Question 23 - Site 8 - Hampton Road

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 76

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6546

Received: 31/01/2019

Respondent: Dr A Jickells

Representation Summary:

This is Green Belt, does not constitute rounding off and should not be built on. Knowle cannot accommodate this development especially alongside Site 9, as there are too many houses and the traffic will use the junction with Warwick Road, worsening congestion.
Concept Masterplan
No details of how Purnell's Brook or the Streamside Trust nature reserve would be protected, and not all protected trees and hedgerows shown.

Full text:

The site is currently Green Belt and should be retained as such. The "rounding off" phase is just an excuse for encroachment into the Green Belt. The movement of the football fields to provide houses takes further Green Belt land.
There are too many houses proposed. This must be considered along with the Site 9, Arden Triangle proposal and is too much for Knowle to accommodate.
All the traffic from this site will go along the Hampton Rd. to the Warwick Rd., making traffic worse at the junction.
There is no account of how the Purnels Brook would be protected. This stream flows into the Blythe a sensitive river system.
The map does not show all the protected trees and hedge rows.
The proposal does not address the protection of the Streamside trust nature reserve which it abuts.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6638

Received: 08/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Ian Kay

Representation Summary:

It is difficult to comment without maps, however the B93 Facebook group claims that this update of the plan includes land adjacent to Kixley Ln. If so, this would be completely unacceptable, Kixley Ln is a beautiful 14th century relic and it, along with the footpath route to the canal pedestrian bridge should be kept in agricultural use.

Full text:

It is difficult to comment without maps, however the B93 Facebook group claims that this update of the plan includes land adjacent to Kixley Ln. If so, this would be completely unacceptable, Kixley Ln is a beautiful 14th century relic and it, along with the footpath route to the canal pedestrian bridge should be kept in agricultural use.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6694

Received: 14/02/2019

Respondent: Gillian Griggs

Representation Summary:

This allocation would be a large scale encroachment into the countryside and Green Belt extending well beyond the built limits and natural topography of Knowle. The topography and substantial changes in levels are not addressed in the masterplan. Without information on levels, infrastructure impacts (particularly highways/junction impacts/mitigation), impacts on Knowle Conservation Area and clarity on the GB and LWS boundaries, it is not possible to support this allocation and the draft concept masterplan. The issues raised by the NF Landscape Study and Masterplanning/Design and Design Coding Study need first to be addressed before any allocation can be supported.

Full text:

My response to Q22 which sets out why I consider an 'in principle' objection to this allocation should be maintained pending further information from the Council on infrastructure and other matters raised in the Forum's original objection.
This is expanded upon below having regard to the information in the Landscape Study by Crestwood Environmental and the Heritage and Character Study and Masterplanning/Design and Design Coding work by Urban Vision Enterprise CIC.
In its submission to the 2016 DLPR consultation, the Neighbourhood Forum made comments on these two sites which raised questions over the allocations given the Council's own evidence base. This showed that:
* the sites are at the least accessible end of the scale and are poor in locational terms with no public transport access
* development would be a significant encroachment in to the Green Belt and countryside
* the parcels are 'best performing' and, arguably, 'moderately performing' Green Belt
* the impacts of additional traffic, particularly on the High St junction need to be explained as well as potential impacts on the Conservation Area
* further work is needed to understand the impact of topography on development, both housing and sporting, and of development on trees, hedgerows and Local Wildlife Sites.
Since then the Forum has had three meetings with the site promoters and the Council when their baseline studies have been shared. Whilst this was welcomed by the Forum, there has been no substantive responses or progress on the above matters. In particular:
1. The Council state that this allocation is consistent with Option G of the Spatial Strategy for the significant expansion of rural villages. However, the Spatial Strategy does not appear to favour any one Option and this option was one of the worst performing in the Interim Sustainability Appraisal.
2. The Council has not shared transport study findings with the NF as promised. However, the NF has been made aware of the 'measurable impact' that the Council's own Transport Study has shown at the High St junction. Despite this, the impacts of proposed development on traffic flow, junctions, village centre, Conservation Area and station parking are not mentioned in the Supplementary Update. Nor is there any indication of how impacts can be mitigated or how a bus service to this site can be achieved.
3. The Council considers that the main parcel of land at Hampton Rd would be a 'rounding off' of the settlement. A site visit demonstrates that this is not the case. Development here would be a major incursion into the countryside and Green Belt setting of Knowle.

4. The Atkins assessment of the larger parcel of Green Belt (parcel 36) as moderately performing is questionable. It is scored only as a 2 in terms of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment even though it meets the criteria to score 3, as does parcel 37. In terms of preserving the setting of the historic village it scores a 0 despite the fact that the landscape and topography play an important role in protecting the rural and historic setting of the village. The 'considerations' set out in the table on p7 of the GBA state that an assessment of topography has been taken into account in the scoring of this GB purpose but it is not evident in the scoring of this parcel. The scoring needs to be revisited. See also my comments in response to Q2 on inconsistencies in scoring.
5. The Council refers to providing a defensible GB boundary to the smaller parcel of land and continuing the GB boundary on the larger parcel by continuing the GB boundary on from the rear of properties along Wychwood Avenue down to Hampton Rd. However, there is no existing definitive boundary on site where shown on the masterplan- it is proposed to create a new boundary through road construction. This appears to be a novel approach to creating new GB boundaries and is inconsistent with the insistence elsewhere by the Council that sites cannot be reduced in size because strong existing defensible boundaries must be adopted. A number of other large sites may perform better in the Council's assessments if some areas can be excluded by creating new GB boundaries.
6. More information is required to explain how the Council has concluded that this is a 'green' site. Without this it is not possible to accept the Council's conclusion that development will only have no, or relatively low impact on relevant considerations, or that a severe impact can be mitigated.

As regards the Masterplan, the draft report from Crestwood Environmental for the NF together with the Heritage and Character Assessment and the Masterplanning/Design and Design Coding by Urban Vision Enterprise CIC provide clear evidence and advice on what the masterplan for these sites should contain if development in these locations is confirmed. The following summarise the key landscape and design considerations which need to be taken into account as they are not reflected in the concept masterplan at present:
1. Levels and topography.
The masterplan fails to reflect the significant levels issues across the northern parcel and how they will be addressed both for housing and for sports pitch provision. The image of the masterplan is highly misleading without any indication of how the change of levels will be accommodated. This is a sensitive issue locally given that the change in levels across the recently completed Taylor Wimpey development at Middlefield Spring were not taken into account leading to extremely poor relationships between houses at the lower level being dominated by 3 storey apartments on the higher level.
There is a 17m change in level across the site with the ground rising to a high point on a ridge. The masterplan shows residential development extending beyond the ridge line thus impacting on the GB and on views on the approach into Knowle from Hampton Rd. The NF Landscape Study advises that development on this parcel should be contained by the existing hedgeline of the second field to provide a) a definitive GB boundary and b) sit properly within the landscape such that the natural topographical containment of the settlement of Knowle is respected without any adverse impact on its character.
The change of levels must also have regard to the relationship to existing properties, particularly those in Whateley Hall Rd and Alveston Grove.
The change in levels will necessitate some significant engineering work to accommodate residential development and also to create level sports pitches. This will lead to terracing which will alter the landscape and rural character, particularly of the Green Belt approach to Knowle. The provision of car parking, a sports building near the high point of the land, floodlighting and the erection of high netting (necessary for the cricket ground adjacent to Hampton Rd) will all add to this significant adverse impact. This is a particular concern raised in the Landscape Study which concludes that other sites should be preferred to the larger parcel because of its adverse impacts.
If development is to be accommodated on these parcels of land, the masterplan should be amended to show how the levels are to be taken into account and ensure that residential development is restricted to the natural topographical containment of Knowle. The extent of earth works to accommodate the community sports hub and more information on the location and size of the sports hub building need to be made available to residents before further comment on the suitability of this area to accommodate sports pitches and related uses can be assessed.
2. Densities:
The Council needs to be clearer about the definition of high, medium and low densities.
High density on the whole area of the east side of Hampton Rd is not acceptable bearing in mind:
i) the Council's own evidence that states both parcels have low landscape capacity. The evidence of the NF Landscape Study, Heritage and Character Assessment and Masterplanning/Design and Design Coding Study all recommend that any new development on the edge of built settlement should make a sensitive transition between the built development and the open countryside or Green Belt through adopting lower densities towards the rural edge to avoid the appearance of overdevelopment and to maintain the rural character;
ii) the sensitive relationship to Grimshaw Hall, a Grade 1 Listed Building; and
iii) the criticisms from local residents about the density of the adjoining recent residential development which is around 36 dph.
iv) such a large area of high density would be out of keeping with the local character and be inconsistent with both LP and NP policies which aim to respect local character. High density on part of the site may be acceptable for some dwellings such as specialist accommodation for the elderly.
Development on the larger parcel, which is also described as having low landscape capacity, should be of medium density transitioning to low density as it reaches the retained GB and open countryside.
3. Public open space and structural green framework
Both sites should have a clear structural green framework which should be in place early during any development and preferably before house building commences. The current masterplan needs to be much stronger on this. The larger northern parcel contains Local Wildlife sites as well as hedgerows, protected trees, a green buffer to Grimshaw Hall, protected footpaths and the sports facilities. All these, together with a green buffer to houses in Whateley Hall Rd and Alveston Grove, should be shown as structural open space for any development on this site.
Levels information is again necessary to an understanding of the functionality and attractiveness of the POS. It appears from the masterplan that the existing LWS is to be treated as POS to serve this development. If that is correct, it is not acceptable as this development must meet its own needs, not utilise existing protected wildlife sites. For clarity, the masterplan should exclude the existing LWS at Purnells Brook.
It is not acceptable for there to be no POS to serve the southern area.
The accessibility of the community sports hub in the retained Green Belt corridor to the public also needs to be clarified. Will the sports area be fenced off preventing access along the green corridor?
4. Design Coding
I support the recommendation of the Landscape Study that any allocation at Hampton Rd be subject to a Supplementary Planning Document or Design Code to inform development which should be consulted on with the Neighbourhood Forum. In addition, matters relating to levels, green infrastructure, landscape and visual impacts and floodlighting, together with transportation and heritage impacts, should be properly considered in advance of any allocation.
Concluding comments on this allocation and the masterplan
Without information on levels, infrastructure impacts (particularly highways/junction impacts/mitigation), and clarity on the GB and LWS boundaries, it is not possible to support this allocation and the draft concept masterplan in its current form. The issues raised by the NF Landscape Study and Masterplanning/Design and Design Coding Study need first to be addressed.
This is not to say that these sites are not capable of some development. It is acknowledged that these sites, particularly the Football Club and Cricket Ground, may have the potential for some sympathetic residential development but at present what is being proposed is not justified by either the Council's methodology, its evidence base or that of the Neighbourhood Forum.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6814

Received: 25/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Vincent Essex

Representation Summary:

Simply building more houses in one of the most / if not expensive areas within the borough only makes it available for a select few and in reality does not achieve the Councils goal of additional affordable housing for all on the scale required.

Full text:

Simply building more houses in one of the most / if not expensive areas within the borough only makes it available for a select few and in reality does not achieve the Councils goal of additional affordable housing for all on the scale required.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6833

Received: 26/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Cathy Lynock

Representation Summary:

I am a resident on Hampton Road and we have already seen a large housing development take place in the beautiful fields behind our houses. The football club and cricket club have been in existence since I moved to Knowle some 50 years ago. There was a television programme on not so long ago about the number of derelict houses in the UK - do something with these instead!

We need to keep our english countryside!

Full text:

I am a resident on Hampton Road and we have already seen a large housing development take place in the beautiful fields behind our houses. The football club and cricket club have been in existence since I moved to Knowle some 50 years ago. There was a television programme on not so long ago about the number of derelict houses in the UK - do something with these instead!

We need to keep our english countryside!

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6859

Received: 28/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Tony Moon

Representation Summary:

On reviewing the plans, this brownfield site , ticks all the boxes and offers the area a centre for sport, an additional comment would be to encompass other sports not currently available in the area.
The development should be controlled through the implementation of the neighbourhood plan.

Full text:

On reviewing the plans, this brownfield site , ticks all the boxes and offers the area a centre for sport, an additional comment would be to encompass other sports not currently available in the area.
The development should be controlled through the implementation of the neighbourhood plan.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6881

Received: 01/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Martin Murphy

Representation Summary:

It is very important that the sports facilities are part of the plan

Full text:

It is very important that the sports facilities are part of the plan

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7012

Received: 05/03/2019

Respondent: Mr David Lloyd

Representation Summary:

Green belt and local amenity should be protected thus development is inappropriate.

Full text:

Green belt and local amenity should be protected thus development is inappropriate.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7034

Received: 05/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Paige

Representation Summary:

While I fully support the addition of community sports provision (which is currently lacking in the area) and cannot support the building of even more homes. The area has already had an additional 88 houses built on the Wootton Close estate and with the lack of public transport (the only bus that serves near this area has just been reduced to once an hour) the increase in traffic the 300 homes would add would be excessive. There are already large queues to get from the bottom of Hampton Road onto the Warwick Road. It would have a hugely negative impact.

Full text:

While I fully support the addition of community sports provision (which is currently lacking in the area) and cannot support the building of even more homes. The area has already had an additional 88 houses built on the Wootton Close estate and with the lack of public transport (the only bus that serves near this area has just been reduced to once an hour) the increase in traffic the 300 homes would add would be excessive. There are already large queues to get from the bottom of Hampton Road onto the Warwick Road. It would have a hugely negative impact.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7060

Received: 06/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Claire Carter

Representation Summary:

The Hampton Road site has already seen significant development. Recognizing the need for more development, I support the proposal on the condition that the developer makes a significant investment in Knowle Primary Academy. The school has already had to move to 3 form entry in 1 year group partly as a result of the current Hampton Rd site development. Any future development should be conditional upon significant investment in the school to provide new permanent classrooms to accommodate the increase in pupils moving into the area. I strongly oppose any development without significant community investment, especially in schools.

Full text:

The Hampton Road site has already seen significant development. Recognizing the need for more development, I support the proposal on the condition that the developer makes a significant investment in Knowle Primary Academy. The school has already had to move to 3 form entry in 1 year group partly as a result of the current Hampton Rd site development. Any future development should be conditional upon significant investment in the school to provide new permanent classrooms to accommodate the increase in pupils moving into the area. I strongly oppose any development without significant community investment, especially in schools.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7073

Received: 06/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Bob Holtham

Representation Summary:

Subject to clarity on the proposed traffic management of the Warwick Road Junction that will not gridlock the flow of traffic North/South.

Full text:

Subject to clarity on the proposed traffic management of the Warwick Road Junction that will not gridlock the flow of traffic North/South.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7226

Received: 09/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Julia Gilroy

Representation Summary:

Site 8: Hampton Road should not be built on.The area is classic "countryside" easily accessed from Knowle village and includes important local wildlife sites & popular countryside footpaths
The proposed development threatens the "village" nature/ countryside feel of the area. Knowle doesn't have the infrastructure or capacity i.e. schools & health to accommodate the proposed extra housing. The road network is already highly congested at peak times & this proposed increase in dwellings will make this worse, increase pollution in the area & potentially increase vehicle accidents.

Full text:

Site 8: Hampton Road should not be built on.The area is classic "countryside" easily accessed from Knowle village and includes important local wildlife sites & popular countryside footpaths
The proposed development threatens the "village" nature/ countryside feel of the area. Knowle doesn't have the infrastructure or capacity i.e. schools & health to accommodate the proposed extra housing. The road network is already highly congested at peak times & this proposed increase in dwellings will make this worse, increase pollution in the area & potentially increase vehicle accidents.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7249

Received: 09/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Adrie Cooper

Representation Summary:

Provided the local people benefit by using the enhanced sport facilities

Full text:

Provided the local people benefit by using the enhanced sport facilities

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7276

Received: 10/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Jane Starling

Representation Summary:

This is an unnecessary encroachment into green belt. It would not round off the settlement in a logical manner because Wychwood Avenue is mostly invisible from Hampton Road because of the wooded area and there are only 6 houses visible on Chantry Heath Cresent.

The draft masterplan suggests building medium density housing at the Chantry Heath end which is now pleasantly low density and low density housing near the new proposed sports hub. Who will buy expensive houses next to a floodlit sports hub/football ground with its associated noise and bad language?

Hampton Lane cannot support extra traffic and parking

Full text:

This is an unnecessary encroachment into green belt. It would not round off the settlement in a logical manner because Wychwood Avenue is mostly invisible from Hampton Road because of the wooded area and there are only 6 houses visible on Chantry Heath Cresent.

The draft masterplan suggests building medium density housing at the Chantry Heath end which is now pleasantly low density and low density housing near the new proposed sports hub. Who will buy expensive houses next to a floodlit sports hub/football ground with its associated noise and bad language?

Hampton Lane cannot support extra traffic and parking

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7305

Received: 10/03/2019

Respondent: Mr David Pickering

Representation Summary:

Green belt land is precious and should be built on as a last resort only. Some of the reasons put forward for building on this particular site do not stand up to scrutiny. It is not rounding off, if red sites 214/215 represent incursion into countryside, so does site 213. Development would sandwich Purnells Brook wildlife site compromising its value

Any permitted development should be mixed and not high-density, including open spaces, and sensitive to the adjacent existing housing.

Any development should prioritise and facilitate cycle and bus usage and houses should be required to be highly energy efficient.

Full text:

Green belt land is precious and should be built on as a last resort. Being 'just beyond the Green Belt boundary' is not a reason for choosing the site - such Green Belt is especially important for limiting urban sprawl. I note that site references 214 and 215 were designated 'Red' as "residential development of the site would represent an incursion of urbanising development into the open
countryside." The same is true of site reference 213 which has been designated 'Green', as residential development is only on one side, not two. The Purnell's Brook Wildlife Site is on one side, and would end up sandwiched between housing, so its value as a wildlife reserve could be compromised. As soon as development takes place on SR 213, it just moves the urban boundary, outwards, making it easier to develop SRs 214 and 215, i.e. it is not correct to say that "the site is relatively well-contained and a defensible Green Belt boundary could be provided."

It is not acceptable to support development on the site on the grounds that it represents "a 'rounding off' of the settlement in a logical manner"; historically settlements are not neat squares or circles, and planners should not be trying to create perfect geometrical shapes for them.

If nevertheless development does take place in site reference 213, it should be required to be mixed density development, and not high density as with the recently-developed estate next to Knowle Football Club. Any development should include open spaces.The new houses should be planned sensitively in relation to the existing houses, with their gardens adjacent to existing gardens. All existing trees on the site should be preserved, not just those currently with tree protection orders on them.

Any development should include proper pavements and dedicated cycle lanes, which should be extended down Hampton Road into Knowle Village Centre. Public transport down Hampton Road should be improved with a view to avoiding excessive car usage. Any new housing should be of the highest energy efficiency standards, going beyond existing building regulations, as GHG emissions due to residential heating are very difficult to ameliorate and will be an increasing issue in years to come as electricity and transport is largely decarbonised.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7373

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Golden End Farms

Agent: Delta Planning

Representation Summary:

Before allocating this site the Council must satisfy itself that the site is deliverable. The scheme (including the Cricket Club) is controlled by 4 landowners and will require re-provision of the sports facilities before any housing can take place on the football/cricket club site. There has to be a concern that delivery will take time. At best much of the housing will be delivered in the later stages of the local plan period.

The site is not the most accessible to public transport. It must be carefully assessed for its impacts on the Grade 1 listed Grimshaw Hall.

Full text:

Before allocating this site the Council needs to satisfy itself that the site is deliverable. The scheme (including the Cricket Club) is controlled by 4 different landowners and will require reprovision of the sports facilities before any housing can take place on the current football/cricket club site. There has to be a concern that delivery of this site will take time. At best much of the housing will be delivered in the later stages of the local plan period.

The site is also not the most accessible to public transport with no bus services using Hampton Road at present nor likely to in the future.

The site also needs to be carefully assessed for its impacts on the Grade 1 listed Grimshaw Hall. This is one of the highest grade listed buildings in Knowle and a question has to be raised as to whether its setting can be adequately protected with new housing developed in such close proximity on two sides. We acknowledge that this issue appears to be recognised in the emerging Masterplan document.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7703

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Mel Starling

Representation Summary:

Hampton Road is high performing greenbelt and not near any amenities
This site is abuts low density high quality housing.
The development will significantly affect the sky line. It rises up from Chantry Heath towards the canal. The horizon will be blurred by hundreds of houses toped off with flood lights

Full text:

This site is abuts low density high quality housing.
The development will significantly affect the sky line. It rises up from Chantry Heath towards the canal. The horizon will be blurred by hundreds of houses toped off with flood lights The canal will become the green belt boundary. Prevoius applications failed on this issue.
The Football club cannot manage one pitch and clubhouse now. Can the loss of so much greenbelt be justified
The noise generated by the Sportshub will be huge
There is a bottleneck at the Wilsons junction and a rat run along Ardenvale to avoid this junction

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7709

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Lucy Shepherd

Representation Summary:

Although I live on wychwood, I do not object to a sensible development and think the proposal of sports and recreational facilities is a good one. I am concerned that public transport is made available, public rights of way are preserved and the feeling of space is kept so the site is not overdeveloped. Buildings should be low and floodlighting should be dealt with sensitively so as not to disturb wildlife in the wychwood nature reserve. The site makes sense for development over other greenbelt areas as it was formerly used as a commercial nursery and arguably extends existing estates.

Full text:

Although I live on wychwood, I do not object to a sensible development and think the proposal of sports and recreational facilities is a good one. I am concerned that public transport is made available, public rights of way are preserved and the feeling of space is kept so the site is not overdeveloped. Buildings should be low and floodlighting should be dealt with sensitively so as not to disturb wildlife in the wychwood nature reserve. The site makes sense for development over other greenbelt areas as it was formerly used as a commercial nursery and arguably extends existing estates.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7790

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Michael Doble

Representation Summary:

The area of land to the north of Hampton Road forms part of the Meriden Gap which was specifically protected in the previous structure plan. The development of the football pitch would line up with the existing development within Hampton Road and would naturally round off development. The further encroachment of development into the former Thacker's Nursery and roadside field opposite Grimshaw Hall is not a rounding off but would encourage development of land to the north of Wychwood Avenue and potentially behind Grimshaw Hall.

Permitted space precludes a full objection to the proposals, so a letter will be submitted.

Full text:

The area of land to the north of Hampton Road forms part of the Meriden Gap which was specifically protected in the previous structure plan. The development of the football pitch would line up with the existing development within Hampton Road and would naturally round off development. The further encroachment of development into the former Thacker's Nursery and roadside field opposite Grimshaw Hall is not a rounding off but would encourage development of land to the north of Wychwood Avenue and potentially behind Grimshaw Hall.

Permitted space precludes a full objection to the proposals, so a letter will be submitted.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7875

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Alex Wiseman

Representation Summary:

Agree.

Full text:

agree.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7943

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Elisabeth Hedley

Representation Summary:

Green Belt Assessment needs revisiting as land performs better against purposes 3 and 4 than indicated. Development would be a significant encroachment into countryside and Green Belt. Impact on setting of Grimshaw Hall. Contest view that site accessible and has good access to facilities, as 1km or more from shops/school. The topography and changes in level have not been considered and the location of the sports site well beyond any reasonable access by public transport is not acceptable. LWS should be excluded from site in Masterplan. Please see the response from the KDBH Forum which I support and fully endorse.

Full text:

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.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8047

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Naomi Sheard

Representation Summary:

Hampton road is currently very congested. Developing these sites without further public transport options would exacerbate the situation.

Full text:

Hampton road is currently very congested. Developing these sites without further public transport options would exacerbate the situation.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8132

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Dr David Gentle

Representation Summary:

There is opportunity to create a comprehensive sports hub with facilities for a range of sports and fitness centre. Suitable management and operation arrangements would secure guaranteed long-term availability for the public with full and comprehensive opening hours. Such a centre or centres could be secured from the development funding for sites 8 and 9. This will enable Solihull Council to take the lead in masterminding the development of KDBH as a whole rather than the future of the area being determined by the aspirations of two organisations that may put their own development first.

Full text:

There is opportunity to create a comprehensive sports hub with facilities for a range of sports and fitness centre. Suitable management and operation arrangements would secure guaranteed long-term availability for the public with full and comprehensive opening hours. Such a centre or centres could be secured from the development funding for sites 8 and 9. This will enable Solihull Council to take the lead in masterminding the development of KDBH as a whole rather than the future of the area being determined by the aspirations of two organisations that may put their own development first.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8151

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Knowle Streamside Trust

Representation Summary:

The Committee would wish to re-iterate its concern on the impact of large scale housing in proximity to the LWS in relation to environmental and ecological issues, and to potential impact upon Purnell's Brook. The Masterplan indicates the LWS is to be treated as POS to serve the proposed development and it is not acceptable as the development must meet its own needs and not utilise already protected wildlife sites. For clarity therefore the Masterplan should exclude the existing Wychwood Avenue LWS and note the recent addition to the draft NPPF "Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats".

Full text:

Knowle Streamside Trust Management Committee
Response to the Council's Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation
I am submitting the Committee's response as agreed by the Management Committee of the Trust and which Chris Edgell / Public Realm Manager, will copy to the Cabinet Member, Cllr Tony Dicicco, whose portfolio covers the Trust land for which the Council is the Corporate Trustee. (Charity Number 523005/Date Registered 19/08/1969).

With respect to the Council's Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation, the Knowle Streamside Management Committee, which has responsibility for the management of the Wychwood Avenue Local Wildlife Site (LWS) would wish to refer the Council to the response it made to the original Draft Local Plan consultation in February 2017. In particular, the Committee would wish to re-iterate its concern regarding the impact that large scale housing development in proximity to the LWS might have in relation to environmental and ecological issues, and in relation to any potential impact upon the Purnell's Brook.

With regard to the concept Masterplan, the Committee would wish to draw the Council's attention to the fact that this currently designates the LWS as Public Open Space (POS) within that plan. It appears from the Masterplan that the existing LWS is to be treated as POS to serve the proposed development. If this is correct, it is not acceptable as the development must meet its own needs and not utilise already protected wildlife sites. For clarity therefore the Masterplan should exclude the existing Wychwood Avenue LWS."
The recent addition to the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) should be adhered to viz "Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas identified for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation." in that Solihull Council take due note of the recommendation above on excluding Wychwood Avenue LWS from the Masterplan.

Councillor Alan Rebeiro, Knowle Ward
Chairman , Knowle Streamside Management Committee

Date: 13/03/2019

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8399

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Roger Atkinson

Representation Summary:

Green belt land should not be built on - otherwise what is the point of designating it as green belt

Full text:

Green belt land should not be built on - otherwise what is the point of designating it as green belt

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8406

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Faye Doble

Representation Summary:

It should be evaluated as 2 sites.
South - adjacent developer owned land could provide additional amenity/sporting facilities and be more easily accessible and remain buffer to Grimshaw Hall.
North - good/neglected agricultural in Green Belt with wonderful wildlife. Footpath well walked/enjoyed by villagers. SE boundary is housing, but NW is Purnells Brook. Development runoff would increase flooding here. Development here violates Green Belt & Meriden Gap. Extra Traffic on Hampton Road would be congestion/pollution problem. Existing housing must remain village boundary. Should not round up to Wychwood Avenue which is Copt Heath Boundary.

Full text:

It should be evaluated as 2 sites.
South - adjacent developer owned land could provide additional amenity/sporting facilities and be more easily accessible and remain buffer to Grimshaw Hall.
North - good/neglected agricultural in Green Belt with wonderful wildlife. Footpath well walked/enjoyed by villagers. SE boundary is housing, but NW is Purnells Brook. Development runoff would increase flooding here. Development here violates Green Belt & Meriden Gap. Extra Traffic on Hampton Road would be congestion/pollution problem. Existing housing must remain village boundary. Should not round up to Wychwood Avenue which is Copt Heath Boundary.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8452

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Laura Dunne

Representation Summary:

There is nothing in the plan to say how this additional housing would be catered for by the existing village facilities. Would these new houses fall within the catchment area for Knowle Primary Academy which is already over-subscribed? If so then the developers should be expected to contribute to any development required by the school to accommodate additional pupils.
What additional infrastructure (parking, doctors etc) will be put in place to reflect the impact on the village of the additional housing so close to the village centre?

Full text:

There is nothing in the plan to say how this additional housing would be catered for by the existing village facilities. Would these new houses fall within the catchment area for Knowle Primary Academy which is already over-subscribed? If so then the developers should be expected to contribute to any development required by the school to accommodate additional pupils.
What additional infrastructure (parking, doctors etc) will be put in place to reflect the impact on the village of the additional housing so close to the village centre?

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8457

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Ms Mali malika

Representation Summary:

not a suitable site- will add on more congestion

Full text:

not a suitable site- will add on to more congestion

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8461

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: mr Kan Karan

Representation Summary:

bad site for development

Full text:

bad site for development

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8464

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: SOS Limited

Representation Summary:

bad decision for this site

Full text:

bad decision for this site