things to improve in the short term' and the top 3 things in 'top things to improve in the medium term' and is therefore a major concern of the community. This supports the first part of the statement that "A view is emerging that a new school could be of benefit to the community" but not the second "but the price to pay... is unnecessary and too high" does not. The evidence base for the strength of the latter statement is not entirely clear based on the data presented. There is, therefore, a risk that this is anecdotal, subjective and hence an unrepresentative statement of the survey itself, let alone the wider community view, in what is otherwise a fact based and reasoned document.

My view is that a more factual representation of the findings plus the views of the wider community would be along the lines of

"There is a clear view that improvements in education facilities is a priority for residents. Further a view is emerging that a new school would be of benefit to the community, particularly in relation to the provisioning of other development priorities expressed by local residents such as youth, leisure and adult education facilities. However, there are concerns regarding the size and scale of residential building currently proposed to enable this development and the impact that this would have on local infrastructure. Therefore, on balance, the community does not support the current proposal for 750 homes on this site but, given the maturity of the plans and the potential negative and positive impacts it offers, the community recognises the need to understand and explore this option further."

There is, of course, an element of subjectivity in this wording, as indeed there is in the the KDBH NF submission on this matter. My contention is that the this wording better represents the (quantitative) survey data and general sense of (qualitative) community feeling as a whole.

In closing, as a resident I would also like to disassociate myself from the forum's conclusions regarding affordable housing and the stated strong objection to rental homes since this, as expressed, seems to support a strategy of social exclusion. The apparent strength of feeling again appears to be anecdotal and possibly arises from the statistical make-up of the sample and hence may not be representative (in strength and tone) of the entire community. I believe that any development in any community should be sympathetic and proportionate to its current nature but must stop short at 'social engineering' in either direction (i.e. by forcing or excluding). There is, therefore, I feel a reasonable argument for broadening the range of housing available in Knowle. Given house price escalation here and elsewhere, however, efforts should be made to ensure that 'affordable' housing remains affordable going forward, and not just for the first purchaser or occupier.

I trust these views will be taken into account as you consider the next steps in this process.