Question 38 - Amber Sites

Rowood Drive ref A6 site188 Playing Field
Location of the site being near the junction of Rowood Drive and Lode Lane it will increase the traffic on Rowood Drive which is a busy road and increasing the difficulty of negotiating the junction with Lode Lane. The playing field is currently used by local residents for recreation and dog walking and up to the time when grass cutting ceased by children and adults (from nearby business units) playing games. There is a shortage of green spaces in this area that are not privately owned that can be used for these purposes.

Site Reference 413 (Land off Blue Lake Road, Dorridge ref A5 (originally referenced 104)) should , in my opinion, definitely be OMITTED from the Plan, I totally object to this site becoming an Amber site.I am a resident of Blue Lake Road and have major concerns on the impact on Dorridge as a village community. My concerns are listed as follows:-

Any development on this Site( let alone the proposed 340 dwellings!) will have a devastating effect on our village, dorridge will be saturated to breaking point affecting:-

- the surrounding roads (of which Blue Lake Road/Grove Road/Norton Green Lane are 'Country Lanes') will be overcome with traffic. Congestion is already at a maximum in Dorridge, particularly in Peak times and with very little parking available in the Village (2 Hour Limit in Sainsburys Car Park, which is almost always congested) parking is now spilling over into residential roads and is becoming a huge problem. so the additional traffic a development of this size would bring would create untold chaos. Sainburys already attracts Customers from surrounding areas so there is already increased traffic in the area, People need their cars for shopping so public transport is not an option.
- this will also have a huge effect on the environment and the Air Quality as most Households in the area will have at least two Vehicles per household.
- This is not only a visually aesthetic open piece of Green Belt Land it is also used all year round as Farmland/Agriculture,therefore, to strip away Green Belt that is used within the community will also strip away our identity as a Village.
- The Houses surrounding this piece of Green Belt Land would be impacted hugely as they would lose that open space which gives Dorridge it's Village Status. In fact Dorridge has expanded so much over recent years it is in danger of becoming a 'mini town' as is Knowle and Bentley Heath. whilst I appreciate the need for housing there is also a need to balance the protection of a village community from 'over development' and to consider the wishes of the residents that this major building project is going to affect.
- with regards to transport links I would like to comment that Buses remain a very low mode of transport in the KDBH area. Indeed in the last few weeks Bus routes/frequency have been significantly cut because of under use. Bus transport is not a convenient or reliable mode of transport for working families and is more often than not far more expensive than using a car.
- The Water/Sewage/Drainage systems in Blue Lake Road have always had a problem with flooding and certainly would not be able to cope with an additional , what would amount to be, housing estate. there would be an extra strain on these facilities as well as other utilities.
- local amenities such a Doctors Surgeries and Schools are full to capacity already in Dorridge, it seems incredible that such a huge number of homes are being considered when the village just would not be able cope with all the additional young families/ first time buyers which the homes are targeted at.
- The Trains running through Dorridge are also full to capacity , especially at peak times, the proposal of more parking at the station would merely attract commuters from outside the area, bringing yet more traffic into the village.
- ANY development on this site would have a huge impact in all areas of this part of the village.
- There are many more preferable sites that I believe the Council should consider over and above this one such as Site 207 which would still allow for a separation between KDBH and Solihull but has the added benefit of having better road infrastructure to cope with the additional vehicles and it would significantly reduce the high volume of Traffic congestion that Dorridge and Knowle currently experiences.
- This is a highly unsuitable site for any type of development let alone a high density mini housing estate, it should remain a Green Belt Site

Rowood Drive, Solihull (ref A6) to be included in the local plan.
Subject: Creation of an Enhanced Community Sports Facility at Lode Heath School
I am writing to you to seek the Councils consent to the disposal of land at Rowood Drive, which forms a part of the Lode Heath School estate. Our proposal is to use the income from that disposal to significantly enhance the range of sports facilities available, by replacing the existing outdated Gymnasium, as well as constructing a replacement football pitch on the school site- with plans for community use changing facilities and meeting rooms.

I strongly object to the sale and housing development at Rowood Drive Ref A6 on the following grounds;
- Traffic around Rowood Drive is already congested and endangers lives.
- More Green Belt land being lost in an already built up area of Solihull.
- Loss of wildlife and their habitats (rabbits, foxes, newts etc.)
- Loss of green space for the community to use (dog walking, children playing).
- Extra pressure on sewage system.
- Effect of disruption of building on a site with Japanese Knotweed to the surrounding area.
- Effect on house prices of overlooking properties.

Re: Golden End Farm, Kenilworth Road, Knowle (Ref: A4)

I feel it is the right decision to omit the above site from the Plan as it is situated in a very important green belt area and would have a definite negative visual impact on the entrance/exit to the village. This is on top of the fact that local public services i.e. schools, doctors, highways would be totally unable to support such a large scale development.

I object most strongly to the possible development on the above 'Amber' site.

Firstly this is high quality Green Belt Land that scores very highly or even higher than other sites that have retained their green status - how can this be right? This land provides amazing views from the historic Kixley Lane which are enjoyed constantly by many who are walking etc. in the area. There are so few areas to enjoy such historical views.

The increased pressure on infrastructure and local services cannot have been thought about here as Knowle can hardly cope at the moment and traffic has increased dramatically over the last few years. The same with parking provision which struggles to cope at present. How come what was a beautiful village (including Conservation Area) cope with such huge additional demands when it is struggling to cope now? The junction with Kenilworth Road/Warwick Road, already difficult, would be bought to an almost 'standstill' with so many additional cars.

Knowle seems to have unfairly been chosen for possible development sites when Dorridge would be far better able to cope without losing such valuable historic land ie. Sainsbury's supermarket and the Railway Station for ease of commuting. Knowle already has the Arden Triangle and Hampton Road sites which would amount to a huge increase in the current number of properties in the local area.

Loss of wild life and green space

The volume of traffic along this road is already at a high and I feel any more would be an accident waiting to happen.
Lode Heath school have not maintained the ground for a few years now stating that they were going to make it into a little nature reserve for the school and grass and hedges would be left to encourage wildlife.
With extra pressure on the sewage and water systems and the area looking like a built up city in a confined space the area would become less attractive to live in and house prices will be effected

I strongly object to the sale of and housing development of the site at Rowood Drive Ref A6 on the following grounds:

I have recently had planning permission and developed my extension (at 34 Bramcote Drive) that overlooks this field, this extension cost me over £250,000. The only reason I did this was because it overlooks the field and I have double doors and a balcony so I am able to watch my children playing in the field.

There are a significantly reducing number of green areas for children to play in, to walk dogs and it has been sad to see that the council stopped mowing the grass to stop local community football teams using the site to help children develop and increase health and well-being. I see this as a deliberate attempt to present the false argument that it is no longer in use!

My property will be in negative equity as it will decrease significantly in value, I feel that if this proposal goes through I will have been mislead to invest in this area.

I strongly object to the sale and housing development at Rowood Drive Ref A6 on the following grounds
-Traffic arond Rowood drive is already congested and endagers lives.
-More green belt land being lost in an already builtup area of Solihull.
-Loss of wildlife and their habitats( rabbits, foxes, newts etc)
-loss of green space for the community to use.
-Extra pressure on sewage system.
-Effect of disruption of building on a site with japanee Knotweed to the surrounding area.
-Effect on house prices of overlooking properties.
-Stronly object on the drug editcs, drunk people, on occupying the social houses.

I strongly object to to sale and housing development at Rowood Drive ref A6. This land is used by the public for dog walking also by children on an everyday basis. My children whom some have disabilities would have to walk far to be able to a find space to play therefore would not be able to go out regularly which have a huge impact on their recovery. . Wildlife will be effected. Traffic already a problem around lode lane and Rowood Drive this will endanger lives. Already struggle with blocked drain/sewage this will put extra pressure on the system.

Village has some range of facilities, but now no Banks, and the health centre, shops and parking/traffic arrangements are not fit for the village which is already twice as big as it was. (para84)

There is also no apparent space to improve the Village Centre - How can any central site be allocated for more housing? Why not consider sites 172, 227 and 236 for example?

The Secondary School will soon be overcrouded too and the Catchment Area will need to be adjusted.

Rowood Drive, Solihull (ref A6)

We strongly object to the sale and proposed housing development on the following grounds.

Increased traffic, noise and air pollution in an already congested area (Exit from the Jaguar Land Rover site onto Rowood Drive was prohibited some years ago)
Loss of Green belt land to development which is used by local community and should remain as a recreational area.
Loss of wildlife and habitats
Additional load on sewerage and drainage services resulting in potential flooding
The development could disturb Japanese Knotweed present on this site and cause it to spread to neighbouring gardens

OBJECT: A5 Blue Lake Road, Dorridge. The majority of this site is in Knowle.Only at one point in Blue Lake Road itself would it constitute Dorridge. As such it would add to the pressure on highways and parking as large portions of the site lack accessibility and would not well connected to either Knowle or Dorridge.
This would be a completely unacceptable encroachment into the green belt.

SUPPORT: A7 Widney Manor Road. An already busy route through to Solihull with limited additional impact on Highways.

I object to the inclusion of Golden End Farm RefA4 as an amber site and should be omitted from the draft local plan
ie Kenilworth Road,Kixley Lane-Grand Union Canal.Kixley Lane mentioned as early as 1327 Kix(cow parsley Ley
left fallow).A well trodden path for locals to the canal, also by holiday narrow boats/mooring and walking into Knowle
with cow parsley each side. The other old lanes have become residential roads,Kixley Lane has retained its rural
charm.Development adjacent would spoil this historical lane.It should remain unspoilt for future generations as
green belt/farm land

Golden End Farm A4 should be designated green belt land. The area to the side of Kixley Lane is "countryside" easily accessed from Knowle village by persons of limited mobility. It gives Kixley Lane a classic country lane feel, unlike any other with easy access from the Village centre.

The amber sites at Blue Lake Road and Golden End Farm, if adopted, will completely destroy the character of Knowle village. The infrastructure will not be able to cope with the additional housing that will be built especially if the existing sites under consideration, Arden Triangle and Hampton Road are approved. There is already serious road traffic congestion through Knowle and these wholly unsuitable developments will completely clog up the village as new residents need to travel through the village to get to Birmingham or the M42. They are located on the wrong side (south) of the village.

I strongly object to the sale and proposed housing development at Rowood Drive Ref A6 on the following grounds:-
Traffic around Rowood Drive already congested and endangers lives more traffic will also have an impact on the surrounding est.
The loss of habitat for wildlife
Loss of green space for children to play,
Extra pressure on sewage system and drainage
Effect of house prices of overlooking properties
It will also have an impact on doctors surgeries

Rowood Drive site is not suitable size for what is proposed and will congest an already extremely busy road and junction that causes serious problems at all times. Unless serious redevelopment of the lode lane junction was to happen, this would be a disaster.

Golden End Farm A4 should be designated green belt land. The area to the
side of Kixley Lane is "countryside" easily accessed from Knowle village
by persons of limited mobility. It gives Kixley Lane a classic country
lane feel, unlike any other with easy access from the Village centre.

Land off Blue Lake Road, Dorridge (ref A5) should remain green belt land. The promoters identification of capacity for 340 dwellings over 9.7ha. is too high density & will threaten the village nature/feel of the area. The village does not have the infrastructure nor capacity i.e. schools & health. The road network is already highly congested at peak times & this proposed increase in dwellings will make this worse plus increase pollution in the area.

Please see attached letter

I support the omission of the site at Golden End Farm Knowle as this is in an area bordering the canal which is currently like open countryside. If it is filled in towards the Kenilworth Road it will have significant impact on the green belt feel.

I have concerns that these Amber sites are on 'borrowed time' and will all be gobbled up eventually for more unnecessary housing

There are strong arguments to not include site 413 in the LDP. Firstly, the number of dwellings proposed on the site would add additional strain on already stretched resources (schools, doctors, roads). The additional c500 houses already built in the KDBH area in the past few years has put considerable challenges on the local resources. Congestion round the roads, lack of parking and the existing parking problems on Dorridge Road causes issues.

Secondly, focussing on the actual site I disagree that the changes to visual impact should be categorised as low. Based on the Landscape Character Assessment the assessment should look at the site from a variety of angles and given the site proposed can be seen from a number of roads there would be a high change to the visual impact and the character of the area.

The roads (Darley Green Grove Road, Blue Lake Road, Knowle Wood Road) would not be able to sustain the additional traffic these new dwellings would create. Even if the Council tried to promote local bus services the local stop is not near the proposed 413 site and would have a very low uptake.

Site 413 would contravene the principles of he Green Belt in Policy VC1. The proposal for this site is not in harmony with the local area and it will not sit well within the already well developed area.

I believe it would be prudent to omit site 413 from the LDP and concentrate on already proposed / approved sites.

It is already a very congested area around Rowood drive and lode lane and will put even more
pressure on traffic.
The area is already very built up and the community have fewer and fewer areas to walk when
we should be encouraged to walk more for our health and well being.
Public health authorities are always advising to take more excersize
The wildlife would be affected with a loss of their habitat.
Extra pressure on the sewage system, there is a big sewer running all along one side of houses
in Bramcote Drive

5, Golden End Drive, Solihull, West Midlands, B93 0JP
Tel: 01564 778978 e-mail: steve.lyle@btinternet.com

11th March 2019

Response to Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

I write in response to the new "Amber" designation covering a possible housing development at Golden End Farm, Knowle (Ref: A4/Site 59) to which I object most strongly (i.e. I do not believe this site should be included). My reasons for this are threefold:

1) Concentration of development sites in Knowle.

The only two development sites currently in the Plan in the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath (KDBH) area are in Knowle.

The Arden Triangle (9) and Hampton Road (8) developments between them could result in c. 950 new houses being built. This would amount to a massive c. 25% increase over the current number of properties in Knowle. If Golden End Farm with 250 houses were to be added (i.e. growth of c. 30% on current levels) this would further substantially increase the concentration of development in the Knowle area, which seems to be disproportionally burdened.

Whilst understanding that some development is going to be necessary in the period of the Plan, I cannot see why you seem to be resistant to spreading the load more evenly across the wider KDBH area. Included within the c. 46 relevant submissions you received as part of your call for sites I know there are many to the SW of Dorridge (sites 29, 127, 199, 210 & 247) and NW of Bentley Heath (sites 3, 72, 88, 108, 207 & 419). Were some of these to be developed they would potentially a) result in at least some of the additional traffic moving westwards and northwards out of the KDBH area thereby taking some of the pressure off Knowle and b) give people a shorter and easier route to city rail links via Dorridge Station.

2) Increased demand on infrastructure and local services

I have been unable to find any research data or plans to explain how local services and infrastructure are expected to cater for the significantly increased demand caused by the resulting growth in population and traffic.

Traffic and parking are already an issue in Knowle, a conservation area, and the combined effect of three new housing developments would cause traffic chaos on the already busy Kenilworth Road, Knowle High Street and surrounding roads.

3) Destruction of high quality Green Belt land

I note that in your Site Assessment of January 2019 all the sites SW of Dorridge (sites 29, 127, 199, 210 & 247) and NW of Bentley Heath (sites 3, 72, 88, 108, 207 & 419) are classified as "Low performing" and score 5 under Green Belt assessment. However, the Golden End Farm site has a "Very high" score of 11. The classification of Golden End Farm as "Amber" would seem to ignore the value and importance that local people accord to the Green Belt as evidenced by the results of the Neighbourhood Plan Survey. The Draft Local Plan itself notes in relation to site A4: "It has not been included as a preferred site as it falls within a Green Belt parcel that scores very highly (overall score 11)".

Steve Lyle

We write on behalf of our client, Golden End Farms. Our client's interest relates to land at Golden End, north of Kenilworth Road in Knowle, Solihull (SHELAA Site Ref. 59).

We submit that Amber Site ref A4, Golden End Farm, Kenilworth Road, Knowle, should not be omitted and should be included in the Submission Draft Local Plan.

This site immediately adjoins Knowle village to the east and offers a highly sustainable option to bring forward an exemplar housing development as outlined in the Proposal Site Supporting Statement submitted with this response.

As set out in the Site Supporting Statement, the site offers a highly sustainable growth opportunity. This is recognised in much of the evidence base documents which score it extremely well in terms of accessibility, suitability, availability and deliverability.

The site scores highly in the SHELAA in terms of its suitability, availability and achievability for housing development and has therefore correctly been identified as part of the 'deliverable' supply. There were a few errors in the original SHELAA which once corrected gives the site an overall score of 56. This re-assessment was detailed in our full response to the Draft Local Plan review. This is one of the highest scores in the Borough and is commensurate with many of the sites selected for allocation.

Furthermore, in the Accessibility Mapping Report the Golden End site is identified as one of the most accessible sites in the Borough. Again, once errors are corrected in the original report, the site scores the maximum score of 400. This reassessment is detailed in full in our response to the Draft Local Plan Review. This is the highest score in the Knowle/Dorridge area and one of the highest in the Borough. This high accessibility is noted in the Supplementary Consultation summary relating to the site. It is important to note that by far the biggest issue of concern to local residents expressed at meetings of the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum is about traffic congestion arising from the proposed housing allocations. The fact that the Golden End site scores higher than any other site in Knowle and Dorridge in terms of accessibility should therefore be given significant weight in the site selection process.

In terms of landscape assessment, it is noted that the same assessment and identified pressures apply equally to all sites around Knowle and Dorridge and therefore the Golden End site does not perform any differently than the selected sites.

In Green Belt terms, we have responded in detail to the Atkins Assessment in our full Submission to the Draft Local plan Review. Suffice it to say we totally disagree with the site assessment which is flawed and inconsistent with regard to other Green Belt parcels. It ignores the fact that both Kixley Lane and Kenilworth Road already have ribbon development along them. Further, it ignores the fact that the Grand Union Canal borders the site to the east and Kixley Lane (with its Local Wildlife Reserve to the north) borders the site to the north. Given the existing ribbon development and the strong defensible boundary formed by existing roads and the Grand Union Canal, we disagree that the development of this site would result in the village encroaching via a projection into the open countryside any more so than other sites and provides a similar 'rounding off' achieved by development elsewhere. The Green Belt harm of releasing the site is not therefore as high as is suggested by the Atkins report or the Summary in the Supplementary Consultation.

Overall, it is clear that too much weight has been placed on the flawed green belt assessment and insufficient weight has been given to the wider evidence base considerations in making a final judgement on site selection in Knowle. The site at Golden End scores higher than virtually any other site in the KDBH area across the evidence base, particularly once the factual errors are taken into account in the various studies. The land at Golden End Farm has clear locational advantages being the most accessible site to existing facilities and services in Knowle and therefore reducing the potential traffic implications of new housing. The site can be sensitively developed to minimise any impacts on nearby heritage assets and would establish a new and defensible long term boundary to the Green Belt limiting any risk to further expansion of the village in this location.

One of the points that seeks to justify the selection of Site 8 (Hampton Road) in the Supplementary Consultation (para 237) is that the site lies: "immediately adjacent to the built up area of the settlement and would represent a continuation of the existing development along Hampton Road. Whilst it is recognised that the site lies within a parcel of highly performing Green Belt, it is acknowledged that it comprises a small part of a wider parcel and that built development and/or urbanising influences are present either within the site or in the immediate vicinity adjacent to and opposite the site. The site is relatively well-contained and a defensible Green Belt boundary could be provided". It is submitted that the above justification applies even more so to the site at Golden End. In terms of accessibility, it is notable for example that the Golden End site scores higher than Hampton Road since the latter has no bus accessibility, whereas Kenilworth Road is situated on the Solihull-Coventry bus route with bus stops in close proximity to the site access. The Golden End site is also close to the Primary School and the High Street.

In terns of deliverability, unlike many of the draft site allocations in the local plan, including those in Knowle and Dorridge, the site is immediately deliverable. It is in single ownership and has no technical constraints. It has received overwhelming levels of developer interest and could therefore provide an immediate source of housing supply in the early years of the local plan period.

Finally, in terms of what the Golden End site can deliver, the Site Supporting Statement outlines the following:

- The opportunity for at least 250 dwellings to cater for the full range of housing needs, from starter homes and live-work units through to housing for the elderly.
- The inclusion of 6 hectares (15 acres) of new public open space and parkland, including playing fields, a new canal side walk and ecological habitats;
- Vehicular access off Kenilworth Road via a new junction;
- Additional parking facilities and coach access adjacent to Knowle Primary Academy, helping to relieve parking issues on Kixley Lane and provide additional village parking;
- Opportunity to provide a walkers car park close to the canal bridge to relieve parking pressures by Knowle Locks;
- Significant levels of pedestrian connectivity between the site, the village and the surrounding countryside;
- Protection of existing boundary trees and hedges;
- Protection of views from the countryside into the Conservation Area and to the Church; and
- Protection of the area of nature conservation north of Kixley Lane.

It is worthy of note that the site masterplan proposal was generally very well received at the KDBH Developer Showcase event in July 2016, and was listed in the event summary document produced by KDBH Forum as one of the 'most supported sites'. Unlike many of the sites listed in the 'most supported sites', it did also not appear on the 'most opposed sites' list.

Accordingly, it is requested that the Local Plan Review should include the Golden End site as an additional allocation.

Please see attached letter

I believe the amber Site 413 should be omitted from the Local Plan as a site for residential development on the basis of the following.

Insufficient infrastucture within the villages of Dorridge and Knowle, to cope with a development of this magnitude on top of proposed additional sites 8 & 9

The surrounding roads in particular Norton Green Lane and Blue Lake Road, where presumably access to the site would be required, are country lanes designed for light traffic. They would also lead to increased safety issues, in particularly at the junction of Norton Green Lane, Grove Road and Warwick Road at Dead Mans Corner. It would be this junction that would used to gain access to Knowle from Site 413

Even without this development there are already safety concerns with Dorridge Road becoming the overspill car park for the local railway station. It would be Dorridge Road that would be used to gain access to Dorridge and in particular Sainsburys supermarket and the local Dorridge Surgery from Site 413.

Highways Dept/Severn Trent already struggling to deal with local drainage problems affecting Blue Lake Road, constant flooding at the junction of Blue Lake Road and Dorridge road causing further safety issues.

In short existing local infrastructure issues need to be addressed before a development of this nature is considered. When I say infrastructure I mean it in its broadest sense ie Highways, Drainage, Transport, Schools, Health, they are all struggling to cope.


Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure if that can not be sensibly given then further development of the area should be put on hold until it can be given.

I am commenting on site 59 and 110and a red site 98.
Site 59 kixley Lane is the oldest road in knowle with historical
importance and the proposed Amber site 59 would be detrimental of that
road it holds great historical value when you appreciate the location of the church to its proximity to Kixley lane it self.
currently situated on edge of the village and adjacent to green belt
landscape going down to the locks. The same applies to site 110. From the
canal you see a beautiful landscape on the edge of the village. Which from my lounge window I regularly see a Heron which sits directly on said Amber site.

This wonderful beauty would be lost if houses were built here. it would result in losing the real village character you experience as
you approach knowle and the church from the kenilworth road.
They have settled here because they have space to breed & enjoy some rare green belt in the area and the wildlife feel safe here. It would be a terrible loss to nhe natural wildlife if
this site were lost to development. I am a home owner deeply saddened by the thought of house being built on a typical country lane which keeps knowle in its original heritage.

This comment relates solely to the land at the rear of 114 - 118 Widney Manor Road. It is considered it should be allocated as an express housing site.
On behalf of the owners I submitted a response to the consultation exercise in January 2016 which demonstrated that when measured against appropriate Green Belt and other criteria the site was demonstrably more appropriate to release from the Green Belt than any other Green Belt site tested at that time. The case was put then, as is put now in response to question 2 of this consultation exercise, that the initial coarse sieve exercise results in the exclusion from further consideration of candidate sites with worthwhile credentials.
For reasons set out in response to question 2 this approach renders the approach adopted by the Council both unlawful and unsound due to the arbitrary exclusion of sites which potentially offer the best fit with the achievement of sustainable development. The current exercise has compounded that unlawfulness and unsoundness by undertaking a Sustainability Appraisal which amalgamates sites either side of Widney Manor Road and tests them as one. In so doing this undermines the merits and demerits of the component sites which would return very different results if tested objectively on their individual merits. Such an approach is unlawful in that it breaches the duty given to Solihull MBC under Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act to exercise their plan making function of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Any plan based on the analysis adopted thus far would be unsound due to inadequate justification, a failure to follow national policy and ineffective as a result of its susceptibility to legal challenge
The SHMAA report embracing this site is erroneous. Table A shows it as being available in years 6 -10 but the original SHMAA indicated it to be available in years 1-5 - which fact is noted in the analysis of constraints page in the same document.
The site assessments table in the Site Assessments report published as part of this round of consultation lists the Sustainability Appraisal results in relation to the larger amalgamated site tested by the SA and this therefore renders the evidence of the relevant table to be based on a falsehood. That table also reports that access represents a soft constraint. A scheme was tested at appeal and the access was found to be wholly acceptable. Similarly proximity to the railway line is listed as a soft constraint but at the appeal noise was not held to be a problem in the decision. The appeal was dismissed on Green Belt grounds and inadequate wording of the affordable housing provision due to an uncertainty about the long term management.
The Council have a statutory duty to seek the achievement of Sustainable Development and in pursuit of this national policy indicates they have to use an evidence based approach, and the Sustainability Appraisal is clearly an important contribution to this. It follows that the Sustainability Appraisal and other evidence documentation should present the material in a manner which is firstly, accurate and, secondly, enables like for like assessment of individual parcels of land rather than amalgamations of sites with differing characteristics.