No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3255

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Mel Starling

Representation Summary:

Site 8 Objection.

1000 new homes will massively increase size of village.
Loss of Green Belt.
Rebuilding of sport facilities at Hampton Road will push Green Belt boundary towards Hampton-in-Arden.
Government said it's committed to preserving the Green Belt.
Construction will disrupt village life.
Site 8 too far from amenities and railway station.
Local demand to Knowle FC is small. Club is financially unsound. Improvements not been made.
No need for community hub as lots of meeting places in KDBH.
Past rejections of site based on topography and impact on skyline.
Loss of wildlife.
Impact on canal.








Full text:


SOLIHULL DRAFT LOCAL PLAN REVIEW.

Solihull Council has identified two sites in Knowle for development in the future.
If these sites are developed they will provide over 1000 new homes, a new school and a sports complex, focusing on moving Knowle Football Club to a new location and creating better facilities.

These new homes will massively increase the size of the village.

I object to the loss of so much Green Belt.

The so called Arden Triangle site will comprise of 750 houses and a new school, all to be built on existing Green Belt.

The Hampton Road site will comprise initially of 250 homes, followed by a sports complex. On completion of the new football facilities the old Knowle football ground will provide land for further housing. The Hampton Road site will all be on Green Belt. This site will push the Green Belt boundary out considerably towards Hampton-in-Arden.

The Department for Communities and Local Government have insisted that Ministers were "committed to preserving the Green Belt". This Department has further stated that "only in exceptional circumstances may Councils alter Green Belt boundaries, after consulting local people and submitting the revised local plan for examination".

Ministers have further stated that the Government is committed to "strong protection of the Green Belt".

Green Belt land should be treated as a special case because that is what protects us from the urban sprawl. It also exists to prevent neighbouring villages merging into one another, to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the regeneration of derelict and other urban land.

Reluctantly I would have to agree that providing a new Arden School could be argued as being exceptional providing that the old facility is not fit for purpose as the school maintains. I would like to see the evidence for this. Many millions of pounds have been spent on improving and expanding Arden School in recent years only to be demolished.

The development of this site will take many years to complete causing a great deal of disruption to village life.

Should this site be developed then the housing build should be maximised. Land identified for "housing in the future" should be developed at the same time. All the housing needed could be built within this triangle. The homes within this site are within walking distance of the shops and railway station in Dorridge and Knowle village centre. The Hampton Road development is not.

There is no need to push the boundaries of the Green belt out in two directions.

The closest station to the Hampton Road site is Hampton-in Arden. It is not possible to walk to this station safely as there are no pavements or lighting. The parking facilities are at capacity, as indeed they are at Dorridge and Widney Manor stations. It is a two mile walk/drive to Dorridge station from where I live in Chantry Heath Crescent.

Should the Arden Triangle be developed then it is infilling a triangle of land.

The relatively small development at Arden Fields took over two years to complete causing traffic chaos, noise and mess, primarily mud on the surrounding roads. The end result is not attractive.

The Hampton Road development focuses around the relocation of Knowle FC to the north east of the site to cater for "local demand". I assume local demand to mean Knowle FC and its members, 291 in total.

The results of the Knowle Forum's residents survey indicated there was more interest in the provision of more allotments than in improving football facilities. Until recently there was a five year waiting list for an allotment in Knowle.

Knowle FC has been in existence for 90 years and in that time it has been unable to maintain and improve on its facilities.
I have lived in Knowle for 36 years and I have not seen any improvement to either the pitches or the club facilities.

Knowle FC have obtained permission to install floodlights at their existing ground. They complained for many years that the lack of floodlighting prevent them playing in various leagues. They have not installed floodlights because they cannot afford to.

The club is not financially sound.

In the proposal document for Knowle FC it is stated that it runs approximately 20 football teams, the majority of which are 5 and 7 aside teams of juniors, both boys and girls.

There are many facilities and areas in and around Knowle where football can be played and training undertaken, both indoor and outdoor. Examples are Arden School, the Old Silhills, the Children's Field in Kixley Lane, Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath parks.

Every year Knowle FC put signs at the entrance seeking new junior players. Why do this if they cannot provide adequate facilities?

My three daughters all played for Knowle FC. My two youngest daughters' team was made up primarily of girls from Yardley who were obviously prepared to travel and not local children..

The proposed facility would be for the benefit of a minority of people who are interested in football. Other sports facilities alluded to may never materialise.

The precise composition of the new facility is vague to say the least. Some of the rumours indicate a new cricket pitch is also possible. Does this mean that the cricket pitch behind Knowle FC will also be developed?

This new sports facility would adjoin the canal, which is a haven for wildlife. It is a peaceful place enjoyed by a significant number of local people including fishermen, dog walkers, people just out for a quiet stroll, canoeists and canal boat users.

This quiet haven will be destroyed by the noise and foul four letter language frequently generated by the adult football matches on a Saturday and Sunday. Sound travels a considerable distance and with clarity.

The area that the houses will be built on is also a haven for wildlife including bats, badgers, foxes, deer and birds of prey including buzzards, sparrow hawks and kestrels. Are we certain there are no newts, crested or otherwise in the pond on the site?

The developer has stated that it will "retain and where possible enhance connecting wildlife corridors". It would be interesting to see how they could achieve this in amongst all the houses, football pitches, flood lighting and any other sports facilities that may be built.

The developer also intends to retain views to and from the Grand Union canal. I cannot see how this can be achieved, unless of course you stand on top of a flood light gantry.

The developer makes many unrealistic promises for the benefit of the wider community. This includes "with the support of Sports England the sports hub could become a community meeting place" We have an abundance of meeting places in the centres of Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath and do not need another one on the north eastern edge of the village. All these meeting places are well used by the community.

There are excellent athletics facilities in Solihull, which do not need to be rivalled.

This site has been rejected in the past because of the topography and the impact on the skyline. As far as I can see, nothing has changed.