Question 38 - Amber Sites

Showing comments and forms 61 to 90 of 206

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7522

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Tony Moon

Representation Summary:

I write in response to the new "Amber" designation covering a possible housing development at Golden End Farm, Knowle (Ref: M/Site 59) to which I object most strongly. My reasons for this are threefold:

1) Three development sites in Knowle with one between Knowle and Dorridge would seem to be an unfair imposition on Knowle.

2) Increased pressure on infrastructure and local services in Knowle, particularly relating to traffic and parking.

3) Destruction of high-quality Green Belt land compared with lower scoring examples elsewhere in KDBH *

Full text:

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, Knowte (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 dis-proportionally 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
Oorridge 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 i sue in Knowle, a conservation area, and the combined effect of three new housing developments would cause traffic chaos on the already busy Kenilworth Road, Knowte 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 dassification 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 M: "It has not been included as a preferred
site as it falls within a Green Belt parcel that scores very highly (overall score 11)

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7535

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Robertson

Representation Summary:

Amber Site A7 - The gardens at the rear of 114-118 Widney Manor Road should remain green belt. Any future housing on this land would require access onto an already extemely narrow and busy bus route. Extra traffic attempting to access the road , particularly so close to a bend, would be very dangerous. There are already long queues at certain times of the day as drivers attempt to turn into a nearby school and college.

Full text:

The gardens at the rear of 114-118 Widney Manor Road should remain green belt. Any future housing on this land would require access onto an already extemely narrow and busy bus route. Extra traffic attempting to access the road , particularly so close to a bend, would be very dangerous. There are already long queues at certain times of the day as drivers attempt to turn into a nearby school and college.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7563

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: James Cypher

Representation Summary:

My objection to ref A5 (Blue Lake Road) is based on the following:-
* Overly intensive development not in keeping with character and feel of village. This particular development site is proposed to be built on a key entry point to the village and as such negatively impacts the first impression of Dorridge from this approach.
* Loss of amenity and open aspect for properties situated on the 4 roads in the immediate proximity
* Impact of increased traffic to social wellbeing, environment and noise pollution.
* Exacerbation of existing parking issues relating to the train station.

Full text:

My objection to ref A5 (Blue Lake Road) is based on the following:-
* Overly intensive development not in keeping with character and feel of village. This particular development site is proposed to be built on a key entry point to the village and as such negatively impacts the first impression of Dorridge from this approach.
* Loss of amenity and open aspect for properties situated on the 4 roads in the immediate proximity
* Impact of increased traffic to social wellbeing, environment and noise pollution.
* Exacerbation of existing parking issues relating to the train station.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7566

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Colin Davis

Representation Summary:

Amber site A4. Rowood Drive. This site would have to be sympathetically developed in a style of semi detached with decent front and rear gardens like damsonwood and lode lane. Too many developments in Solihull are cramped and over developed with apartments with high density like Wharf Lane that have no front space or driveways; these homes just generate parking issues for residents because of poor design.

Full text:

Amber site A4. Rowood Drive. This site would have to be sympathetically developed in a style of semi detached with decent front and rear gardens like damsonwood and lode lane. Too many developments in Solihull are cramped and over developed with apartments with high density like Wharf Lane that have no front space or driveways these homes just generate parking issues for residents because of poor design

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7572

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Ms Rebecca Hess

Representation Summary:

Amber Site A7 - Land to the rear of 114-118 Widney Manor Road should be excluded from this consultation. Land on the opposite side of the road, adjacent to Lovelace Avenue and the farmland, copse, public right of way and public park land should also be excluded. This is important Green Belt and should be preserved - once developed it has gone forever and the nature of Solihull as a suburb with green areas and open spaces will be damaged. The wildlife will be lost. The Council should never have included the Amber omitted sites as part of this consultation.

Full text:

The land to the rear of 114-118 Widney Manor Road should be excluded from this consultation. The land on the opposite side of the road, adjacent to Lovelace Avenue and the farmland, copse, public right of way and public park land should also be excluded. This is important Green Belt and should be preserved - once developed it has gone forever and the nature of Solihull as a suburb with green areas and open spaces will be damaged. The wildlife will be lost. The Council should never have included the Amber omitted sites as part of this consultation.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7581

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Hayes

Representation Summary:

Site A4 - Kixley Lane
Farming land should not be lost at a time when it is needed.
Wildlife habitat should be preserved. Bats present on the site.

Full text:

In response to the proposed plan for housing development on the above farmland/green belt my concern is the use of farm land for residential building . We do not know what pressures our farmers will be under post Brexit more will need to be produced for domestic use ,if their acreage decreases they will be forced into intensive farming, we are still suffering from the effects of the last time this was implemented. If you make further enquiries it is reported that the soil globally is in decline so all types of food production will be less nutritious. This aspectMUST be looked at in depth and with research results not only from Defra but RHS and UN.
Incidentally there are bats dwelling in the trees along Kixley Lane I often see them flying at dusk in the summer evenings.
Please understand I do not have a problem with house building in general as everyone needs somewhere to live but also the all important wildlife need habitats , our insects are in alarming decline please do not add to the

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7589

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Joy Foster

Representation Summary:

Reference to A6 Rowood Drive
Traffic already congested and dangerous in that area and positioning on the road near a bend and main road increases the risks and danger
Loss of privacy from house that backs on to land and effect on house prices.
Green belt land lost, loss of green space and wildlife.
Pressure on facilities such as sewage etc and also local schools which are already oversubscribed.
Disruption and noise to the local area during the building
Make use of the area for the community purposes and develop the land for locals not further crammed in housing

Full text:

Reference to A6 Rowood Drive
Traffic already congested and dangerous in that area and positioning on the road near a bend and main road increases the risks and danger
Loss of privacy from house that backs on to land and effect on house prices.
Green belt land lost, loss of green space and wildlife.
Pressure on facilities such as sewage etc and also local schools which are already oversubscribed.
Disruption and noise to the local area during the building
Make use of the area for the community purposes and develop the land for locals not further crammed in housing

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7636

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Anthony Baines

Representation Summary:

Amber site A5 - Blue Lake Road
This part of Dorridge is already not coping with additional traffic, parking and services provision .
The nature and character of the area would be fundamentally changed negatively.

Full text:

My wife and I are very clear that Site 431 should be omitted from the Local Plan.

There are both macro and micro factors to consider.

From a macro perspective this area is already creaking at the seams from the point of view of both delivery of local services such as health and education and also negative changes to the social and cultural nature of the area. Significant additional housing over recent years has already placed strain on the area with excessive parking along Dorridge and nearby roads for train commuters who can't find spaces at the station car parks, and the congestion associated with the new Sainsburys being two good examples of the pain local residents are feeling.

From a micro perspective in relation to Site 431 itself, the impact on residents of Blue Lake Rd would be huge with a small local road facing intolerable levels of additional traffic causing safety issues.
It is highly unlikely any development of this site would be able to maintain the character and appearance of the existing landscape due to the current low density nature of existing development which is harmonious with existing Greenbelt policy.There are other Red Sites which would be much less impacted from this perspective .
Site 431 is very open with long vistas which would be fundamentally spoiled and totally change the nature and character of the area.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7676

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs James

Representation Summary:

A4 - concern that Golden End Farm will be used for housing
Would be bad for Knowle, which is a historical village
Knowle would not be able to sustain that amount of people arriving - parking, schools, doctors are at full capacity
Why not build on Brownfield sites around the area where services are adequate
In Solihull there are 1000 empty homes, why not take advantage of those?
We strongly object.

Full text:

See attached letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7728

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Edward Fraser

Representation Summary:

The non-Shirley Area sites should not be included in the omitted sites, and thus remove the ridiculous burden on Shirley, Dickens Heath and Whitlocks End.

Full text:

The Non Shirley Area sites shoul not bre included in the ommitted sites thus removed the ridiculous burden on Shirley,Dickens Heath and Whitlocks End.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7740

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Mr David Patterson

Representation Summary:

Amber site A7. Area identified as not having an 'open' character. This conflicts with findings of the Solihull Green Belt Assessment 2016, the LDF Core Strategy Assessment of Green Belt 2011 and an appeal decision relating to 114-118 Widney Manor Road. The potential inclusion of this land would not create a logical boundary, as land to the north and south on Widney Manor Road would remain in the Green Belt. No exceptional circumstances to justify changes to the Green Belt boundaries. The potential inclusion of this land would be another example of 'garden grabbing', which does not create good places.

Full text:

See letter and attachments.
Reference Sites 134, 205 and 308 (Amber Site A7)
Questions Nos 2, 34, 37 and 38
I am attaching a Summary and Response to the above questions. I add my name to this. In addition I am attaching three supporting copy documents:
* The Planning Inspectorate: Appeal Decision dated 19 April 2011
* Assessment of Green Belt Submissions, October 2011
* Agreement between Mar City Developments Limited and The Metropolitan Borough of Solihull
I confirm my strong objection to the removal of these areas from the Green Belt. Site 134 was the subject of a Planning Application (2010/2) which was refused. The Appeal which followed was dismissed at the Inquiry. Nothing has changed which would now justify the removal of these sites from the Green Belt.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7761

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Alison Beach

Representation Summary:

I object strongly to the amber classification of A4, Golden End Farm. It should remain green belt and undeveloped because a) it is widely appreciated by the public as open space for walking, cycling etc as it runs along the canal b) Kenilworth Rd is already dangerous, especially with many heavy goods vehicles accessing no.114 (equestrian business opposite Site A4, currently with application PL/2019/00146/PPFL to extend into large scale operations) and also other building sites c) 3 extra development sites close together in Knowle would be impossible for road infrastructure to handle. Alternative sites exist which could manage traffic better.

Full text:

I object strongly to the amber classification of A4, Golden End Farm. It should remain green belt and undeveloped because a) it is widely appreciated by the public as open space for walking, cycling etc as it runs along the canal b) Kenilworth Rd is already dangerous, especially with many heavy goods vehicles accessing no.114 (equestrian business opposite Site A4, currently with application PL/2019/00146/PPFL to extend into large scale operations) and also other building sites c) 3 extra development sites close together in Knowle would be impossible for road infrastructure to handle. Alternative sites exist which could manage traffic better.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7797

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Katrina Jamieson

Representation Summary:

Amber Site A7 - No more building on Widney Manor road between the station and the 6th form college

Full text:

No more building on Widney Manor road between the station and the 6th form college

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7798

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Miss Audrey Gooderham

Representation Summary:

I object to the proposed amber site of Golden End Farm, Kenilworth Road, Knowle, ref A4, quite simply this area is of local importance, because you can walk out of Knowle Centre in 5 minutes and you can have your mental health restored by nature with the inclusion of the canal and farmland which has an overall score 11. Land can never be made again - so don't concrete over it in the first place.

Full text:

I object to the proposed amber site of Golden End Farm, Kenilworth Road, Knowle, ref A4, quite simply this area is of local importance, because you can walk out of Knowle Centre in 5 minutes and you can have your mental health restored by nature with the inclusion of the canal and farmland which has an overall score 11. Land can never be made again - so don't concrete over it in the first place.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7804

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Thornley

Representation Summary:

Re Amber Site ref A7 (site 134)

I understand that Government Planning has two main criteria for backyard developments:

1)The development must be in keeping with the character and quality of its surroundings:

How can any development, let alone one with up to 22 dwellings, fit in with the massive and highly expensive row of properties from 112 to 124 Widney Manor Road?

2)The development must be convenient and safe for both pedestrians and drivers:

The access road shown an is roughly in the middle of a very short stretch of straight road with blind corners at both ends.

Full text:

Re Amber Site ref 134

I understand that Government Planning has two main criteria for backyard developments::

1)The development must be in keeping with the character and quality of its surroundings:

How can any development, let alone one with up to 22 dwellings , fit in with the massive and highly expensive row of properties from 112 to 124 Widney Manor Road.?

2)The development must be convenient and safe for both pedestrians and drivers:

The access road shown on the plan is roughly in the middle of a very short stretch of straight road with blind corners at both ends.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7835

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Keith May

Representation Summary:

I object to the land off Blue Lake Road (ref A5)(site 431) being included as an area for potential housing development because:
- this is green belt land which provides a corridor for walkers, cyclists, horse riders etc to access the countryside from a residential area
- building over 350 houses will put extreme pressure on local services such as schools and doctors surgeries
- there will be increased local traffic on what is already a busy cut through for motorists driving from Lapworth and Warwick into Solihull
- the density of housing and associated traffic will increase local pollution levels

Full text:

I object to the land off Blue Lake Road (site 431) being included as an area for potential housing development because:
- this is green belt land which provides a corridor for walkers, cyclists, horse riders etc to access the countryside from a residential area
- building over 350 houses will put extreme pressure on local services such as schools and doctors surgeries
- there will be increased local traffic on what is already a busy cut through for motorists driving from Lapworth and Warwick into Solihull
- the density of housing and associated traffic will increase local pollution levels

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7884

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Martin Parsons

Representation Summary:

Site Ref: A6. Extra traffic on a already busy road. Green belt land being lost. Foxes nest on this site. Children play on here and people also walk dogs every day here.This will also put extra pressure on the old sewage system. Plus my major issue is the devaluation of my property.

Full text:

Extra traffic on a already busy road.green belt land being lost.Foxes nest on this site.Children play on here and people also walk dogs every day here.This will also put extra pressure on the old sewage system.Plus my major issue is the devaluation of my property.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7921

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mr John Hornby

Representation Summary:

There is a strong, objective case not to include Site 413 (ref A5 and extended from Sites 104 and 109) as a site for residential development within the Local Plan.

That case is made in detail in the representation but in summary it is founded on factors relating to the past and proposed level of development in KDBH and on specific considerations relating to the site itself:

- Already current strain on infrastructure from recent housing developments
- Area could not cope with development of sites 8 and 9 and Amber sites. In particular road infrastructure - already chronic congestion at peak times (Station Rd and Knowle High Street)
- More attention to be paid to the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area Strategic Locations Study. (The Study did not propose large scale housing development for Knowle and Dorridge).
- No traffic impact study or mitigation measures proposed
- Concern regarding impact on Knowle Conservation Area
- The Neighbourhood Plan needs to be better taken into account. In particular issues regarding Village Character and Natural Environment.
- The Vision Document for site 413 (Amber site A5)has not been published or been the subject of public consultation.
- Site assessment methodology is flawed as it scores down landscape character in areas that contain ribbon development
- No consultation with KDBH Neighbourhood Forum over this site
- Green Belt Assessment is at odds with that performed on substantially the same site in last local Plan
- Arden triangle development is questionable. Findings of Crestwood Environmental Landscape and Visual appraisal need to be taken into account.
- Land release of Arden triangle site and site 413 (A5) would result in wholesale coalescence of Knowle and Dorridge contrary to Green Belt objectives, national and local planning policy.

The KDBH Neighbourhood Plan, which is likely to be adopted in March 2019, supports this detailed assessment very robustly.

Full text:

I believe it is right that Site 413 (land off Blue Lake Road, Dorridge - extended from Sites 104 and 109) is omitted from the Local Plan as a site for residential development. This view is based on:
1. Factors relating to the wider Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath ("KDBH") area; and
2. Factors specifically relating to Site 413.

Broader factors
* Over the last five years there have been c. 500 additional housing units added to the KDBH area. That development has placed significant strain on local infrastructure, specifically roads and parking. These issues are articulated in Section 5.4 of the KDBH Neighbourhood Plan ("The Neighbourhood Plan").
* The Draft Local Plan subject to this consultation proposes an additional 900 to 950 residential units on two sites (8 and 9). Development at that level would place further material strain on local infrastructure that is already struggling to cope. Inclusion of Amber Sites as Allocated Sites would push that strain to beyond breaking point.
* It should be noted that options for land release of this scale (500+ dwellings even without Amber Sites) were considered by the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area Strategic Locations Study published in 2018. Such an option for Knowle or Dorridge was not put forward in that study. The Council should be paying more regard to the conclusions of that study in putting forward the Local Plan.
* Of particular note is the additional strain the development of sites 8 and 9 would put on the road infrastructure, in particular Station Road and Knowle High Street (which is within a Conservation Area). Congestion at peak hours is already chronic and both developments would further load these two key components of the road infrastructure.
* The Conservation Area is protected by national as well as local planning policy and, as such, impacts need to be taken into account in the development of the Local Plan. Yet no traffic impact study or proposed mitigation measures have been published. Options for mitigation are, in reality, extremely limited given the positioning of proposed development sites in relation to the key pinch points, in particular those in the Conservation Area.
* Adding either Amber Site in the KDBH area to the list of Allocated Sites would load both Station Road and Knowle High Street further. That would make the situation untenable in the context of preserving the character and quality of the area, even with maximum mitigation.
* The Council's assessment is that the KDBH area can accommodate growth in excess of its local needs. That may be true to a point, but even the proposed level of development (without admitting Amber Sites as Allocated Sites) would compromise many of the principles set out in the Neighbourhood Plan, in particular those around Village Character and Natural Environment. The Council seems not to be appropriately taking into account the Neighbourhood Plan in bringing forward this Draft Local Plan.

Specific factors relating to Site 413 (extended from sites 104 and 109)

* The promoter of Site 413 is proposing c. 340 dwellings on under 10 hectares.
* The Vision Document prepared by the promoters of development of Land off Blue Lake Road (referenced at para 13 of the Amber Sites document published by the Council) has not been published or been the subject of any public consultation. Therefore, it should carry no weight in the consideration of the possible nature, impacts or deliverability of new development.
* The Vision Document cover sheet indicates it was in "Final" form in February 2018. This would suggest that the promoter had plenty of opportunity to socialise and consult on its proposals with local residents. That has not taken place although there are suggestions locally that there has been extensive contact between the Council and the promoter. The fact that the Vision Document has still not been directly made available to local residents fuels concerns that the promoter may be reluctant to take resident views into account.
* The assessment of sites that led to the identification of Land off Blue Lake Road (ref A5) as an Amber Site where development would be considered "less harmful" than other in Green Belt locations seems fundamentally flawed. This is because it scores down landscape character and quality in areas that contain ribbon development no matter how well established it may be or how limited it may be in extent. This is explicitly the case in respect of this site where the intrinsic qualities of the areas of unbuilt development, and the contribution they make to landscape character and the visual amenity of local residents, is underestimated and so the parcel of land under-scored in the Local Plan's Site Selection process.
* Neither the Council or the promoter of this site has made any effort to objectively assess the feeling of local residents in relation to visual amenity of this site, despite plenty of time and opportunity to do so. Indeed, it may be telling that this proposal has come forward after an extensive period of consultation through the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum over potential development sites. In doing so the promoter of the site has missed a meaningful opportunity for consultation.
* The Council assesses Site 413 to be a lower performing parcel under the Green Belt Assessment. Although the assessment methodology has been refined, that assessment is fundamentally at odds with that performed on substantially the same site when it was rejected for inclusion in the last Local Plan. I can see no objective justification for such a shift.
* The Arden Triangle development proposition seems to be driving a major, strategic land release to the east of Knowle and Dorridge, yet it is in itself questionable, as evidenced by the weight of arguments put against it when the Draft Local Plan was published and, more recently by the findings of the Crestwood Environmental Landscape and Visual appraisal of it commissioned by the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum. That was published in January 2019, after the Supplementary Consultation documents were agreed. Therefore, this is new evidence that the Council needs to take into account as it considers responses to the Supplementary Consultation and in the developing of policies and proposals to be included in the next version of the Local Plan. The report recommends that that the public right of way that runs east-west some 300m north of Grove Road as the "natural limit to development" in this area. To extend the land release even further south through the release of Land off Blue Lake Road for development and excluding properties to the south of Grove Road from the Green Belt (as is proposed) is wholly unreasonable.
* A land release incorporating the Arden Triangle and Site 413 would result in the wholesale coalescence of Dorridge and Knowle, contrary to the purposes and objectives of Green Belts as set out in national planning policy and the recommendations of Heritage and Character Study commissioned by KDBH Neighbourhood Forum. Such an outcome would also be contrary to the objectives and policies of the Local Plan itself. The extent of the contravention would be much more significant than would be the case for the development of certain Red Sites (in particular Site 207), which have been rejected by the Council on grounds of coalescence which would seem to be flawed.
* Development at the density and level proposed for Site 413 would place an unsustainable strain on the immediately surrounding roads of Darley Green Road, Grove Road and Knowle Wood Road, none of which is designed for anything other than very light traffic. It is very difficult to see how sufficient mitigating measures could be put in place, developer funded or otherwise.
* The Neighbourhood Plan sets out clear principles around development of the Green Belt in Policy VC1. Under that policy "any development must be in harmony with the rural character of the villages' surroundings and sit well in the landscape." Development of Site 413 at anything near the density proposed would fundamentally contravene that policy.
* Policy D1 in the Neighbourhood Plan goes on to set out clear principles around character and appearance of development. In particular, it establishes the following criteria:
o Development should be in harmony with the village character and sit well within the landscape;
o Development layouts should be characteristic of the surrounding area;
o Development should be of a density characteristic of the area; and
o Development should be in keeping with the scale, siting and appearance of nearby buildings.
* On any objective assessment, development of Site 413, which is currently surrounded by low-density development sitting sympathetically around a well-established Green Belt boundary, score very low against the above criteria. There are several "Red Sites" in the KDBH area which would objectively score much higher.
* The National Planning Policy Framework requires that residential development should "promote local character". That requirement would not be met for development on Site 413 in the context of the existing developed area.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7931

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Peter & Elaine King

Representation Summary:

Blythe and Shirley. Totally object to more sites being looked into.

Full text:

Totally object to more sites being looked into

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7944

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Johanna Sahi-Proto

Representation Summary:

Amber ref A7

We consider the potential inclusion of Widney Manor Road and/or the land to the rear of 114 - 118 Widney Manor Road would not create a logical roll back of the Green Belt boundary, as land to the north and south on Widney Manor Road would remain in the Green Belt.

We consider the potential inclusion of this land would be another example of 'garden grabbing', which does not create good places. We support the Stop Garden Grabbing in Solihull campaign

Full text:

see attached documents
Questions 34, 37 and 38 - We object to the possible removal of the Green Belt status of Widney Manor Road. We do not see how the land at Widney Manor Road could provide any compensation provision, given its shape and size. We also strongly object to the possible inclusion of the land at Widney Manor Road and in particular, the rear of 114 to 118 Widney Manor Road, Solihull. Paragraph 378 of the consultation document refers to Widney Manor Road as being a washed over settlement/ area which has been identified for potential removal from the Green Belt as it does not have an 'open' character that makes a contribution to the 'openness' of the Green Belt. This conclusion is in contrast to, at least, the following:

1. Solihull Strategic Green Belt Assessment - Assessment Report, July 2016. This was prepared by Atkins for the Council and did not include the land to the rear of Widney Manor Road (RP42) as one of the Refined Parcels which do not perform against any of the four assessed purposes of Green Belt, in Section 5 Summary and Conclusions. The Report does not recommend that the parcel is taken forward. In fact, the Report concluded that overall RP42 was a 'parcel or area which is more moderately performing' in two of the assessed purposes (and lower performing against another).

This evidence base/ assessment carried out on behalf of the Council appears to have been ignored.

2. Solihull LDF Core Strategy Assessment of Green Belt Submission October 2011. This Solihull Council evidence based document assessed land to west of Widney Manor Road (2-218 evens only), Solihull for deletion from the Green Belt (please see Document 1). In particular, in terms of 'impact on the fundamental characteristic of openness the assessment concluded the land contains a thin line of houses fronting Widney Manor Road, with a substantial largely open character to the west, consisting of the gardens to the houses and the railway cutting, which contributes to openness'. The assessment also concludes the land forms part of the Meriden Gap between Birmingham/Solihull and Coventry, as well as the smaller gap between Solihull and Knowle. The Conclusion states that 'the land contributes to openness and to prevention of urban sprawl from the urban area to the west. This is supported by an Appeal decision relating to 114-118 Widney Manor Road dated 19th April 2011'.

This Council assessment and evidence base to the Core Strategy has been ignored.

3. Document 2 comprises the Appeal Inspector's decision relating to the land at 114-118 Widney Manor Road, Solihull (APP/Q4625/A/10/2133554). The Inspector concluded at paragraph 12 that 'the Council's inclusion of the appeal site within the Green Belt are the stronger, and I attach little weight to the appellant's criticisms of it'.

In terms of the effect on the openness and other attributes of the Green Belt, the Inspector concluded 'whilst the extent to which openness can be appreciated from the public and private viewpoints is a material consideration, openness is an intrinsic quality of the land itself, relating to the absence of the build development, and this quality is not dependent on whether it can be seen by the public. As openness is the most important attribute of the Green Belt, the loss of openness in this case would result in serious harm and would conflict with Policy C2 of the Solihull Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2006, which deals with control of development in the Green Belt'.

We have checked and Policy C2 has in effect been carried forward in to Policy P17 of the Solihull Local Plan 2013.

The Inspector's overall conclusion is that the significant harm that would be caused (which includes through loss of openness) would not be outweighed by provision of housing on this site. We do not consider the planning policy position or the circumstances on the site have changed since this Appeal decision.

4. Solihull Council Planning Committee in July 2010 refused a planning application for residential purposes. The Officer's report to Committee concludes on openness that 'the emerging Core Strategy does not show any alterations to the Green Belt boundary at this part of Widney Manor Road. The site was discounted for reason that the release of the site would have a significant impact on the green belt functions and openness and would set an unwelcome precedent for further green belt land release from surrounding sites. Instead, housing allocations are centred around main urban areas supporting urban renaissance, including areas of greatest accessibility whilst avoiding over intensification of development in mature suburbs'.

The officer reports goes on to say 'This part of the Green Belt was first designated in the 1970's as part of the Solihull Structure Plan. Its retention was then, as it is now, to provide a green belt corridor between Solihull town centre and the settlements of Knowle and Dorridge, thus to prevent coalescence of the two. The Monkspath estate that has now been developed to the west side of the railway line and the applicant asserts its existence should warrant the removal of the green belt boundary from the application site. This argument although presented in previous development plan reviews has never been supported by any Inspector during the Inquiry or examination. There has been no material change in circumstance to warrant an alternative approach today'.

Solihull Council's Planning Committee refused planning permission for two reasons, including the harm the development would cause to the openness of the Green Belt.
It is also misleading to refer to 114 -118 Widney Manor Road having been the subject of a previous planning application, and to not set out that the application was refused by the Council and their decision was later upheld by an Appeal Inspector.
We also refer you to the Section 106 Agreement dated 16 January 2001 made between (1) Mar City Developments Limited and (2) the Council in respect of the Spinney development (planning ref 00/577) which deals, amongst other things, with the management and protection of the embankment and wildlife corridor (shown edged and hatched in green on the s106 plan) to the rear of the Widney Manor Road properties (Document 3). One of the purposes of the scheme was 'to retain the embankment and spinney in their current state'. A large swathe of this protected embankment and wildlife corridor has been recently cleared by the present owners of that land. It is assumed this has been carried out in consultation with the Council and/or a qualified ecologist, but we fear that it may not have been. Perversely, the removal of this embankment and wildlife corridor would add to the openness of the land, rather than detract from it.
We consider the potential inclusion of Widney Manor Road and/or the land to the rear of 114 - 118 Widney Manor Road would not create a logical roll back of the Green Belt boundary, as land to the north and south on Widney Manor Road would remain in the Green Belt.
We do not consider that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to the Green Belt boundaries, as required by paragraphs 135 and 136 in the NPPF (2019). We further note the definition of previously developed land excludes land in built-up area such as residential gardens. This is relevant, given it is included at paragraph 138 in the NPPF (2019). But this does not support the land's removal from the Green Belt given the purpose the land performs in Green Belt terms (which has been consistently concluded to be the case by Solihull Council, the Core Strategy Inspector and the Appeal Inspector). This position has not changed since assessment of the site in 2010.
We consider the potential inclusion of this land would be another example of 'garden grabbing', which does not create good places. We support the Stop Garden Grabbing in Solihull campaign.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7951

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Elisabeth Hedley

Representation Summary:

The difficulties posed by the location of around 950 new houses have not been adequately addressed by the Council so it is difficult to see how the siting of an additional 590 houses can do anything but make the situation very much worse. Whether some or part of these sites could be brought forward as better alternatives to the already allocated sites needs further consideration based on a clearer understanding of the site hierarchy assessment methodology and the proposed mitigation of any impacts upon the area
See also the response of the Forum which I support and fully endorse.

Full text:

It is difficult to comment on these sites as it is not clear if these sites are being looked at in addition to the already allocated sites or in substitution for them. Even the 950 or so houses currently being proposed are disproportionate so an addition 590 houses could never be accommodated without substantial harm to the KDBH area.
Golden End Farm Knowle - This site has some advantages in that it is closer to the village centre and has flatter topography. It is already surrounded by housing on two sides, is on a bus route and has very good access to the primary school and is much closer to the secondary school than Hampton Road. It has an already existing Green Belt boundary namely the canal which would be more defensible that an artificially created one. If it were to be developed however, the views of the church and the conservation area would need to be protected also the canal-side environment.
Blue Lake Road, Dorridge - The part of the site that is closer to Dorridge (parcel Ref 104)has some merit in that it is relatively close to the amenities of Dorridge and has good access to the station thus helping to reduce traffic movement. The site also has relatively easy access to the A34000 and the motorway network without having to travel through the already congested Knowle High Street. Development on the larger parcel, particularly closer to Grove Road is on the "wrong" side of Knowle with regard to traffic movement and would be hugely detrimental to the village.
Also it is difficult to understand the parcel sizes and proposed housing densities, since at para 13 on page 11 of the Supplementary Consultation "amber sites" document, reference is made to a capacity of 340 houses over 9.7 hectares, but it is not clear which parcel this relates to. Parcel 109 is 2.2 hectares with a proposed capacity of 60 houses,. Parcel 104 is 6.9 hectares with a proposed capacity of only 80 houses, whereas parcel 413 (which includes parcel 104 but not 109) is stated to be 27.09 hectares with a proposed capacity of 602 houses. This is wholly unclear and proposed densities need to be clarified. In any event, the higher densities, as seem to be proposed on parts of this site are wholly out of keeping with the surrounding housing on Blue Lake Road, Grove Road and Knowle Wood Road.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7954

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Terry Corns

Representation Summary:

I particularly object to Ref A5 & Ref 413 being included. These sites are high quality Green Belt and must be retained as such. To include these sites is unnecessary and an inappropriate intrusion into quality Green Belt which benefits the whole of the Knowle & Dorridge community

Would favour development between Knowle and Solihull - where M42 already influences open space

Full text:

I particularly object to Ref A5 & Ref 413 being included. These sites are high quality Green Belt and must be retained as such. To include these sites is unnecessary and would be an inappropriate intrusion into quality Green Belt which benefits the whole of the Knowle & Dorridge community. If needed there are large areas of land suitable to be included in future residential development plans in the "gap" between Knowle and Solihull where the M42 already influences the open space.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7957

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Graham Bowskill

Representation Summary:

I support the fact that the Blue Lake site with the number of houses suggested should be omitted as this would over burden the present traffic network, creating chaos in Blue Lake Road,Darley Green Road and Norton Green Lane. This is already busy network and there is no way in which improvements could be made without severe consequences to the environment.

Full text:

I support the fact that the Blue Lake site with the number of houses suggested should be omitted as this would over burden the present traffic network, creating chaos in Blue Lake Road,Darley Green Road and Norton Green Lane. This is already busy network and there is no way in which improvements could be made without severe consequences to the environment.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7967

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Clare Heath

Representation Summary:

please see attached letter

Full text:

please see attached letter

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7974

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Wolinski

Representation Summary:

Amber site A7 - Land to the rear of 114-118 Widney Manor Road should remain as Green Belt and should not be included in this consultation as the Council themselves refused a planning application in 2010 and the subsequent appeal was dismissed in 2011. The inclusion of Amber sites gives the promoters a way in which is contrary to the Councils own assessment and conclusions reached. We also understand that the current owners of the area known as the Spinney have already cleared a large part of the protected embankment and Spinney which goes against a Council Agreement in 2001.

Full text:

We believe the land to the rear of 114-118 Widney Manor Road should remain as Green Belt and should not be included in this consultation as the Council themselves refused a planning application in 2010 and the subsequent appeal was dismissed in 2011. The inclusion of Amber sites gives the promoters a way in which is contrary to the Councils own assessment and conclusions reached. We also understand that the current owners of the area known as the Spinney have already cleared a large part of the protected embankment and Spinney which goes against a Council Agreement in 2001.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7980

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Brian Henry Garman

Representation Summary:

Site A7 - Widney Manor Road
No need to change the Green belt status of this relatively small area of land and leave it open to possible development.
I strongly believe that the Planning Inspector's decision (Appeal Ref: App/Q4625/A/10/2133554) to dismiss the appeal in respect of an outline application for residential development on land r/114-118 Widney Manor Road and the reasons for it in 2011 still apply. The protection of Green Belt status should stand.

Full text:

I am responding to the Consultation regarding the proposed downgrading of the Green Belt land in Widney Manor Road, that includes my property.

My view is that there appears to be no need to change the status of this relatively small area of land and leave it open to possible development and I strongly believe that the Planning Inspector's decision and the reasons for it in 2011 still apply and the protection of Green Belt status should stand.

Copies of relevant documents are enclosed, which include the letter of objection by many local residents, which has my full support.

Attachments:

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8000

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard King

Representation Summary:

Golden End Farm (A4)
- Support for site not being included in Plan. Object to reclassification as an amber site.
- Erosion of Green Belt: The site is prime quality arable farming land. There are many alternatives where the land is of less agricultural value.
- Increased Traffic Volume and Congestion: Traffic through village already extremely busy. Kenilworth Road/ Warwick Road, Wilson Road/Station Road intersections are already unsatisfactory. Concern re Council Officers comments if further problems arose the Council would 'respond'. Better to have a proactive rather than reactive planning strategy to what is an inevitable problem.
- Overloading Knowle: Large volumes of traffic already flow through Knowle, to the detriment of the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings. Inconceivable to have another large development if Arden Triangle and Hampton Road are developed. Better to look at parts of Dorridge/Bentley Heath if further development required where access to Solihull/M42 is closer.

Full text:

Thank you for your letter 29/01/2019 regarding Golden End Farm Ref A4

I would support your original decision not to include the site in the plan but object strongly to its reclassification as an amber site.

Please consider the following concerns:

Erosion of the green belt.

I understand the requirement to build new housing but I am not convinced enough is done to secure genuinely suitable locations or indeed properly utilise existing housing stocks. Building on green belt should not be a default option, the land in question is prime quality arable farming land. There are many alternatives where the land is of less agricultural value. It is my understanding SMBC's own investigation support this, so am at a loss why you would reconsider its reclassification.

Increased Traffic Volume and Congestion.

Traffic through the village is already extremely busy and at peak times can be gridlocked. The Kenilworth Road/ Warwick Road, Wilson Road/Station Road intersections are already unsatisfactory. That is without any additional vehicle loading into these junctions. I understand that SMBC have already carried out traffic evaluations, but the results are not yet available. In attendance at a recent KDBH forum meeting, two council members were questioned on this specific concern. The response was, "measures would be taken if it became a problem". Surely a legitimate planning strategy should be proactive and not reactive to what is an inevitable problem. If Golden End Farm were to be developed it could easily give rise to another 500 vehicles coming onto Kenilworth road, most of which would attempt to pass through the village.

Overloading Knowle.

A large proportion of working people in Knowle look to access Solihull, Birmingham and the M42 on a daily basis. Large volumes of traffic already flow through the village with a 'funnel' like effect. A conservation area where its listed buildings are suffering remorseless abuse. Assuming the likelihood of the Arden triangle and Hampton Road sites being included in your plans, it seems inconceivable that another large development should be considered. If the numbers are still inadequate for housing quotas then look to the west, in particular parts of Dorridge, certainly into Bentley Heath. A more even spread of development would be desirable. More over, increased traffic would be less likely to journey through Knowle, but take alternative routes to Solihull, Birmingham, onto the Stratford Road (A34) and access to M42, Junction 4.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8024

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Brett Hopkins

Representation Summary:

Land at Mount Daily farm, Cheswick Green (ref A2)
- The land is with in the washed over green belt
- The proposal of 10 dwellings would impact on urban sprawl would lead to overdevelopment of this area on the border line green belt fields.
- Flooding to the rear of Coppice Walk is prevalent and in May 2018 the gardens and houses could not cope with the flood waters coming off the car garage, houses and land behind.
- The contamination of the ground from the petroleum pumps on the garage.
- Access onto an accident hotspot road that is currently at a 40mph speed limit.

Full text:

Land at Mount Daily farm, Cheswick Green (ref A2)The land is with in the washed over green belt and the proposal of 10 dwellings with impact on the urban sprawl overdevelopment of this area on the border line green belt feilds.

Flooding to the rear of Coppice Walk is prevalent and in May 2018 the gardens and houses could not cope with the flood waters coming off the car garage, houses and land behind.

The contamination of the ground from the petroleum pumps on the garage.

Access onto an accident hotspot road that is currently at a 40mph speed limit.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8026

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Ian Leedham

Representation Summary:

Golden End Farm, Knowle (ref A4)
I object to development around Golden end farm given its Green Belt status, encroachment and that Knowle will struggle to sustain further development.

Full text:

I would object to development around Golden end farm given its green belt status, encroachment and that Knowle will struggle to sustain further development.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8038

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Barry Jackson

Representation Summary:

I feel that that the land off Blue Lake Road (Ref A5) must be a better option than the sites in Blythe. There is capacity for more houses and the infrastructure is more able to cope.

Full text:

I feel that that the land (Ref A5) must be a better option. There is capacity for more houses and the infrastructure is more able to cope.