I believe this parcel to be incorrectly scored in the Atkins Green Belt assessment. It is scored only as a 2 in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment which it clearly meets the criteria to score 3. In terms of preserving the setting of the historic village, it scores 0 despite the fact that the landscape and topography play an important role in protecting the rural and historic setting of the village. Furthermore the site clearly affects the aspect and setting of Grimshaw Hall a Grade 1 listed building. How can this scoring be justified? It needs to be re-visited.
At para 234 of the Supplementary Consultation, the Council states that "sites that are close to the existing settlement or are/can be well served by public transport will be preferable". The proposed site on the north side of Hampton Road is neither of these. At para 238 of the consultation, the Council states that this site "performs well in accessibility terms and there is good access to all key facilities." I would contest that this statement is not sustainable when one considers that the site on the northern side of Hampton Road is over 800m from the Warwick Road (the nearest access to a bus service) at least 1km way from basis facilities like food shops, bakers, butchers and chemist, and well over 1km away from the secondary school. Locating new housing here will inevitably lead to increased traffic congestion in the centre of Knowle. At para 241 the Council acknowledges that the site has "low landscape capacity to accommodate new development" something which is borne out by the Neighbourhood Forum's landscape survey. In addition the topography is poor with a 17 metre change in levels across the site which will lead to unacceptable overlooking of houses and undesirable "skyline" development (one of the reasons for a previous application on this site being refused).
The location of a "community sports hub" which has no access to public transport is wholly unsatisfactory and contrary to the Council's own accessibility and sustainability policies. The football club has already expressed the view that the football pitches will need security fencing and floodlighting and the location of the cricket pitch next to the road will necessitate 30-40 foot high fencing in order to prevent balls being hit into a road which has sustained a number of fatal accidents in the past.
I do not believe the football club needs anything like the proposed facilities in order to operate successfully. Of the 22 teams it alleges to maintain, only 2 or 3 of these are adult teams. 17 of them are composed of under 12's (11 of which are under 10's who do not play with full teams of 11 or on full size pitches) so it is difficult to understand how they require 4 full size pitches. The club website does not appear to have been updated since 2014 leading one to suspect that the club is not particularly well managed, borne out by the fact that when the roof of the clubhouse blew off in 2018, a public fundraising effort was needed in order to finance repairs because the clubhouse was not insured. The club neither needs nor is capable of managing and maintaining the sort of large scale development that is envisaged at Hampton Road.
The entire area will require floodlighting and large amounts of car parking. Four football pitches will generate up to 100 cars without any spectators, all wishing to use this facility at the same time. In addition, although parcels 214 and 215 are flatter areas, significant engineering works and terracing will be required in order for the site to be suitable for playing fields. All of this, in particular the fencing, floodlighting and car parking will hugely detract from the openness of this area of Green Belt. The facility will be clearly visible from Eastcote and Henwood Farm and will have a seriously detrimental effect on the currently rural aspect of the eastern approach to Knowle. This development in its proposed location is not an acceptable use of Green Belt land.
Masterplan - This does not take into account the topography or the significant changes in levels across the site. This is a serious omission and must be addressed. In addition, the current masterplan includes the Wychwood Avenue LWS on the northern boundary. This should be excluded as any new development should deliver its own Public Open Space and not make use of the already existing LWS.