Policy KN2 : South of Knowle (Arden Triangle)
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14012
Received: 07/12/2020
Respondent: Ruth Kirby
Supports the policy as it provides more housing,
> This will provide more housing (purpose built) and will meet local educational needs while offering a wider curriculum. More energy efficient.
Satisfied that this policy has been sufficiently well developed in collaboration with all parts of the community and fully supports the policy without further modification.
I support this policy because: -
> This will provide more housing
> More purpose built, i.e., parking facilities, friendlier for neighbouring houses.
> Meets local educational needs and offers a broader curriculum.
> More energy efficient.
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14013
Received: 11/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs Sharon Butcher-Johns
> New school will utilise shared and modern facilities for primary and secondary pupils.
> Existing building outdated and expensive to maintain. New facilities will provide better sport, leisure and learning facilities that can be used and enjoyed by the wider community.
>Will displace school traffic from Station Road, reducing traffic congestion and alleviating parking problems.
> Safer environment travelling through and within the site for pedestrians/cyclists.
> Allows existing Arden school site to be allocated for a The proposals will provide a mix of
market and affordable homes, including smaller homes for young people and specialists, and housing that meets the needs of older people.
> Help to regenerate Knowle and increase footfall along the high street .
>
I/We are satisfied that Policy KN2 has been sufficiently well developed in collaboration with
all parts of the community and represents a Place Based approach that I/we can fully support
without further modification.
The new schools will:
Meet the educational needs of both primary and secondary pupils in the settlement
in a single location, utilising shared and modern facilities;
Provide a purpose-built educational setting to replace the out-dated, ageing fabric of
the existing Arden Academy, much of which is increasingly expensive to maintain and
service, energy inefficient, has poor infrastructure and a lack of community facilities;
Deliver improved and modern infrastructure that will support education and increase
opportunities for pupils at all stages of their learning, as well as providing better
sport, leisure and learning facilities that can be used and enjoyed by the wider community;
Be located away from Station Road with the main vehicular access taken from Warwick Road. This will displace school traffic away from Station Road, improving highway safety, reducing traffic congestion and alleviating parking problems;
Provide a safer environment when travelling to and from school, with good pedestrian and cycling connectivity from both within and through the site to the schools;
Allow the release of the existing Arden school site to provide for new residential development on the most accessible and sustainable parts of the Arden Triangle site,near to village centres and public transport links. The proposals will provide a mix of
market and affordable homes, including smaller homes for young people and specialist
housing to meet the needs of older people. This will also help regenerate Knowle and
our wider local community by supporting local businesses seeking increased footfall
along the high street to maintain economic strength and viability.
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14062
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mr Stephen Evans
Make no comment but supports policy KN2
N/A
N/A
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14066
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Turley
Support in principle but object to the Masterplan as proposed.
Concern the masterplan is not based on sound evidence and does not respond appropriately to the site’s constraints and opportunities.
The western end of the allocation represents the least constrained land, so surprising that the relocated school is where it is. No evidence to support or justify relocation and the reasons given are contested.
SMBC need to continue to engage with landowners to reach agreement.
A revised masterplan is being prepared which will respond to the site’s constraints and opportunities, and ultimately the Council’s aspirations and principles for how it should be delivered.
Change to concept Masterplan for Site KN2
See attached documents.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14081
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Bus Action Partnership (KDBH)
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
- Plan refers to Local Walking and Cycling Implementation Plan and routes, but these are not marked on Concept Masterplans for KN1 and KN2.
- Illustrative Masterplans could show indicative safe & attractive walking and cycling routes.
Modification – Plan should reference Knowle Transport Study, and make concept masterplans compatible with evidence.
See Attached Letter
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14082
Received: 11/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs Wenke Gold
Number of people: 2
> Believes Arden school is currently in need of improvement and the proposed housing development means that a new primary and secondary education facility is absolutely necessary.
> New facility will provide a better learning environment for students as well as better facilities for students and the wider community.
> New school site located away from station road thus alleviating traffic congestion and parking issues.
Safer travelling conditions for cyclists and pedestrians to.
> Release the existing Arden site school for mixed development in the most accessible and sustainable parts of the Arden Triangle site.
> Fully supports these proposals as the culmination of long-standing collaboration among stakeholders to find a deliverable and realisable development solution. It is clear that new residential development within Knowle is an inevitable consequence of Local and National planning needs and obligations. Given this, We firmly believe that these proposals maximise the community benefit of these inevitable developments.
N/A
We wish to support the plan KN2 and the plan for the new Arden School. Arden is an amazing school and currently one of the main reasons people move into the area. Current facilities, however, are not representative of the quality of education going on within its walls. It would be vitally important for the community to have improved facilities at Arden even without the planned housing development. With the new housing plans a new school and primary school will be absolutely necessary.
The new schools will:
· Meet the educational needs of both primary and secondary pupils in the settlement in a single location, utilising shared and modern facilities;
· Provide a purpose-built educational setting to replace the out-dated, ageing fabric of the existing Arden Academy, much of which is increasingly expensive to maintain and service, energy inefficient, has poor infrastructure and a lack of community facilities;
· Deliver improved and modern infrastructure that will support education and increase opportunities for pupils at all stages of their learning, as well as providing better sport, leisure and learning facilities that can be used and enjoyed by the wider community;
· Be located away from Station Road with the main vehicular access taken from Warwick Road. This will displace school traffic away from Station Road, improving highway safety, reducing traffic congestion and alleviating parking problems;
· Provide a safer environment when travelling to and from school, with good pedestrian and cycling connectivity from both within and through the site to the schools;
· Allow the release of the existing Arden school site to provide for new residential development on the most accessible and sustainable parts of the Arden Triangle site, near to village centres and public transport links. The proposals will provide a mix of market and affordable homes, including smaller homes for young people and specialist housing to meet the needs of older people. This will also help regenerate Knowle and our wider local community by supporting local businesses seeking increased footfall along the high street to maintain economic strength and viability.
We fully support these proposals as the culmination of long-standing collaboration among stakeholders to find a deliverable and realisable development solution. It is clear that new residential development within Knowle is an inevitable consequence of Local and National planning needs and obligations. Given this, We firmly believe that these proposals maximise the community benefit of these inevitable developments.
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14086
Received: 10/12/2020
Respondent: Mr Youssef Hennous
> The current school is ageing and is increasingly expensive to maintain. A new school facility will help the school to achieve higher results and improve students outcomes.
> New facilities will also be a benefit for the local communities.
The current main builds weren’t built to host so many people and the design layout wasn’t purposely thought of and therefore a new purpose built school is desperately needed in order to overcome the challenges caused by the old and inadequate layout; an example of this is like the space in corridors and stairs is not built to cope with so many people and also the services such as drainage, electrics are all in desperate need of replacement, but this will cost more than having it done as part of a new school build.
The current main school buildings are old (built in 1950s), in need of a lot of maintenance, which is taking a lot of time from site staff and also money spent on repairs. Arden is highly achieving school, this is achieved by the hard work of its pupils and staff and surely by having a new school built with new facilities, this will make the school achieve even higher results and improve students’ outcome even further. Also by having a new school it will also benefit the community with its new facilities for the surrounding community such as library, swimming pool etc. I full y support this project and I hope it will materialise.
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14089
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes
Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP
No objection in principle to the allocation, although the site has recognised complex land ownership issues.
Question whether the site can be delivered as expected or whether additional land needs to be included as part of the allocation. In this case a logical extension to this allocation would be Land at east of Warwick Road and north of Wyndley Garden Centre (site 552 in the Site Assessment October 2020).
The allocation should be extended to include Land at east of Warwick Road and north of Wyndley Garden Centre (site 552 in the Site Assessment October 2020).
See attached document. Land at Knowle
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14154
Received: 11/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs Elisabeth Hedley
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan is unsound in that it has not provided the evidence to demonstrate that this large strategic site is viable and deliverable. Comprehensive delivery of the ew Academy alongside the new housing is essential in view of the rationale for the site's selection. Further concerns relate to accessibility; the effectiveness of proposed infrastructure mitigation measures and unacceptable impacts of proposed densities on layout and design having regard to the character of the area.
Questions the data in the accessibility study, especially in relation to accessibly to public transport and GP surgeries
Says mitigation in respect of transport and health are minimal.
Concern over proposed densities and design don't reflected what's in the KDBH Neighbourhood plan.
Needs to be lower density.
Please find attached my responses to the Local Plan consultation. All three documents address the issue of the soundness of the Plan.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14298
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: L&Q Estates - Land at Four Ashes Road Dorridge
Agent: Pegasus Group
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Difficult to see how delivery of 600 across two phases, 0-5 years and 5-10 years will be achieved.
The site, is in fragmented ownership. No evidence that the land parcels will come forward within the timescale identified. The concept masterplan shows a complex area, with several different issues to overcome. These need to be addressed in a coordinated way.
Difficult to see how required Green Belt enhancements could be achieved given the amount of built development being proposed.
Concerns about the development on the southern section of the site given constraints. Capacity of the allocation should therefore be reduced which would allow Green Belt compensation to be provided at source. Further capacity can be found elsewhere in the settlement (e.g. site 199 Land at Four Ashes Road).
Policy KN2 and the associated concept masterplan should be revised to reduce the capacity of the site and provide adequate compensation for the loss of Green Belt. Deliverability must also be clearly demonstrated to ensure that the policy is sound.
See attachments.
Land at four ashes road dorridge
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14461
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy KN2- the provision of social and affordable housing should be prioritised as the Council has some ownership.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14493
Received: 10/02/2021
Respondent: Mr David Roberts
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Will all have congestion creating capability.
You can wait for hours in Dog Kennel Lane in the morning to get out on to the A3400.
KN2 housing number needs clarity.
the relocation of the Academy access off Warwick Road A4100 is the narrow pavement up Stripes Hill into Knowle village. This could be more hazardous than the existing narrow pavements on the current access to the school on Station Road.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14606
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Stephen Rouse
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
- The reasons for demolishing the existing Arden Academy and loss of so much green belt for housing has been justified by the evidence.
- The Council previously consulted on two options; one to retain the school (option 1) and the other to relocate it (option 2). There was no option to retain the school and improve the facilities.
- no any proper analysis been made available of the pros and cons of options 1 and 2. There is no evidence to demonstrate why the existing buildings cannot be extended and improved.
- If an improvement option were to be thoroughly tested and was shown to be a more viable solution, then there would not be the need for so many houses or such extensive and damaging loss of green belt.
- It has offered no evidence in relation to either the physical or financial viability of improving the Academy in situ. The justification for Policy KN 2, involving the allocation of a large site capable of delivering a new secondary and primary school plus 600 houses, is therefore totally inadequate and the Plan is not sound.
Evidence to demonstrate that improvement of the Academy in situ is not viable should be submitted alongside evidence to show how it compares to the viability and delivery of the relocated Academy. Without such evidence, the Plan is unsound and Policy KN2 should be deleted.
See Attached Document
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14651
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Mr M Trentham
The need for a new Primary School, partly arising from the 780 new dwellings on allocated sites and local windfalls is acknowledged, and its proposed location within KN2 is accepted, and also can be accommodated
See attachments
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14663
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd (Dorridge Site)
Agent: Barton Willmore
Support the principle of the KN2 allocation but have significant concerns that the level of growth identified is not deliverable.
The relocation and delivery of an all through school is not listed in the IDP -it only refers to requirement for primary school places. If the new school will be part funded by developer contributions and other sources, this should be made clear as it will be key to establishing that the school and housing is deliverable. Delivery of an all through school should be assessed through the Viability Study in order to determine whether the site can be delivered at all, let alone with a policy-compliant affordable housing provision and other infrastructure requirements.
The site has a number of landowners which could affect assembly and deliverability. Lack of evidence is submitted to demonstrate availability and deliverability.
A full assessment of the site’s availability, obligations and requirements should be undertaken, particularly around the deliverability of the new all through school. It is likely additional sites will be needed to help fund this, and our Client’s land can assist. This should be reflected in the IDP and Viability Study.
See attached documents
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14697
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs Victoria Wadsworth
I confirm that I support KN2 and believe that is is legally complaint and sound. The proposed policy is the outcome of length collaborative approach involving landowners, Arden Academy, parents, students and the local community.
I am satisfied that KN2 has been sufficiently well development in collaboration with the entire community and represents place based approach that I fully support without the need for modification.
See Attached Documentation
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14711
Received: 11/12/2020
Respondent: David Phillips
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Development not considered to be sound as its a land swap and they do not own the land.
It will cause significant distruption to the community, increas the construction time and traffic, increase danger to children commuting to 5 schools in the area,
Existing School is adequate
LP has identified only the need for one extra primary year group therefore should only extend one of the existing primary schools.
Proposed entrance within a dangerous location.
Cause challenges due to parental parking. On street parking already taken up by train station users.
No bus routes serving the area,
Increased risk to children who commute by foot to all schools in the area.
The houses should be built on the unoccupied land with Arden remaining on the existing site as outlined above.
See attached document
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14712
Received: 11/12/2020
Respondent: Mr James Mc Bride
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Policy KN2 is unsound on the basis that insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate the site is deliverable with ‘multiple and potential complex land assembly issues’ (paragraph 709) still remining to be resolved, as well as replacement playing fields. There is also insufficient evidence to demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been considered in reaching the decision to relocate and rebuild Arden School, to justify that it is an appropriate strategy. This is contrary to the deliverability and developability requirements for site allocations and the requirement to justify a strategy as
set out in National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Appendix 2: Glossary and paragraphs 35, 67 and 72.
The need to demonstrate deliverability and developability has not been evidenced. The Concept Masterplan
document appears to reinforce the lack of a comprehensive agreed approach with three concept plans included in addition to the SMBC Illustrative Concept Masterplan.
There is concern that there is no detailed evidence to justify the need for the replacement and upgrade of Arden Academy Secondary School and the development of a new Primary School.
Our Client contends that insufficient evidence has been provided to justify Policy KN2, to robustly demonstrate that:
• the multiple complex land assembly issues have been overcome and there is agreement by all landowners to the site being brought forward on the development basis set out in the Concept Masterplan document;
• the demolition of Arden Academy and its relocation to a new site within the proposed KN2 site allocation is the most appropriate strategy having regard to reasonable alternatives; and
• there is a fully developed masterplan strategy with appropriate playing pitch replacement strategy.
19. Policy KN2 is currently unsound, when assessed against the requirements for policies and proposals to be justified as set out at NPPF paragraph 35 b).
Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that: 600 dwellings could be delivered in the periods 0-5 years and 5 to 10 years from 2020 or that the proposed mixed use development with relocation of Arden Academy is an
appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives.
20. Paragraphs 225 and 226 should therefore be amended to remove the estimated contribution of proposed site allocation KN2 from Delivery Phases I and II and Policy KN2 amended as necessary in the light of the findings of additional evidence gathering, negotiations with landowners and masterplan work.
see attached representation forms
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14726
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Mr Ian Williams
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Lack of evidence regarding the deliverability and viability of this allocation.
In addition to physical constraints, particularly the challenge of locating the through school and sports pitches on sloping ground, there are landownership issues and disagreement over the masterplan.
Densities are still too high and not reflective of the area’s character or Neighbourhood Plan policies.
Transport and health mitigation measures are not effective.
A raft of measures that are needed to add to or strengthen policy provisions in relation to KN2: South of Knowle (Arden Triangle). They concern densities; community access; highway access; trees and hedgerows; structure planting; primary health care; bus services; footpaths; and concept masterplans.
Other sites should be released if the number of dwellings on KN2 reduces.
Modifications as proposed in the representations for Policy KN2 which include:
Setting out densities specifically.
Referencing Neighbourhood Plan policies relating to community access to school.
No vehicular access to the schools off Station Road.
Important landscape features specifically mentioned.
Need for a landscaping strategy to include screen planting along Warwick Road.
Developer contributions will be required for related improvements to the local primary health care system;
Provision shall be made for access to enhanced bus services;
Retention of exiting rights of way along current alignment.
No departure from the principles and other requirements applying to Site KN2.
No commencement of development until a planning obligation has been executed governing the nature of the development; its timing and phasing; and the funding of all aspects.
Additional para after Para 720 as follows:
That part of the site adjacent to Station Road is closer to bus routes and to the amenities of Knowle and Dorridge. Higher densities would be appropriate. Elsewhere, the landscape setting and proximity to the listed Rotten Row Farm dictate a lower density of housing, reducing in a southerly and easterly direction reflecting the transition to countryside.
Additional para after Para 724 as follows:
"Policy KN2 requires access to enhanced bus services. As a minimum, applicants will be expected to negotiate with providers to achieve a meaningful diversion of existing services into the site. Increased frequency and the provision of new services shall also be considered and addressed where feasible".
Additional constraints and Valued landscape features should be named.
See attachments.
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14733
Received: 11/12/2020
Respondent: Les Edwards
Number of people: 4
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Policy KN2 is unsound on the basis that insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate the site is deliverable with ‘multiple and potential complex land assembly issues’ (paragraph 709) still remaining to be resolved, as well as replacement playing fields. There is also insufficient evidence to demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been considered in reaching the decision to relocate and rebuild Arden School, to justify that it is an appropriate strategy. This is contrary to the deliverability and developability requirements for site allocations and the requirement to justify a strategy as
set out in NPPF Appendix 2: Glossary
and paragraphs 35, 67 and 72.
Insufficient evidence has been provided to justify Policy KN2, or to demonstrate delivery.
Paragraphs 225 and 226 should therefore be amended to remove the estimated contribution of proposed site allocation KN2 from Delivery Phases I and II and
Policy KN2 amended as necessary in the light of the findings of additional evidence gathering, negotiations with landowners and masterplan work.
See attached
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14748
Received: 11/12/2020
Respondent: Sonia Smith
Number of people: 4
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Policy KN2 is unsound on the basis that insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate the site is deliverable with ‘multiple and potential complex land assembly issues’ (paragraph 709) still remaining to be resolved, as well as replacement playing fields. There is also insufficient evidence to demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been considered in reaching the decision to relocate and rebuild Arden School, to justify that it is an appropriate strategy. This is contrary to the deliverability and developability requirements for site allocations and the requirement to justify a strategy as
set out in NPPF Appendix 2: Glossary
and paragraphs 35, 67 and 72.
Insufficient evidence has been provided to justify Policy KN2, or to demonstrate delivery.
Paragraphs 225 and 226 should therefore be amended to remove the estimated contribution of proposed site allocation KN2 from Delivery Phases I and II and
Policy KN2 amended as necessary in the light of the findings of additional evidence gathering, negotiations with landowners and masterplan work.
See attached
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14755
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Mr Ian Williams
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Concept Materplan - To reflect the character of the area, future housing on the Arden Academy site should be no higher than medium density. In addition, and to effect a transition between built development and countryside, the housing along the southern and eastern sides of the site should be low density. Other modifications are needed to make the document succinct and to include or amplify details relating to the objective / aim of the development, phasing and delivery, household types, landscaping and highway matters.
Various modification to the Masterplan as set out in representations including:
Annotate Landscape Assessment Plan to show school playing fields, trees and parkland, contours, extent of semi-improved grassland and structural landscaping opportunities.
Developer masterplan to be deleted.
Include the objective for including the site i.e. to build a new through school funded by housing. available for use by the public.
A planning obligation (or similar binding legal agreement) will be necessary to secure the objectives of the site.
Inclusion of likely required household types and reference to Neighbourhood Plan policies.
Include a maximum density of 40dph reducing towards Grove Road and Warwick Road.
Include reference to the integrated drainage strategy featuring “a strong green framework for the development and include screen planting along the Warwick Road frontage.”
Clarify the position regarding access onto Grove Road (one access point or two) and required junction works.
See attachments.
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14759
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Kevin OReilly
-Support Policy KN2 meets the tests of soundness and compliant with legislation.
- current building not fit for purpose
- more housing needed within the area
- local businesses will benefit.
See Attached
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14787
Received: 11/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs Helen McBride
Supports the relocation of Arden School to the new ‘Arden Triangle Location’. Not only would the area benefit from a state of the art campus (for all stages of learning) but also it would lead to improved traffic flow along Station Road – which is really terrible around the drop off/pick up time.
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14791
Received: 13/12/2020
Respondent: Mrs Amanda Griffin
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Does not support policy KN2;
Bigger not necessarily better - need for renovation - doesn't agree with housing being built.
"I do not know enough about this to say".
See attachment
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14796
Received: 11/12/2020
Respondent: Mr Steve Lane
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Policy KN2 is unsound. Insufficient evidence to demonstrate deliverability, with ‘multiple and potential complex land assembly issues’ still to be resolved, as well as replacement playing fields.
Insufficient evidence that reasonable alternatives have been considered in reaching the decision to relocate and rebuild Arden School. ,
No justification for the replacement and upgrade of Arden Academy Secondary School and the development of a new Primary School and no mention in the IDP.
The financial and carbon cost of demolishing the existing structures and constructing new premises may be significantly more than the alternative option of upgrading and extending existing facilities as required.
Minimising the financial contributions required through CIL and S106 developer contributions towards the Policy KN2 relocation and redevelopment of the schools proposal, would potentially enable larger contributions to be made towards other essential infrastructure needs.
Insufficient evidence has been provided to justify Policy KN2, to robustly demonstrate that:
• the multiple complex land assembly issues have been overcome and there is agreement by all landowners to the site being brought forward on the development basis set out in the Concept Masterplan document;
• the demolition of Arden Academy and its relocation to a new site within the proposed KN2 site allocation is the most appropriate strategy having regard to reasonable alternatives; and
• there is a fully developed masterplan strategy with appropriate playing pitch replacement strategy.
Policy KN2 is currently unsound, when assessed against the requirements for policies and proposals to be justified as set out at NPPF paragraph 35 b). Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that: 600 dwellings could be delivered in the periods 0-5 years and 5 to 10 years from 2020 or that the proposed mixed use development with relocation of Arden Academy is an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives.
Paragraphs 225 and 226 should therefore be amended to remove the estimated contribution of proposed site allocation KN2 from Delivery Phases I and II and Policy KN2 amended as necessary in the light of the findings of additional evidence gathering, negotiations with landowners and masterplan work.
Tidbury Green Policy P17 ‘Countryside and Green Belt’, Justification paragraphs 423 and 430, and the Policies Map.
1. Our Client Mr S Lane submits that the settlement of Tidbury Green should be inset within the Green Belt with the introduction of a Green Belt boundary around the perimeter of the village. The absence of a settlement boundary (as shown on the Policies Map) is unsound as it is contrary to national planning policy, for the following reasons –
• Land which is unnecessary to keep open has been retained within the Green Belt – contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 139b);
• Insufficient policy weight has been given to encouraging the development of all suitable land within existing small settlements to avoid the need to adjust Green Belt boundaries beyond the plan period – contrary to NPPF paragraph 139 e);
• Insufficient account has been taken of the more recent large-scale development which has occurred at Tidbury Green and the findings of the Green Belt Assessment, 2016. It is therefore contrary to NPPF paragraph 140 to continue to include the village within the Green Belt as it is no longer necessary to ‘restrict development in the village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt’; and
• Insufficient emphasis has been placed on the requirement to prioritise the efficient use of land, particularly brownfield land lying within settlement – contrary to NPPF paragraph 68, 117, 118 and 138.
2. These representations are submitted on behalf of our Client, Mr. S Lane, who owns ‘Steve Lane Cars Limited’, Tidbury Green Garage, 1 Lowbrook Lane, Tidbury Green, B90 1QR. They affirm that without substantive changes to the Draft Sub-mission Solihull Local Plan (SLP) Policy P17 ‘Countryside and Green Belt’ supporting justification and accompanying Policies Map showing Tidbury Green partially washed over by Green Belt and partially as ‘white land’ on the Policies Map it is unsound.
3. This representation should be read alongside the representations submitted on behalf of our Client in respect Policy P5 ‘Provision of Land for Housing’. Our Client contends that Policy P5 is unsound and has not undertaken the necessary steps regarding the legal Duty to Cooperate. The deliverability and developability of many of the proposed sources of residential land supply have not been robustly demonstrated and do not satisfy national planning policy requirements.
4. The result of the Council’s failure to identify a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable housing sites means that there is an immediate need to identify additional and/or alternative sustainable, suitable sites or broad areas. This would include removal of appropriate settlements currently washed over by Green Belt to facilitate meaningful windfall development by providing an inset boundary.
5. Removing land from the Green Belt should only occur through the plan-making process when justified by ‘exceptional circumstances’, as detailed in NPPF paragraphs 136 and 137. The significant need for housing and the shortage of an adequate housing land supply outside the Green Belt has satisfied this ‘exceptional circumstances’ test. However, to ensure that the minimum amount of protected greenfield Green Belt land is required for housing, it is important to both ensure that the Green Belt boundaries will endure beyond the plan period and to ensure that the land which is removed is put to the most effective use, to reduce future pressure to review Green Belt boundaries again.
6. In order to minimise the adverse impact on the Green Belt and prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, it is logical that land within the Green Belt, which is previously developed, and which currently contributes the least towards the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, should be prioritised for removal from the Green Belt and allocated for more intensive sustainable development. This will ensure the scale of greenfield Green Belt land required to meet the growth needs for the Borough are kept to a minimum and the impact on the Green Belt minimised – in line with national sustainable development objectives to protect resources and make effective use of land (NPPF paragraph 8).
7. Paragraph 140 of the NPPF states that, ‘If it is necessary to restrict development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt…’ Therefore, conversely, it must be assumed that it would be inappropriate to include a village within the Green Belt which does not make an ‘important contribution’ towards the openness of the Green Belt.
8. NPPF paragraph 139 requires, ‘when defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should, amongst other objectives:
a) ensure consistency with the development plan’s strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development;
b) not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open…
e) be able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period; and
f) define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.’ (our emphasis)
9. The character of Tidbury Green has changed significantly following the grant of planning permission at appeal for residential development at Lowbrook Farm and Tidbury Green Farm – identified as ‘white land’ on the Policies Map.
10. As part of the SLP Green Belt review process, it therefore vital for SMBC to critically examine whether it is still in line with national and local plan strategic policies for the larger, more sustainable settlements, which make little contribution towards openness, to continue to be washed over by Green Belt - particularly those with significant pockets of more densely developed ‘white land’, as is the case at Tidbury Green.
11. Our Client contends that it is unnecessary to keep the village ‘permanently open’ and it is in a sustainable location suitable for accommodating higher density windfall development to make the most efficient use of the land. Indeed, it is understood that the Tidbury Green village population has more than doubled since 2011, primarily as a result of the construction of the two significant new housing estates to the east and north west of the site. The character of the village has therefore changed significantly since it was originally washed over with Green Belt.
12. NPPF paragraph 138 explains that when reviewing Green Belt boundaries, it is necessary to consider promoting sustainable patterns of development. Plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport.
13. NPPF paragraph 68 requires local planning authorities to promote the development of a good mix of sites including by giving, ‘c) support the development of windfall sites through their policies and decisions – giving great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes…’
14. NPPF paragraph 117 requires that, ‘Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land’
15. NPPF Paragraph 118 explains that planning policies and decisions should, amongst other aims: ‘c) give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, and d) promote and support the development of underutilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used more effectively.’
16. Encouragement is given to sustainable development of land, NPPF paragraph 122, states that, ‘Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land’, whilst, of course, respecting the prevailing character of the area, the availability of infrastructure and services, viability, the need for different housing types, and the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places.
17. Paragraph 223 of the Draft Submission Solihull Local Plan (SLP) recognises the important contribution housing development on windfall sites can make to the housing requirement. Post 2022 it is anticipated that 200 dwellings will be provided on windfall sites per annum, which equates to approximately 21% of the borough’s housing need.
18. NPPF paragraph 123 requires that, ‘Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site.’
19. For the following reasons, the ‘washed over’ Green Belt designation for Tidbury Green settlement, (which includes our Client’s approximately 0.08ha brownfield site suitable and available for more efficient use - as set out in more detail below), should be inset into the Green Belt with a settlement boundary.
20. Tidbury Green does not have an ‘open character’ making an ‘important contribution’ towards the openness of the Green Belt. SMBC’s Green Belt Assessment published in July 2016, concluded that, other than the ribbon of development fronting onto Tilehouse Lane which scored only 3 (RP74), it has a combined score of zero out of a possible maximum score of 12 (RP76) when judged against the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt as set out at paragraph 134 of the NPPF:
a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.’
21. This means that it is judged to contribute little to these purposes. The Report states on page 17 that ‘There are however Refined Parcels which do not perform against any of the first four purposes of Green Belt. These parcels include…RP76 Land between Lowbrook Lane and Norton Lane.’
22. Development on windfall sites within a new settlement boundary at Tidbury Green would cause less harm to openness and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt than the majority of the proposed site allocations in the SLP which score more highly in the Green Belt Assessment. Brownfield previously developed land is a priority for directing development to ensure effective use of resources and minimise the need for development on greenfield sites.
23. Many of the proposed sites for allocation are situated in areas which make a moderate to high contribution towards the Green Belt purposes, have landscapes sensitive to development, have a rural character, and have other constraints, such as existing playing fields, heritage assets of areas of high ecological importance – none of these constraints restrict development on brownfield land within Tidbury Green settlement.
24. Tidbury Green is in a sustainable location. Our Client’s site which is centrally located within the settlement is less than 300 metres from bus stops, to the north and north east, and Tidbury Green School lies less than 200 metres from the site. Tidbury Green also benefits from two churches, a sports and social club, a restaurant and village hall. Planning permission has recently been granted for a public house in Grade II Listed Tidbury Green Farm on Fulford Hall Road (planning application number PL/2019/00039/PPFL).
25. Wythall/Grimes Hill, about 0.9 km away, has a post office, Spar and surgery while approximately 1km north east Dickens Heath offers a wider range of retail, restaurant and community facilities.
26. There are two railway stations available for Tidbury Green residents, at Wythall and Whitlock’s End. Whitlock’s End railway station, approximately 1.5 km to the north of the existing site, provides a 20-minute service frequency to Kidderminster, Worcester, Birmingham and Stratford-on-Avon. Wythall station, which lies approximately 1 km from the centre of Tidbury Green to the west, provides hourly services to Stourbridge Junction, Birmingham and Stratford-Upon-Avon.
27. This brownfield site comprises a hard surface forecourt with space for 22 cars adjacent to the junction, and a two-storey brick and tile building adjacent to residential dwellings. The building comprises a car sales area, vehicle workshop, and two independent residential units – one within the remaining ground floor area and the other at first floor level.
28. The site is not within an area liable to the risk of flooding and none of the existing buildings or any buildings within the vicinity are of any special architectural significance and the site does not lie within a Conservation Area.
29. SMBC’s Meeting Housing Needs Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), 2004 ‘Planning for Local Housing Market Demand’ subsection, paragraph 9.6 states that, the Council will expect developments to contribute towards addressing mismatches between housing demand and supply to meet the Local Plan objective to address imbalances between housing supply and local demand. In the rural housing market area of Tidbury Green, the proportion of 1- and 2-bedroom dwellings sought will be 50% of all new market dwellings. Paragraph 9.7, Step 1, states that there is evidence of a need for flat/apartment development in all locations and provision of this type of accommodation will be supported in principle.
30. Our Client’s site provides a representative example of the scale of redevelopment which could be achieved on suitable, sustainable windfall sites within Tidbury Green. The approximately 0.08 ha roughly rectangular site is located within a residential, built-up area, at the junction of Lowbrook Lane, Dickens Heath Road, Fulford Hall Road and Tilehouse Lane within the village.
31. A potential redevelopment scheme for the site has been produced in consultation with a highway engineer. The illustrative layout (plan number 20013(ALL)01-A – Enclosure 1) demonstrates that five 1-bed and four 2-bed apartments (with 15 parking spaces) could be provided. This would also contribute towards meeting the identified local need for smaller dwellings, particularly for flats/apartments. With the site’s position on a corner, this allows the opportunity for a ‘landmark’ building to be created at this prominent entrance to the village.
32. Development within a new inset boundary, rather than development within the village of Tidbury Green being limited to purely ‘infill’ development or the complete redevelopment of previously developed land, would cause less harm to openness and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt than many/all of the proposed site allocations.
33. Introducing an inset Green Belt settlement boundary for Tidbury Green would allow small and medium sized windfall sites such as our Client’s site to be brought forward within the new boundary for residential development in this sustainable larger village, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 68 recommendations.
34. Tidbury Green settlement has clearly defined physical defensible boundaries of roads, woodland and the River Cole could form the new Green Belt boundary in accordance with NPPF requirements.
35. ‘Tidbury Green’ should be deleted from paragraph 3 bullet point i. Policy P17 ‘Countryside and Green Belt’.
36. At Policy P17 paragraph 6 Tidbury Green should be added to the list of small inset settlements in the Green Belt which are not therefore subject to Green Belt policy.
37. Justification paragraph 423 should delete reference to ‘Tidbury Green’.
38. Justification paragraph 430 should add ‘Tidbury Green’ to the list of settlements which are referred to as inset from the Green Belt.
39. The Policies Map should be amended to inset Tidbury Green settlement from the Green Belt as shown on Enclosure 2 below forming part of this representation
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14800
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Malcolm Priest
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objects to Policy KN2;
Concerns that the narrow bridleway that provides access to Station Road could be used by a heavy volume of traffic to access the proposed new school and any other buildings or as a drop off point - support the representations regarding the plans made by KDBH Neighbourhood Forum - overdevelopment in Arden triangle.
I am writing to make a submission in connection with the above plan with specific reference to Policy KN2 .
As the owner of ( Mantisson Ltd ) and occupier ( Greswolde Construction Ltd ) of Greswolde House 197a Station Rd Knowle Solihull B93 0PU which is accessed from Station Rd via the bridleway . I have concerns that the narrow bridleway could be used by a heavy volume of traffic to access the proposed new school and any other buildings or as a drop off point .This would be detrimental to all properties which are in close proximity and lead to a traffic logjam at key times .
I support the representations regarding the plans made by KDBH Neighbourhood Forum .
I question the viability and density of the proposed plans in the Arden Triangle and whether any community benefits will actually be generated from such overdevelopment .
Object
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14816
Received: 02/12/2020
Respondent: Mr Stephen Duffield
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
I do not see how moving the entrance to the school from a quiet B road with little HGV traffic (because of the low bridge at Dorridge) to a busy A road can in any way improve Student safety.
Even using the most optimistic income and building cost
figures as supplied by the Council there is a funding shortfall of £14 million.
the available funds would be far better spent on a thorough
modernisation of the existing school.
See attachment
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14836
Received: 12/12/2020
Respondent: Idverde UK Limited
Concept Masterplan follows a Placed Based approach.
Concept Masterplan is the outcome of a lengthy collaborative approach involving landowners, Arden Academy, parents, students, and many members of the local community who, alongside the Council, have sought to establish a Place-Based concept masterplan that all parties can support in principle.
Open and collaborative approach.
See attachment
Support
Solihull Local Plan (Draft Submission) 2020
Representation ID: 14856
Received: 14/12/2020
Respondent: Ms Celia O'Donovan
Supports Policy KN2;
utilises shared/modern facilities - provide purpose built educational facility - better provide for students and the wider community - safer travelling environment to and from - release of Arden school site for development -
We are satisfied that Policy KN2 has been sufficiently well developed in
collaboration with all parts of the community and represents a Place Based
approach that we can fully support without further modification.
See attachment