Question 38 - Amber Sites

The proposed development of farm land bordered by Blue Lake Road, Norton Green Lane, Grove Road and Knowle Wood Road would decimate the natural beauty of this quiet rural area. The land slopes appreciably from Grove Road in the north to Blue Lake Road in the south and therefore the visual impact the development would have on the wider area, will destroy this picturesque landscape. This concern also takes into consideration the fact that most of the roads referred to above would have to be widened to accommodate the increase of traffic that will be generated, further urbanising the local area.
This proposed development must not proceed. This land is on the very edge of the Solihull Metropolitan Borough and is adjacent to Warwickshire's beautiful roiling countryside.

We strongly object to amber designation of Golden End Farm, Knowle (Ref A4/site 59) as the infrastructure will not support more families in the area. Already it is almost impossible to get an appointment at the doctors, the car parks are always full and there is already regular traffic chaos along the Kenilworth Road and Knowle high Street. We believe the addition of 250 houses will inevitably mean at least 250 and possibly up to 500 extra vehicles on our local roads and up to an additional 1000 people trying to access resources in the village is simply not sustainable.

Whilst I recognise the need to use amber sites, I feel it vital that my responses are kept neutral.
Residents most closely impacted by the sites, who have most intimate knowledge should be given primacy in the responses.

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

We support the OMMISSION of this site for development as it falls within a Green Belt parcel that scores highly and the existing road infrastructure is not able to support the additional traffic that will be generated. Knowle High Street is already a bottleneck for traffic and for people travelling to Solihull for additional amenities, e.g. shopping and access to the M42 for access to Birmingham and the motorway network. Additional houses the wrong side of Knowle will increase the burden of traffic on Knowle High Street, particularly in rush hour periods.

I support the comments submitted by KDBH Neighbourhood Forum

I support the submission made by the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum

Strongly object to A5 and 413.
A5 is high quality green belt.
Contravenes policy D1 'Density'.
Detremental to 'local character' required by the National Planning Policy forum.
Visual Sensitivity is extremely high due to the openness of this location. This location is on a hill so any development will be obvious to immediate area and beyond.
Flooding risk.
Ruins the visual appraoch to Dorridge.
With the profile of Dorridge and this location, the development would impact the overall attractiveness of Solihull Borough.
Site 207 makes far more sense, closer to M42 and major road access and much lower visual impact.

B93 Facebook group claims that this update of the plan includes land adjacent to Kixley Ln. If so, this would be completely unacceptable, Kixley Ln is a beautiful 14th century relic and it, along with the footpath route to the canal pedestrian bridge should be kept in agricultural use.

I have reviewed the SMBC Draft Local Plan and consider that Amber Site 413 (Land at Oak Green, Dorridge) should be omitted from the Local Plan as a site for residential development. This is for the following reasons;
 I do not believe the KDBH area can sustain the level of proposed development. In the last five years there have been around 500 additional housing units added to the KDBH area. The Draft Local Plan proposes a further 300 homes on site 8, Hampton Road, and an additional 750 homes on site 9, South of Knowle. The proposal from the developer of Amber Site 413 suggests a further 340 dwellings. Development on sites 8 and 9 will place considerable strain on the local infrastructure and any further homes on Site 413 would bring the local area to breaking point.
 Considerable road congestion already occurs at peak hours, particularly along Station Road and Knowle High Street so the development of sites 8 and 9 will put further significant pressure on the road infrastructure. Adding Amber Site 413 would exacerbate the congestion on these roads but also increase the congestion on other surrounding roads such as Darley Green Road, Grove Road and Knowle Wood Road. These roads are only suitable for very light traffic and would not be able to cope with the anticipated volume of traffic. Due to the limited available land I could not see road widening being a viable option in these cases.
 The development of Amber Site 413 would cause a significant increase in road traffic and therefore add to air and noise pollution. The recent development of Sainsbury's in Dorridge village centre has already caused a significant increase of traffic on Knowle Wood Road and Clyde Road so this development would only compound the problem. There is already a significant bottleneck, for extended periods of time, at the junction of Station Approach / Grange Road / Station Road, so a development at Site 413 would lead to further unacceptable levels of congestion.
 The number of vehicles and their general speed are of major concern in the area. Increased road traffic will in turn bring road safety issues. The section of Clyde Road from Blue Lake Road to Dorridge Road is barely wide enough for two cars to pass and so additional traffic will increase the risk of collision along this section. In addition, the turn from Clyde Road onto to Dorridge Road at the crossroads is particularly dangerous, especially as daytime parking is allowed along Dorridge Road. The primary route from Site 413 to Dorridge village centre will be along this dangerous section and this development would significantly increase the likelihood of a serious accident.
 The development of sites 8 and 9 (without even including Amber Site 413) will already compromise many of the principles laid out in the Neighbourhood Plan, particularly relating to Village Character and the Natural Environment. It is difficult to see how Amber Site 413 would be in "harmony with the rural character of the village". The housing density on the adjacent land of Avenue Road / Knowle Wood Road / Dorridge Road is 8.17 dwellings / hectare whereas the developer of Site 413 has proposed 340 dwellings on 9.7 hectares; a density equivalent to 35 dwellings / hectare. This differential in density clearly contravenes the policies laid out in the Neighbourhood Plan.
 In addition, Site 413 is currently surrounded by low density dwellings that sit sympathetically around the well-established Green Belt boundary. All these houses are detached, family houses or bungalows with plenty of green areas and spaces for cars. The proposed development would be visible from a considerable distance away, particularly the green belt land that borders the site. The draft KDBH Neighbourhood Plan 2018 - 2033 commented that residents wanted housing which protected and enhanced the character and appearance of the built environment, harmonising with the rural setting of the area and sitting well in the landscape. This development would not follow these principles. The proposed density of dwellings would not allow a sensitive transition between the open countryside and the built environment.
 Site 413 would put even greater strain on vital community services, particularly health. Some GP services are already stretched and facilities in the area for sport, leisure, exercise and recreation are already inadequate.
Summary
I believe there is a strong case to omit Site 413 from the Local Plan predominantly based on excessive congestion on a number of key roads and junctions, inadequate roads leading to road safety issues, increased strain on local services and the proposed development being totally out of character with the existing built environment.

There are so few green areas left in solihull we do not need more houses taking up that precious land.
The area on Rowood drive is used every day for dog walkers, children playing games, football matches. It's part of the local community and would be unjust to remove it to cram in more housing when there is already such little open space for us to enjoy in the local area.

Strongly object to A5 and 413. This is high quality green belt.
However 207 makes far more sense, less visual impact and close to M42 and major road access
Negatively impacts 'local character' in the National Planning Policy forum.
Visual Sensitivity is extremely high due to the openness of this location. Ruins visual approach from south
It's an elevated prominent location, so any development will be obvious before you reach Dorridge.
On a slope so greater risks of flooding
With the profile of Dorridge and this location, the development would impact the overall attractiveness of Solihull Borough.
Conflicts D1 policy

They should all be omitted

I especially object to ref A5 - land off Blue lake Rd. This is high quality green belt, farming and agricultural land currently and should remain so. Using high quality green belt land for development would surely ruin the very nature of the place and is unnecessary. There is plenty of land that sits between Knowle and Solihull that would be far less damaging to existing settlements if developed. There is absolutely no justification in turning high quality green belt land that defines the very nature of these settlements into high density developments. Much more appropriate land exists elsewhere. .

I write in response to the Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation with regard to the new "Amber" designation of the site at Golden End Farm (Ref A4 Site 59). I would like to register my objection to the proposed possible inclusion of this site for housing in the strongest possible terms.
The reasons for my objection to the removal of this site from the Green Belt are as follows:
1. The NPPF states that "Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances" and that "inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be considered except in very special circumstances. Knowle has experienced significant housing growth over the last 5 years. The Housing Needs Assessment completed by AECOM for the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath (KDBH) Neighbourhood Forum, in 2017, identified the housing need for the 3 villages in the period between 2014 - 2033 to be between 512 -1344 houses. This equates to around a maximum of 67 homes per annum over the period. The local plan in 2013 identified 3 sites in the area which have already delivered 211 dwellings with a development of a further 110 in progress. This together with the designation of the sites Hampton Road and the Arden Triangle which would provide up an additional 950 houses demonstrate that the inclusion of the Golden End Farm is not required to meet housing need in the next 20 years and it is unclear to me what the exceptional or very special circumstances might be that would justify the declassification of this site as Green Belt. I am extremely concerned that this would set a precedent of declassifying Green Belt land around the village of Knowle that would result in the village merging into other villages and towns creating urban sprawl in what is designated in a rural area to satisfy the greed of developers.

2. The revised NPPF that came into effect in July 2018 provides stronger protection for Green Belt and in addition to proving that exceptional circumstances exist for removing land from the Green Belt, the Council also need to demonstrate that is has fully examined other reasonable options to meet any needs for development.

Golden End Farm is within the Green Belt and I note that the Site Assessment, dated January 2019, classified the site at Golden End Farm as "very high" in fulfilling is purpose as Green Belt, scoring 11 out of a possible 12 points. It is therefore extremely concerning that you are proposing to down grade this site, which scored highly, in preference to any of the sites to the North West of Bentley Heath and to the South West of Dorridge, which were classified as "low" performing, scoring 5 and below.

Based on your own classification of sites, Golden End Farm would be classified as priority 7 "Greenfield in accessible highly performing Green Belt location" and as such would be an "unlikely" allocation. Given the number of houses already built and committed in KDBH, the sites already designated within the local plan at Hampton Road and the Arden Triangle, and the number of sites in the local area which have a much lower priority score and Green Belt performance score including all of the sites to the South West of Dorridge (27, 127, 199, 210 &247) and the sites to the North West of Bentley Heath (3,72, 88, 108, 207 & 419), it is evident that there are many other options within KDBH that have already been identified and which would be more suited for development.

3. The over development of Knowle has already impacted significantly on the setting of the village blurring the boundaries of the Green Belt and encroaching into the countryside. The proposed site at Golden End Farm (site 59) is bordered by Kixley Lane which is part of the Knowle conservation area and has a history stretching back to the 14th Century. The land around Kixley Lane provides a stunning natural environment on the doorstep of the village which is home to lots of wildlife including deer, badgers, herons, rabbits and foxes which are regularly spotted in the fields along with numerous other birds and smaller animals. The development of this site would adversely impact the conservation area and damage the natural environment and wildlife habitats thus irrevocably altering the character and appearance of Kixley Lane turning it from a country lane to the boundary of a housing estate further destroying the special character of Knowle.

4. The sites currently identified for development in KDBH within the local plan at Hampton Road (8) and the Arden Triangle (9) are both in Knowle. A further 950 houses will increase the number of properties in the area by around 25%. This would increase to 30% if the site at Golden End Farm was designated for development. It is not clear why Knowle is the focus of development sites when as stated there are numerous potential sites in the Dorridge and Bentley Heath areas, to say nothing of the 1200+ empty properties in and around Solihull and brownfield sites in and around areas like Shirley where there is considerable potential for redevelopment of sites that have already been previously developed.

The impact of the developments that have already taken place in the village demonstrate the development burden on existing economic and social infrastructure. This is illustrated by the congested roads, the lack of primary school places, difficulty in accessing GP services and NHS dental services and the lack of parking. The planned developments already included in the local plan will necessitate significant investment in infrastructure, far outstripping any contributions that you might attract from CIL contributions including:
* the requirement for around 200 primary school places (3 children per 100 houses x 7 school years) and 130 secondary school places (2 children per 100 houses x 7 school years) in a local school system that is already "full to bursting";
* Significant road alterations and parking provision will be needed to reduce congestion, calm traffic and provide access to new sites;
* the need for a full additional GP list together with all associated primary care accommodation; and
* the likelihood of the requirement for additional acute hospital, community and mental health facilities and services. Long waiting lists and inability to meet statutory targets by local providers demonstrate that these services and facilities are full.

The cumulative impact of a further 250 homes together with the existing development would place a wholly unacceptable burden on Knowle adversely impacting the village and people who already live here.

TOO MUCH FOCUS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHIRLEY AND SURROUNDING WITH OTHER AREAS OF THE SOLIHULL BOROUGH NOT. EING IMPACTED UPON.

My objection is influenced by the scale of proposed settlements for Knowle. plus as per previous comments, we should not be developing sites that will increase the volume of traffic through the village centre, an almost certain eventuality as most commutes will be nothing to solihull, Birmingham, the M42, HS2 stations and the airport. We need to be looking at developing near the M42, the Solihull Gap, which is amply able to absorb the obvious requirements for new housing, whilst still maintaining a "gap". Some developments in and around Knowle is fine, but the total needs scaling back.

See Letter

See attached letter

We write with respect to land off Blue Lake Road ref A5
We understand that this site is not included in the plan but that you have invited further consultation.
Our view is that it should not be developed and in any sequential test should not be released from the green belt. It is on the rural fringe and is far too visible, from an amenity and landscape perspective it is far too valuable in preserving the nature and character of this part of the village. The immediate area is characterised by low density property in reasonable plots with direct frontage onto the established roads. Estate type development would not be appropriate.
Any consideration for development would produce such low numbers of houses that it's contribution to the plans housing numbers would not justify the damage to the traditional and established fabric and grain.
Blue Lake road forms an informal route in and out of the countryside for many walkers and cyclists, a trend that is growing and should be encouraged. The current low traffic movements allow this recreational use, increased housing and traffic would kill off this amenity.
You will I am sure be aware of the flooding that takes place regularly on the low lying sections of road, losing field to concrete and tarmac will exacerbate this problem
Please protect the high quality environment that this part of Dorridge has offered many generations.

see attached document

Please see attached.

I attach for the record the Forum's response to the Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation

see letter of response re: Knowle sites

A RESPONSE TO QUESTION 38 IN RELATION TO SITE 413
am a local resident of Dorridge, and wish to make the following representation regarding Local Plan Consultation for site 413 Knowle Wood Road , Blue Lake Road and Grove Road are already overcrowded , not just in the morning and evenings.
LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION

I wish to express my concern and belief that Site 413 land off Blue Lake Road, Dorridge is omitted from the Local Plan as a site for residential development. This view is based on:

* There have recently been over 400 houses added to Knowle and Dorridge. That has placed significant additional constraints on roads and parking.

* Draft Local Plan suggests 900 to 950 residential units on two developments. This would create an even bigger strain on the already overcrowded areas. Not only would it lead to overcrowding , it will be very dangerous to pedestrians etc


* Station Road and Knowle High Street are in a conservation area .Not only local residents parking, and peak time parking, people also use this for parking for the station. Even greater congestion will of course lead to greater danger and capacity that simply cannot be accommodated.

* A Development of this size would also place a strain on the surrounding roads. Darley Green Road, Grove Road and Knowle Wood Road. They are minor roads and not designed for this type of traffic flow.

the responses in the attached letter have been made by the Knowle Society

See attached documents

see letter

Please find attached a response to various aspects of the supplementary consultation

Ref. Solihull Draft Local Plan Review - Supplementary Consultation January 2019
The Dickens Heath Residents Association welcomes the reduction in planned housing numbers on site 4 and deletion of site 13 with its access onto the B3102 Tanworth Lane Traffic Islands.

However based on the feedback from residents and the lack of information on addressing the existing traffic and infrastructure issues plus very widespread strong objections by the village to the Masterplan proposals to site 4 West of Dickens Heath we are objecting to the inclusion of this site.

In terms of the questionnaire we would respond to the relevant Questions as follows.

Scope of the consultation and overall assessment - while this indicates the objectives of the review when viewed in context it does not address the concerns raised by residents over existing well known traffic congestion issues and an inadequate rural highway network.

Dickens Heath Residents Association therefor strongly object to the Masterplan proposals for site 4.

A petition is being submitted to Solihull Council by Councillor Hawkins indicating some 1150 residents have lodged objection to site 4 in addition to a significant number of Emailed objections submitted to the Parish Council. We have also attended recent meetings at which the proposals have been presented and discussed and noted the level of objection and lack of any public support for the proposal at site 4.

Q 4 Blythe Infrastructure - its indicated highway improvements are only likely to be needed and off-street parking improvements at Dickens Heath only may be needed which does nothing to reassure residents that if site 4 were to be approved and included the council would provide the necessary infrastructure.
On sports and recreation lost provision is indicated as would be replaced but there are no sites indicated in the site 4 Masterplan.
The residents association regard it as a key priority that any future redevelopment ensures the existing sports grounds are retained within site 4

Q12 Site 4 Land West of Dickens Heath - while noting the councils laudable intentions to protect landscape features residents cannot be expected to support the inclusion of site 4 by writing a blank cheque for the proposed housing numbers given the experience of the totally inadequate highway infrastructure provided for the original Dickens Heath village as against its concept plan.
While it is understood that issues of highways and parking will be brought forward it is not possible to envisage how any satisfactory highway scheme could be implemented that would address both the proposed housing and ameliorate the existing congestion issues.

In respect of relocating the long established sports grounds for Old Yardleians Rugby Club, Highgate United FC, and Leafield FC these clubs have significant local support and the Residents Association would require alternative provision to an adequate standard within site 4.
The Residents Association is strongly opposed to an alternative more remote location into green belt countryside elsewhere.

Q14 Site 12 Land South of Dog Kennel Lane - this is adjacent to our Parish and impacts onto the main Dickens Heath traffic access. This site if included would need significant traffic attenuation measures.

Q34 Washed over green belt settlements - the Residents Association support the policy proposals at Whitlock's End and Cheswick Green subject to careful assessment of flooding issues at Cheswick Green sites.

Q38 Amber Sites - the Residents Association support the review and inclusion of all the Amber Sites as proposed.

Q40, 41, 42 & 43 Affordable Housing Policy - the Residents Association supports the retention of the existing unit number policy for measuring affordable housing provision.

Pegasus Group are instructed by Amber REI Limited to consider the
appropriateness of the proposed 'Amber Sites'. These representations relate to
question 38 of the Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation. In particular the
representations made relate to the land known as Land off Blue Lake Road,
Dorridge (Reference A5).