Question 24 - Site 9 - Land South of Knowle

This is Green Belt land and there is no justification for it being lost to build.
The number of houses is too large and together with Site 9 would lead to a huge loss of character of the village.
The existing village facilities could not cope with the extra houses.

All the traffic would travel along the Warwick Rd into the village, making the existing traffic and safety issues worse.

This land is green belt and a mixture of farmed arable and the extensive gardens and pastures surrounding 1860 Warwick Road.

Increasing the number of dwellings by 7.5%, will create further, unsolvable congestion and erode the character of the 'village'. The inclusion of the relocation of Arden school, whose numbers have swollen significantly over recent years is cynical when pupils travel into the area by train and car to attend,

My response to Questions 2 and 22 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 in relation to the Site 9, the 'Arden Triangle'.
In its submission to the 2016 DLPR consultation, the Neighbourhood Forum made comments on this site which raised questions over the allocations given the Council's own evidence base and asked for further information on a range of matters including:
* The scoring on this parcel of Green Belt should be revisited
* The findings of the Council's own LCA says the area is suitable only for small scale development
* The findings of the Accessibility Study that large parts of this site are not accessible even with a relaxation of standards
* Additional information on the case for relocating Arden Academy including viability vis a vis housing numbers, funding, alleviation of traffic congestion, location and role of new primary school
* The future of the MIND garden
* Engagement of residents in masterplanning.
Since then, Arden Academy has confirmed that the future of the MIND garden is secure in its current location and the Supplementary Update is proposing 600 houses, rather than 750. Both these changes are welcomed. In addition, the imposition of a Tree Preservation Order around Lansdowne House is welcomed although it only followed the loss of mature trees and was not imposed, as requested by the Neighbourhood Forum, on the whole site area.
Progress on resolving the other matters has been minimal. The future of the Academy has not been resolved; there have been no masterplanning meetings on the site as a whole although the promoters of the southern part have invited the NF to attend some meetings; and virtually no information has been forthcoming on transportation impacts.
The following comments are made in the above context and having the benefit of the studies undertaken for the Neighbourhood Forum on Landscape, Heritage and Character Assessment and Masterplanning/Design and Design Coding. These have helped shape my response on the draft concept masterplan for this site.
1.The Council states 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. Without the original rationale for large scale housing in this location, ie the relocation of the Academy, there is no longer term community benefit from this allocation and no overriding justification for developing this site over and above others on the eastern and southern edges of the area. All these are assessed as performing the same Green Belt role and some perform better in terms of integration with existing built area and have better access to the rail station and to Dorridge centre. A decision on the future of the Academy is required and either a new building or significant improvements to the existing buildings should be an outcome that benefits existing as well as new residents.
3. If development of the scale proposed can be justified in this location, then only Option 2 makes any sense. Option 1 offers no wider community benefits and places large tracts of new housing in a location that does not integrate at all well with the existing built area. The Academy serves as a barrier to achieving any satisfactory integration of old and new as the new development would effectively turn its back on the rest of Knowle and Dorridge, contrary to the principles of achieving good integration with the existing community and good accessibility. If the Academy stays in its current position, the remainder of the area should be reassessed as one parcel in the site hierarchy as it would score differently. Option 2 offers the potential for new Academy premises although significant question marks remain over the size of the site to accommodate the new school and over its suitability given the topography of part of the proposed Academy site. In particular, extensive car parking areas are required for staff and 6th formers as existing on-site provision is inadequate. Whichever Option is chosen, improvements to the existing school buildings and facilities will be necessary and the questions previously raised by the NF relating to viability, scale of enabling development and range of facilities for shared use still remain to be satisfactorily addressed.
4. No indication is shown on the masterplans of the location of a new primary school nor of a small local centre (shop, health facilities etc previously referred to). Also, it is not clear if this is a replacement school (for St George and Teresa) or a primary school to meet the additional demand from new development. This is an important point as a relocation would not achieve the additional places necessary to accommodate new development.
5.There is no mention of transport impacts other than that Station Rd congestion will be alleviated if the Academy relocates. There is no indication in the Supplementary Update of what the assessed traffic impacts are and how they will be addressed. There is also no indication as to how public transport will be improved, particularly to those parts of the site that are furthest away from village centres. It is unacceptable to be asked to comment without such vital information which the NF knows the Council has.
6. There is no mention of topography and levels. The levels rise significantly up Stripes Hill into Knowle and also rise gently from the Warwick Rd up towards Lansdowne Farm, increasing the visibility of the site. The masterplan must demonstrate development will take account of the topography, particularly on the rural approach into Knowle and its nearby Conservation Area.
7. Based on recommendations in the NF Landscape Study, Heritage and Character Study and Masterplannng/Design and Design Coding, the southern part of the Triangle site is the most sensitive and should have only very limited development, if at all. Both the Council's own assessment and that of the NF's Landscape Study and Masterplanning/Design and Design Coding work is that it has low development capacity. The Landscape Consultants for the NF have strongly advised that the site should be masterplanned as a whole and that development should commence in the north and extend southwards. Development in the sensitive southern part needs further justification. The acknowledgement in the Supplementary Update that this site must be dealt with in a comprehensive masterplan is welcomed.
8. Densities: The areas of low density housing should flow not only north to south as shown on the masterplan but also west to east, creating a transition towards the retained countryside. The area to the south should be primarily devoted to the LWS and public open space with only minimal housing on the southern boundary as it leads towards the rural character of Grove Rd and the open countryside.
The densities of both options are shown as 30-40dwph. This cannot be correct as Option 2 has an area of high density housing on the Station Rd frontage. Densities above 40 dwph will be out of character with the area, contrary to the layout and design policies of the NP, unless they include specific areas of purpose built housing (such as sheltered accommodation for the elderly). Densities of 30 to 40 dwph on the rural edges of development sites will not achieve the transition to countryside advocated in the NF Landscape and Masterplanning studies. It will also not accord with the Council's own Landscape Assessment of low capacity to accommodate new development.
9. It is unclear if the area of significant local wildlife value is being treated as public open space. This is not a satisfactory way forward if it is. The provision in of public open space looks very limited for 600 houses.
10. The area of significant ecological value is shown as extending to the Warwick Rd frontage adjoining the POS. If this southern area is to be developed, these linkages are essential. However, information from the promoters of this area indicates that delivery of this link is not achievable due to ownership issues. In addition, a wider buffer area is required on the northern side of the LWS to protect it from adjoining development.
11. The future of Lansdowne House in not clear. Whilst its retention as shown would be welcomed as it would help retain the existing parkland setting around the house, it is on the brownfield land register and therefore is presumably available for redevelopment.
12. The masterplans show very little new tree planting. If this area is to be developed, the masterplans should incorporate a strong structural planting scheme within which new development would sit. The masterplans are inadequate in this respect. It is known, for example, that all the trees on the Warwick Rd frontage south of the access to Jacknetts farm will be removed yet there is no indication of a strong replacement boundary with trees along the Warwick Rd.( It should be remembered that the promoters of this site stated in 2016 that development of the site would be almost entirely obscured from view from the Warwick Rd ).
13. Design Coding: I support the recommendation of the Landscape Study that any allocation at the Arden Triangle site should 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 should be properly considered in advance of any allocation.

Concluding comments on the Arden Triangle draft allocations and draft masterplans:
There remain far too many outstanding issues regarding the justification for development in this area to be able to support this allocation in principle. The studies undertaken on behalf of the NF raise significant concerns about the scale of development, particularly the development of the southern, most sensitive landscape area. Fundamental issues regarding the future of Arden Academy and the impacts of this scale of development on local social and physical infrastructure have still not been addressed. It seems clear that if Arden Academy is not relocated, there is no real benefit from such a scale of development to the wider community and there is no justification for the release of the land to the east of the Academy as it performs worse than other sites in and around KDBH. If it is feasible to relocate the Academy, that would be the better option subject to satisfactory justification of deliverability, accessibility, traffic impacts, site size and suitability as well as addressing the other matters raised above in relation to masterplanning.

Building 600 homes here would have a huge impact on the 'village' as a whole as it would cause even more traffic problems than we already have . At school leaving time, cars are parked down all the side roads and hundreds of children walk along the very narrow pavements. It would put pressure on doctors when it is already difficult to get an appointment and I have seen patients regularly queuing at 7.45 to try and get an appointment. A new Catholic primary school would be good but where will children of other faiths go when primary schools are already full? We certainly need smaller homes for the older people downsizing - most of the recent new ones built locally have 5/6 bedrooms.

I am perplexed at the housing number proposed in Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Heath ,and in fact the Borough .
As a result of " duty to cooperate " with neighbouring Birmingham Solihull is allowing itself to be bullied into providing more overspill housing .
It is now recognised that the projected housing requirement nationally is incorrect and less than originally envisaged see the National Office Of Statistics reduction of national number reduced to 248000 from 300000 . The 300000 per annum being the number the Government / James Brokenshire keeps banging on about ,it's a much higher number than is necessary.
Birmingham for their part have reduced the actual number on their housing list significantly and you are not recognising this . I have dicussed this at length with officers in Birmingham .
Please explain why Bromsgrove escapes the " duty to cooperate " . Could it be something to do with who represents them in Parliament ?

The local plan is a complete ignorance of local infrastructure . Arden School has 1500 places in 1-5th years and is at capacity It Can't take 1800 .No new secondary school,capacity envisaged !
The Station current car parking can not cope .NO PLan to alleviate this .
Public transport is not properly assessed in your "plan "

The Doctors are overwhelmed .NO Plan to alleviate this .
In adequate schooling at junior and infant levels . Not thought out !
3 exits onto Warwick road from the proposed Arden Triangle development will relieve Station Road says you document - who thought that one out ? It is completely unrealistic. The A41 through Knowle is the busiest trunk road through a village in the country .See pervious surveys ,only Canned when the M42 was built .

The overdevelopment of Knowle with Hampton Road will create an enormous traffic jam at rush hour times with no consideration of the extra traffic caused by the envisaged developments .

There has been no assessment of the extra load being imposed on M42 by the developments that will inevitably feed onto the motorway ,let alone the possibilities caused by Arden Cross and HS2 .

The area identified , will provide the area with a new school and will stop the school of 1000 pupils etc emptying on to Station Rd, the school needs clear access and exits to several points to allow the pupils to disperse in to the surrounding area.
Access is an issue , however through good planning and development acess to the south of the area , east to Coventry , Poss Bypass to this area this will be minimised.

This is an excellent opportunity to create a new community facility for the area. I believe there is scope to build more houses (900) to ensure the infrastructure requirements of the a local area are created. There will be amazing community benefit for young and old

I strongly object to any plans to build on green belt to the east of Knowle, becoming known as the Arden triangle, as this area is the real green belt around the greater Birmingham and Solihull conurbation, which should not be allowed to creep out any further. Also the access to this side of the village is essentially limited with no space for bypass or proper infrastructure. Roads in this area already struggle from significant over capacity at peak times.

I support only if the second concept is adopted. I.e relocating and building a new Arden Academy. If we are to build 600 new homes on green belt land there MUST be a benefit for the local community. The current school is not fit for modern day teaching and compared to other local authority schools is way behind the times. We cannot keep building new homes without improving the local amenities. Schools being one of the biggest concerns.

Green belt and local amenity should be protected. Development is inappropriate.

I have lived in Dorridge for 37 years and attended Arden myself and my children have also attended here. I remember Dorridge before the development on Middlefield phase 1 and 2 and before the Four Ashes estate. I do not oppose the development of additional houses but I do object to the proposal to build a new school and then houses. The school had a new block in excess of a million pounds a few years ago and the site is adequate for the school's needs. It seems unnecessary to build a two new schools (secondary and primary) on the Arden triangle and then demolish the existing school to begin development of houses- thus two developments which would need to occur consecutively and could not happen simultaneously which would lead to a long period of development in this area (double what is necessary). It would be simpler and have significantly less impact on the area if the houses are built on the land and the school remains in its current location. It is imperative that the minimum amount of development occurs to ensure the safety of the children walking to school- to Arden from Knowle and Dorridge, to Knowle primary, Dorridge primary, Bentley Heath primary and St George and St Theresa. If you travel down Station Road and adjoining roads before school or at 3.35pm the volume of children on the pavements is striking and it is already dangerous. The development option that is approved should be that which produces the minimum amount of construction traffic to place no additional risk to the children travelling to school. If the houses are developed on the land on the Arden triangle then this would place the least risk to the children and young people.
Additionally, the current primary schools are able to accommodate children form the catchment and offer places from outside the catchment area, therefore a new primary school is not needed. There are other potential options to extend the number of places in the current four primary schools in this small area and there is a higher proportion of children attending private schools in this area so not all children take up a state school place. There are not other places in the Borough which have five primary schools of this size in such a small area (8 form entry currently per year group). The volume of traffic produced by this number of pupils in such a small area adds to the already high risk to the safety of the children walking to and from school. As an authority you are actively promoting healthy living, part of which is the push for children to walk to school- therefore you have a responsibility to ensure the children's safety if they do this. You have recently taken steps to address the issue of parking and have commented as a council on the concerns around safety on Station Road in particular and you have ceased the provision of the crossing attendants to save money. If you create a new primary school in this area then children are likely to travel from outside the catchment area to fill the places and this again increases the volume of traffic. It is imperative that the different council departments liaise to gain a thorough understanding of the area and the issues faced.

I fully support the option to relocate Arden Academy on the site to ensure that any new housing brings the necessary investment into local infrastructure, notably the schooling. I do however oppose any new development that is not counter balanced by the full funding of a new Arden Academy & community facilities as these are already stretched & Arden is in desperate need of updating.

This is no more logical as an extension to the settlement than any number of alternatives given that it would overload Knowle High Street.
If development is justified in support of improving or relocating the school(s) it should be limited to the area most accessible to the village centre and no further south than the LWS at Cuttle Brook as set out in the independent Landscape Assessment prepared for KDBH NF by Crestwood.
The Council should identify other potential allocations to take up any shortfall in required housing numbers as proposed by the Knowle Society.

I would like to see the community benefit from a new school and would, therefore, support Option 2, which includes building a new school on part of the land while using the site of the current school for housing.

I understand that the funds to enable the school to be built would be realised by the building of the new houses.

I do not support the redevelopment of Arden Academy as described in option 2. It will impact adversely on the village environment and exacerbate the traffic situation even further. The school would have capacity for many more children from the immediate area if fewer were bused in from further afield. This also adds to the traffic problem. We should be encouraging families to school their children close to home, so they are able to walk.

I find it hard to believe land South of Knowle is 'medium landscape character sensitivity'. It is an attractive rural site and provides a green and pleasant entry to the village centre with much mature trees and wildlife - birds including nesting buzzards, bats, muntjac deer. It is being considered only because the landowners who stand to gain have submitted it.

It is wasteful and environmentally unsound to knock down existing School buildings - some of which have been relatively recently built at some expense.
(And why were academies given LA land for free to do as they please?)

A TERRIFIC IDEA TO GET A NEW SCHOOL TO REPLACE THE CURRENT AGEING ARDEN ACADEMY WHICH WILL HELP WITH THE INFLUX OF NEW YOUNGSTERS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ADDITIONAL HOUSEING.
THIS MOVE WILL SAVE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ON STATION ROAD.
GREAT IDEA THE QUICKER THE BETTER

Strongly object to site being used for housing. However, if passed then Option 1 is the preferred option - Option 2 is not acceptable. The promised 'land swap' benefits of £30m advocated on Option 2 will never materialise. Developers have a track record of promising community benefits which are not delivered. The Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath residents survey in 2016 was only supportive of large scale housing provided community benefits were provided. This has to be delivered if Option 2 selected. Note that although I prefer Option 1 there are no community benefits promised for this concept.

Development of this site could represent a huge benefit to the local area, but ONLY IF the opportunity was taken to build a new school and community facilities at the same time. The current school is outdated and energy inefficient and creates problems with parking at the beginning and end of the school day. A brand new school as proposed (Site 9, Option 2) would be a fantastic facility for the local students and community alike.

A tremendous opportunity to have a much needed enhanced Academy, relieve Station Road traffic congestion and provide appropriate new housing with minimised financing needs. The village overall will benefit from this development which meets various needs all at the one time in addition to helping Solihull's new housing requirements. The village recently forwent the opportunity to have a new Village Hall and Waitrose store and cannot afford to pass up yet another opportunity.

I support the allocated site with Option 2 only. A new school is vital for support of this option

I support this with Option 2 only.

Road infrastructure is a major concern. Already have significant traffic congestion in Knowle and surrounding area. Arden School has increased its intake from 8 to 10 forms, but only require 8 to satisfy the local community. A large number of pupils are from outside KDBH many from Birmingham postcodes. I cannot see that we require all the facilities Arden propose - we have an adequate Theatre in Solihull and plenty of gyms etc. Concerns that other schools in area will be neglected as funds will be concentrated on this ambitious plan.

I support residential development on the site of the existing Arden Academy. I agree with Site 9 Option 2 being developed for housing that would enable the New Arden Academy - A Centre for Community Learning- to be built.

I do not support and oppose Site 9 Option 1.

KDBH NP should be taken in to account the new Arden School should be built but with 400 homes of the type referred to in the NP

Option 2, the rebuilding of Arden away from it's current site, would be by far the better choice. 3 of my children have attended the school in recent times and we can affirm from experience that the school is bursting at the seams, the buildings grimy and demoralising and even the pavements on the way to school packed to overflowing. A radical rebuild is surely necessary. The present site is just far too small for the current school population, let alone the significantly larger one you envisage for the future.

I support the new primary school and some housing as if children lived close by there would be less traffic impact although I do not believe we need a 600 house development in a small village.

I do not think Arden School should be completely rebuilt although they may be some scope for updating parts of it. If the school mostly accepted children from catchment area this would reduce traffic at peak times

Support only with Option 2

Support only with option 2

Expansion of Primary School places east of the M42 in the Borough has exclusively been in the state sector for many year now. St George and St Teresa Catholic Primary School is a high performing primary school that is is consistently over subscribed.
I would support the expansion of St George and St Teresa Catholic Primary School and so providing first class Primary School provision in this part of Solihull
Expanding St George and St Teresa would provide proportionate provision for Catholic places in this area
I would support the expansion on Primary School places on the Arden Triangle site