Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7925
Received: 13/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Elisabeth Hedley
In testing the appropriateness of sites, consideration should be given to the impact of new development on the physical, economic and social infrastructure of the village and its character and distinctiveness. The methodology does not do this and needs to be clearer. There are significant variations in the scoring of sites which require justification, notably in respect of Hampton Road. Site 213 performs highly for green belt purpose 1 and is remote, but assessed as medium/high accessibility, whilst sites 214/215 are assessed as unsuitable. Please also see the response of the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum which I support and fully endorse.
Spatial Strategy - The sites referred to in Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath (KDBH) are stated as being consistent with Option G of the Spatial Strategy but this option was the WORST performing in the Sustainability Appraisal. The aim of the Spatial Strategy is to ensure a sustainable pattern of development and to protect the character and distinctiveness of the Borough. This is inconsistent with the proposed scale of growth in KDBH.
Methodology - There are significant inconsistencies in the application of the methodology which undermine the integrity of the selection process but I refer in particular to the Hampton Road site. Site 213 north of Hampton road is (presumably?) assessed as blue in Step 1 since it qualifies as being either category 6 or 7 but then becomes green, despite performing highly in terms of purpose 1 of Green Belt. Its Green Belt assessment for purpose 3 should also be higher as a category three rather than the category two which has been ascribed to it. It is assessed as having medium/high accessibility even though there is no bus service and large parts of the site are approx. 1km from the High Street. How was this assessment arrived at? The other two northern parcels (sites 214 and 215) which are immediately adjacent, are assessed as red i.e. NOT suitable for development although it is proposed they would become the site of the new sports hub. Again, how was this assessment arrived at and how can it be justified? Siting a community sports hub in a remote location which has no access to public transport is surely contrary to the Council's accessibility and sustainability policies. The above is only one example of the many sites around KDBH which have similar scores but which vary considerably in their assessment as green red or amber. We need a clearer explanation of the assessment process in order to justify the current allocations, otherwise the credibility and robustness of the process is undermined.
Government advice is that a mix of sites should be encouraged but the Council seems to have looked only at two large sites. Other smaller sites should be looked at to see if they can contribute to the housing growth in a more sensitive way which would have a less detrimental impact upon the Green Belt and the character of KDBH.