I wish to convey my comments, as follows, in relation to the proposed master plan development in Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath (KDBH).

The presentations I have attended at Arden School in recent months give a very clear indication that the Local Authority is not taking cognisance of the feedback informed in the Local Neighbourhood Plan. The planning officer in attendance provided a pro-development partisan view, as opposed to a balanced impartial position at this early stage in proceedings. Is this fair and reasonable? Why are the L.A. not relaying more of the negative aspects of the development master plan, instead of relying on local residents to establish and convey these views?

To support this, the local councilor's response to concerns on local infrastructure demands presented by increased development was simply to say, it's a good thing as it presents an opportunity to expand local infrastructure to support the development. He cited building new roads as an example to accommodate greater volumes of traffic? The response was basic and ill-informed to say the least, aside from flawed. We have one number high street in Knowle that cannot accommodate further expansion. Ditto, one major artery road between Knowle and Dorridge, namely, Station Road, that likewise, could not be expanded to cope with the increased traffic that would use Dorridge Station for example. A large volume of traffic commutes towards Birmingham City Centre and / or the local motorway network, whereby there are only two road bridges linking KDBH to Solihull and beyond. Any new infrastructure roads built within the new proposed developments would still filter on to these main arteries, which struggle to cope at peak traffic times as it is. If the solution is to build more major roads and bridges then the L.A. should be completely transparent and raise the possibility now instead of remaining silent.

Martin Murphy gave a speech concerning the once in a lifetime opportunity for the school to obtain a brand new state of the art £30m school / community facility for free. He also relayed that the financial cupboard was bear in relation to funds being available to refurbish or re-develop the existing Arden school site further. There are several fundamental points in regards to this statement which again illustrate an imbalance in the judgement and delivery given by an important and influential local figurehead.
Since when is a £30m school ever built for free? Has Martin Murphy never heard of the phrase "Opportunity Cost?". If not, perhaps he should stand aside or refrain from public speaking on what are essentially property development matters? If he has heard of the phrase, why did he engage with such a misleading statement? He's a head-teacher not a developer or politician! Relocating the school in some sort of pawnbroker exercise to generate funds at the expense of lost green fields forever is not "free" in the true meaning of the word. Increasing the local population by circa 20% with the consequences that come with it are not "free" in the true meaning of the word. Section 106 agreements in the context of property development are not free!

Martin Murphy failed to make any reference to the wonderful and newly acquired facilities at Arden School that have arisen over the years at the tax payers expense, namely, The Music Block, Science Block, 6th Form Centre, Smart Centre, Gym Astro-Turf, MUGA and recent new teaching block. Yes, we've all heard how this new block could be re-used but it cannot be re-used 1/2 mile down the road for free. Is it wise or acceptable that such fine facilities be simply demolished to make way for housing? Is it right that the costs incurred by the taxpayer over the past decade or so, which I would estimate to be in the region of £15m are just written off into some development appraisal. The remaining school buildings could be refurbished and modified at a fraction of the cost of a new school, with far less opportunity cost impact. The fact that the cupboard is so called bear does not give the right to sell off our countryside to pay for Whitehall's inability to manage finances appropriately.

Martin Murphy, also spoke proudly about the new school being a community facility. This is all smoke and mirrors based on current evidence. The school facilities at the Station Road site are nowhere near utilized by the local community to anything like the potential they could and should be. So why does moving a school 1/2 mile down the road give any cause to suspect anything significant will change? If it can be done at the new site, it can be done now. Likewise, relocating to a new school site will not paper over the widening cracks concerning the evident drop in standards at Arden. The school should stop using the existing site as an excuse in this regards and take a long hard look in the mirror.

Create a former pupils club and generate fund raising for a sports pavilion / clubhouse for example that would support the use of the school playing fields and facilities for wider community use. Knowle FC could train there preserving the one pitch they have for senior team match days. Feeder teams can utilize Arden. With all the facilities available to Arden and the 4 junior schools in the area, it is a joke for councilors to suggest we are devoid of sporting facilities. It's nearly as bigger joke as hearing the reason for BH School refusing to allow Knowle FC to play on the school field any longer owing to mud on the playground. Really....We're happy to ruin KDBH countryside, look and feel, rather than use a broom and elbow grease to keep perfectly acceptable facilities clean and tidy?

The suspicion of too many local residents I speak to is "what's the point" the government, L.A. and schools will stitch us up until they get what they want. Until the L.A. acts with a greater degree of impartiality and starts promoting reasons more fairly and clearly, this cynicism will only grow. Is that how they wish to be perceived? I do hope such cynicism is not proved to be true. I am not in favour of any major development in KDBH. If I was forced to compromise, I would select the Hampton Lane development as the more favourable and less intrusive to the community as a whole. I am not in favour of relocating Arden School, ST. G&T or development on the so called Arden triangle whatsoever. The fact that land values are sufficiently high to attract developers to fund Section 106 requirements and still make the margins in their development appraisals work is not a reason to destroy our local community and surrounding habitat and environment, let alone give politicians ground to proclaim they are pioneers of re-generation and growth, in order to hide their own levels of incompetency over a number of decades.