Q23. Are there any other comments you wish to make on the Draft Local Plan?

see attached letter and supporting annotated map

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Housing :-

"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of ALL Greenbelt land where there are alternative PDL sites available; especially those in Balsall Common known as Barratt's Farm and Windmill Lane. The latter is an historical site in which no development should be allowed to encroach into and ruin.
The reasons for my objection are below.

The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated. If Balsall Common must be subjected to yet more development, it seems ridiculous that greenbelt can be released when there are so many other brownfield sites available.

Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

Buses to and from the village are infrequent (1 an hour) and there is such heavy demand for the train service from Berkswell station that trains are often full to capacity. The inadequate parking at the train station results in neighbouring roads being used as car parks for the full day and over night having a negative impact on movement around the edge of the village.

Within Balsall Common itself and its surrounding hamlets is often grid locked, particularly at rush hours and school run times or when a nearby major road has issues and traffic diverts through the village. Parking in the village and surrounding area of Berkswell is extremely limited and it is difficult to actually get to the amenities due to volume of traffic.

The local primary schools are already oversubscribed and bursting at their seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing. Traffic around the schools is a huge danger to the young children.

These sites are all considerable distance from the schools and amenities, and there would undoubtedly be a huge increase in volume of traffic as it would be considered too far to walk.
Balsall Common is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car.

Windmill Lane and Meeting House Lane will become even more of a "rat run". The volume of traffic already using Windmill Lane and Meeting House Lane as a cut through is high and the speed of this traffic is also already dangerous.

These sites scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) These sites removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

see letter - Objection to Solihull Draft Local Plan Review- Particularly Area 13.

In accordance with the consultation deadline for the Draft Local Plan Review, please find attached the following sent on behalf of our clients Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd:

* Letter addressing our representations on behalf of our client Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
* Appendix 1 Proposed Allocation Plan Layout
* Appendix 2 Grove Road, Knowle Promotional Document

I have just spent over an hour registering and endeavouring to fill out the incredibly cumbersome online form for the above only to find that next to none of it has saved. So, whilst I wanted to respond in the way suggested I am having to redo it via email. I did hear complaints about the form from others but thought it was due to their technical limitations - I realise now its due to SBCs limitations!

I now don't have as much time but I want to oppose in the strongest terms the above residential proposal. It seems to contradict many of the aims in your plan and looks like a dash for cash rather than a considered response to the boroughs housing needs!

It terms of health and well being the playing fields and the allotments are planned to be built on - in any studies these are key contributors to health and well being, not to mention developing community cohesion and actitiy for the young and the old.

In terms of sustainability the development is out or walking reach of shops and employment so will mean at least 150 extra cars - in a part of the village already congested. It is a highly visible site so wont add to the value or sense of place for those living here.

I know that there has been a environmental study undertaken meaning that the land at the most western part of the Frog Lane development wont be built on as it is ancient meadow land (that assessment has not been made public to my knowledge or indeed available to SBC). I am concerned that there will be contamination of the biodiversity of life on that land if the development were to go ahead.

There is ground water flooding on this site which will, if developed will run off into surrounding houses and farmland.

I could go on.

I think the plan is largely quite good - disagreeing with it is like disagreeing with world piece but you have not followed your own principles here - and you really should think again.

Good Evening

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my child at St George & St Teresa RC School. He attends this school while his sister was turned away due to lack of spaces.

We request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

My family is directly impacted and for the past two years I am making a daily journey to two primary schools at the same time in the morning and afternoon.

It is significantly impacting on my health and we have experienced severe stress in traffic while rushing to deliver both children on time.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed.


I look forward to hearing from you and understanding that my points have been addressed.

Kind regards

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to highlight the need for an increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my children at St George & St Teresa RC School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children within our parish and with siblings in our school. This can not continue. Especially when non catholic schools are offered as an alternative.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed.

Regards

Comments and representations of SMBC's draft Local Plan
This representation is made on behalf of Earlswood and Forshaw Heath Residents' Association which covers the northern area of the parish of Tanworth-in-Arden. There are approximately 1,600 residents in this area.

We wish to make representations as follows:

1. A significant number of the proposed developments are being built on Green Belt land. This is in direct contravention to the Conservative Election Manifesto of 2015. In particular:

P 53/84 Our commitment to you:
* give more people the chance to own their home by extending the Right to Buy to tenants of Housing Associations and create a Brownfield Fund to unlock homes on brownfield land;
* ensure local people have more control over planning and protect the Green Belt.

P 54/84 We will protect the Green Belt We have safeguarded national Green Belt protection and increased protection of important green spaces. We have abolished the Labour Government's top-down Regional Strategies which sought to delete the Green Belt in and around 30 towns and cities and introduced a new Local Green Space planning designation which allows councils and neighbourhood plans to give added protection to valuable local green spaces.

P 56/84 For Conservatives, Britain's 'green and pleasant land' is not some relic from a bygone era, to be mourned and missed: it's the living, breathing backdrop to our national life. Our moors and meadows, wildlife and nature, air and water are a crucial part of our national identity and make our country what it is. So we care about them deeply, want to protect them for everyone and pass them onto future generations.
Labour never understood this. Our rural communities fell further behind urban areas; biodiversity suffered, with important species and habitats declining under their watch; and they failed to protect the Green Belt.
Over the last five years, we have committed billions of pounds to reduce emissions from transport and clean up our rivers and seas. We have done more to protect our seas, safeguarded our Green Belt and planted 11 million trees. And we set out a comprehensive, long-term vision to protect our natural heritage in this country's first White Paper on the Natural Environment for 20 years.

We will protect the Green Belt, and maintain national protections for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and other environmental designations.

It is not clear to us how these proposed developments can be effected and still comply with the Government's commitment to protect the Green Belt when the Government hasn't announced any material changes to its Green Belt policies and would therefore oppose these developments as a consequence;

2. Again, for a number of SMBC's proposed development schemes outlined in the draft Local Plan that is out for review, there doesn't appear to have been any cross-boundary consultation or discussion. We cannot find any evidence of consultation or co-operation with Stratford upon Avon District Council. We understand that the duty to cooperate was created in the Localism Act 2011. It amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils in England and public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local and Marine Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters. As a number of these proposed developments have a heavy impact on the infrastructure and quality of life on the residents in our area, we would have expected some form of consultation. We refer in particular to proposed developments 4, 11, 12, 13 and the proposed alterations to Blythe Valley Business Park to substitute around 600 houses for business units, a purpose for which the development land designated as Blythe Valley Business Park was never granted.

As SMBC has not complied with the current planning legislation, we would reject your proposed developments on this ground too;

3. As a consequence of developments already undertaken by SMBC, the quality of life in our rural parish has changed dramatically over the past 20 years and none of it has been for the better. SMBC's developments have really increased the use of the infrastructure in our area and don't seem prepared to ever recompense SDC for this. We have been told that SMBC has deliberately designed its larger developments over the past number of years so that the traffic flows are diverted away from the centre of Solihull. This may or may not be true but it certainly seems that there are larger volumes of traffic coming from the north and east through our B road infrastructure as each development matures. We are therefore opposed in principle to SMBC pushing more traffic towards us without entering into some compensation scheme to recompense SDC for fair wear and tear of our infrastructure. Such recompense could be actioned under the Section 106 legislation or, simply, agreed between SMBC and SDC along the same lines.

We therefore see two legal challenges to your proposed future developments and one challenge, assuming that the two legal challenges fail, on the grounds of equity and decency.

Please find attached the HBF response to the above mentioned consultation for your consideration

Draft Local Plan Review: the need for increase in primary provision at St George and St Teresa RC School, Solihull

Good evening,

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review we would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.This directly impacts on the education of our children at St George & St Teresa RC School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle and Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed.

We look forward to hearing from you in the near future to confirm receipt of our email and how Solihull Metropolitan Council will proceed to meet the needs of families with school age children in our parish.

Yours faithfully,

Please see attached the following submission to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation.

We have produced the following documents to form part of our submission:

* Solihull Draft Local Plan Representations (Framptons, February 2017)
* Appendix A - Green Belt, Landscape and Masterplanning Report (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix B - A Vision for Tidbury Green (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix C - Review of SDLPR Sustainability Appraisal - (JAM Consult Ltd, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 1 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 2 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Figures (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix E - Infrastructure and Utilities Note (WSP, February 2017)

Please see attached the following submission to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation.

We have produced the following documents to form part of our submission:

* Solihull Draft Local Plan Representations (Framptons, February 2017)
* Appendix A - Green Belt, Landscape and Masterplanning Report (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix B - A Vision for Tidbury Green (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix C - Review of SDLPR Sustainability Appraisal - (JAM Consult Ltd, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 1 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 2 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Figures (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix E - Infrastructure and Utilities Note (WSP, February 2017)

On behalf of the forum, I am submitting the attached document as the considered view of the Neighbourhood Forum members in response to the consultation to Solihull Council's Draft Local Plan. The response relates in particular to the implications for the KDBH area.

In order to capture and then reflect the views of forum members and residents, the forum has held three public meetings; in December 2016 and January and February of this year. Feedback has been gathered on each occasion and we have also invited and received comments via e-mail.

We also have a body of evidence that reflects residents' general views, concerns and aspirations for the area from the residents survey conducted in 2016.

In addition, we have reviewed the proposed housing allocations, for the KDBH area as outlined in the draft plan against the Council's published methodologies and evidence base to try to understand how they were determined.

We believe that the document is a balance and objective representation of the Forum member's views.

We have also encourage members to submit their own individual responses, following the instructions on your website. This should ensure that you have the full spectrum of views.

On behalf of the forum, I am submitting the attached document as the considered view of the Neighbourhood Forum members in response to the consultation to Solihull Council's Draft Local Plan. The response relates in particular to the implications for the KDBH area.

In order to capture and then reflect the views of forum members and residents, the forum has held three public meetings; in December 2016 and January and February of this year. Feedback has been gathered on each occasion and we have also invited and received comments via e-mail.

We also have a body of evidence that reflects residents' general views, concerns and aspirations for the area from the residents survey conducted in 2016.

In addition, we have reviewed the proposed housing allocations, for the KDBH area as outlined in the draft plan against the Council's published methodologies and evidence base to try to understand how they were determined.

We believe that the document is a balance and objective representation of the Forum member's views.

We have also encourage members to submit their own individual responses, following the instructions on your website. This should ensure that you have the full spectrum of views.

On behalf of the forum, I am submitting the attached document as the considered view of the Neighbourhood Forum members in response to the consultation to Solihull Council's Draft Local Plan. The response relates in particular to the implications for the KDBH area.

In order to capture and then reflect the views of forum members and residents, the forum has held three public meetings; in December 2016 and January and February of this year. Feedback has been gathered on each occasion and we have also invited and received comments via e-mail.

We also have a body of evidence that reflects residents' general views, concerns and aspirations for the area from the residents survey conducted in 2016.

In addition, we have reviewed the proposed housing allocations, for the KDBH area as outlined in the draft plan against the Council's published methodologies and evidence base to try to understand how they were determined.

We believe that the document is a balance and objective representation of the Forum member's views.

We have also encourage members to submit their own individual responses, following the instructions on your website. This should ensure that you have the full spectrum of views.

Solihull MBC: Local Plan Consultation
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL GRID
National Grid has appointed Amec Foster Wheeler to review and respond to development plan consultations on its behalf.
We have reviewed the above consultation document and can confirm that National Grid has no comments to make in response to this consultation.
Further Advice
National Grid is happy to provide advice and guidance to the Council concerning our networks. If we can be of any assistance to you in providing informal comments in confidence during your policy development, please do not hesitate to contact us.
To help ensure the continued safe operation of existing sites and equipment and to facilitate future infrastructure investment, National Grid wishes to be involved in the preparation, alteration and review of plans and strategies which may affect our assets. Please remember to consult National Grid on any Development Plan Document (DPD) or site-specific proposals that could affect our infrastructure

Please see attached the following submission to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation.

We have produced the following documents to form part of our submission:

* Solihull Draft Local Plan Representations (Framptons, February 2017)
* Appendix A - Green Belt, Landscape and Masterplanning Report (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix B - A Vision for Tidbury Green (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix C - Review of SDLPR Sustainability Appraisal - (JAM Consult Ltd, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 1 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 2 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Figures (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix E - Infrastructure and Utilities Note (WSP, February 2017)

see below comments on behalf of Stratford-on-Avon District Council to the Solihull Local Plan Review consultation.
Stratford-on-Avon District (SDC) welcomes the ongoing dialogue with Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council in respect of plan-making and in meeting both Councils obligations under to Duty to Co-operate.

Q14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?

The contribution of 2,000 homes towards the Greater Birmingham HMA shortfall is welcomed. However, following adoption of the Birmingham Plan in January 2017, further technical work looking at how the shortfall should be accommodated across the HMA is being commissioned by the 14 constituent authorities within the Birmingham HMA, including SDC and Solihull Borough. Whilst the results of this work are not yet known, given the strong relationship of Solihull to Birmingham and the fact that Solihull Borough is fully within the Greater Birmingham HMA, it is highly likely that Solihull Borough will be required to make further and significant provision towards contributing to the HMA shortfall. The Draft Local Plan should therefore make further provision to meeting these needs.

Q.15 Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?

SDC notes the following allocations:

* Approximately 700 homes West of Dickens Heath (Site 4)
* Approximately 850 homes South of Dog Kennel Lane, Shirley (Site 12)
* Approximately 600 homes South Shirley (Site 13)
* Approximately 950 homes at Blythe Valley Park as part of a mixed-use development and prime employment location.

SDC makes no comment as to the appropriateness of these allocations but stresses the importance of ensuring that the wider transport and infrastructure implications of these proposals, both individually and cumulatively, has been properly understood and assessed, particularly the impact of this scale of development on local rural roads. In particular, it is critical that any comments raised by Warwickshire County Council as the highway authority for Stratford-on-Avon are fully taken on board. Solihull Metropolitan Borough council should also ensure that, as a neighbouring council, they fully engage with Tanworth-in-Arden Parish Council in the preparation of their Local Plan.

Q18. Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

SDC is supportive of the proposals for the delivery of METRO and SPRINT as part of an inter-connected network of rapid-transit lines providing improved access to UK Central Hub and Birmingham Airport, in particular. However, no reference is made for the need to seek subsequent improvements on existing transport routes that would act as 'feeder lines' to the new rapid-transit modes. The plan should include such references (or at the very least, signposts to relevant transport strategies) in order to express support for proposals that would assist in the delivery of these improvements e.g. between the airport and the international tourist destination of Stratford-upon-Avon.

Q.20 Do you agree with the policies for quality of place? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

SDC supports the approach in respect of Hockley Heath that account will be taken of its rural setting and special character in considering development proposals. This should include the impact of any development on adjacent land and communities in Stratford District.

Appendix E: Draft Green Infrastructure Opportunities Map
SDC notes the identification of Earlswood Living Landscape and supports the principle of enhancing the biodiversity of this area. However, SDC would reiterate the previous concerns of local residents about how any such improvements were implemented.

Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Plan Consultation
Please find attached a representation from Gladman into the above referenced consultation

Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Plan Consultation
Please find attached a representation from Gladman into the above referenced consultation

Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Plan Consultation
Please find attached a representation from Gladman into the above referenced consultation

see attached letter

joint submission by Arden Academy & Mr Ved Goswami re: Arden Triangle site 9 Knowle
see attached documents

see letter -

I am a Balsall Common resident Kelsey Lane.

I believe the Residents of Balsall common have already been subjected to a significant loss of our Greenery from the slow and drip like infill of the recent years. We are experiencing a significant increase in traffic from the general developments of the area more recently the Kenilworth road. My road, Kelsey lane used to have a very gentle rural flow of traffic and is now regularly at a complete gridlock. Both myself and husband are doctors who are required on-call to get to our hospitals within 25minutes for trauma cases - within the last 6months the traffic has increased so that on occasion we have been unable to exit our own driveway. The traffic flow this end of town particularly at rush hour times is not coping with the current flow. To increase this volume would be madness.

Furthermore:

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

My wife and I strongly object to your proposals for housing development in Knowle and support the contents and sentiments of the attached document prepared by KDBH Neigbourhood Forum

My wife and I strongly object to your proposals for housing development in Knowle and support the contents and sentiments of the attached document prepared by KDBH Neigbourhood Forum

My wife and I strongly object to your proposals for housing development in Knowle and support the contents and sentiments of the attached document prepared by KDBH Neigbourhood Forum

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to make my opinion known it that I agree with the response of the Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Health Neighbourhood Forum.

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to make my opinion known it that I agree with the response of the Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Health Neighbourhood Forum.