08 Knowle - Hampton Road

Hampton Rd Site Objections:
The site includes listed trees and these areas need to be removed from the development.
The site includes Purnells Brook and this floods to protect the Blythe floodplain. This area should be removed.
The development area shown encroaches into the Streamside trust protected area.
Development should not take place on the highest point in the village. This area of the site should be removed.
There is inadequate consideration of the traffic issues on the Hampton Rd., this development will increase the risk of accidents on an already dangerous road.
The development encroaches into the green belt area on the east side of the village and should not be permitted.
The development would make traffic issues on the Hampton Rd., Warwick Rd junction worse.
The size of the development is too large, the local consultation requested small scale developments.
Developments should be spread across Knowle, Dorridge and Bently Heath, not all focussed on Knowle, which does not have services to support this development. This development would put at risk the unique character of Knowle

There is no provision for increased car parking in Knowle. 1050 new homes will surely lead to at least 1000 extra cars driving on local roads and needing to park near to local shops. Current parking arrangements are inadequate for today's needs, with inappropriate parking on pavements and grass verges, and this can only get worse. While bus services and cycle lanes are a good thing the reality is that the majority of journeys will be by car for the convenience, speed and ability to convey heavy shopping loads.

see attached letter received via email

Feedback on Proposed Housing Allocation 8, Hampton Lane Knowle - Solihull Draft Local Plan
Please see email below that I sent to KDBH forum committee on this matter and that I would like to submit for your consultation.

Photos and video of deer on Hampton Road proposed site for development - Solihull Draft Local Plan

Dear KDBH Forum Committee,

We live at 53 Alveston Grove, Knowle, B93 9NX directly next to the Hampton Road proposed development site for 350 new houses and would like to provide our comments for inclusion in your submission to the Council.

We moved to this address in October 2015, and had no idea of any of these proposals when we moved here, so firstly we were very shocked and disappointed when we heard them, as we wish to enjoy a peaceful location with views over the adjacent fields until our retirement. We have a gate in our garden which leads into the nature reserve and wanted our children to play there when they were old enough to do so. Any development on this land will be devastating to ourselves.

As well as our personal motivation, we are greatly concerned by the destruction of the local habitat for wildlife. We regularly hear owls, see herons and buzzards, and on 3 occasions this year we have viewed deer from our windows. We took photos one day with our young children - please see attached... on this day there were 3 separate deer.

We agree with all the main concerns raised at the meeting with regard to schools, doctors, and other facilities, but are also very concerned by the increase in traffic along Hampton Lane, as the junction with the Warwick Road is already very busy at peak times. We also note that there is no Railway station in walking distance available to serve these houses, a key factor that is outlined in the requirements for new housing?

Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan Consultation
I am in receipt of your letter of 8 December 2016 giving notice that our property is adjacent to the Proposed Housing Allocation, 8 Hampton Lane, Knowle. I would like to put forward my opinion and objection to the proposals, which after discussion with many people and neighbours are in line with general opinion.

The proposal for 1050 new homes in Knowle is completely disproportionate with the proposed deployment of new homes elsewhere in the Borough. I have enjoyed living in Knowle for 45 years and have seen many changes, not all to the benefit of the community. However, this proposed expansion will destroy the village atmosphere and make it little more than part of the Birmingham urban sprawl. 50% affordable housing is far too high and will only serve to lower the standard of the existing environment. I believe Government guidelines state that 25% affordable housing is a reasonable objective and see little need for this to be so excessively exceeded.

The present infrastructure will not support this number of homes. New or improved schooling will need to be provided, additional car parking provided, improvement to access roads and additional medical care are a just few of the major considerations.

The current preferred option put forward by Solihull MBC includes just 2 development areas. The Arden Triangle and Hampton Road. This is ridiculous as the majority of the future generated traffic will be centred on the Warwick Road and High Street. Hampton Road is already too busy and its junction with Wootton Close, Arden Vale Road and the existing Football Pitch is an accident waiting to happen. Current street parking in Hampton Road creates poor visibility and interrupted traffic flow. The junction of the High Street with Hampton Road and Lodge Road is a notorious bottleneck. All of these problems will only be exacerbated with the additional homes.

Careful planning of the Arden Triangle could provide The New Schooling, a new Car park and medical centre. There would still be adequate space for the proposed development of up to 750 new homes. Access would be from Station Road and The Warwick Road. If this development is accepted it should be the limit to the development within Knowle itself. Fair use of the money derived from the sale of the Council owned land, and any Section 106 agreement would cover the cost of rebuilding the necessary infrastructure. The remaining homes should be built to the West in say Bentley Heath, where access would be via Widney Manor Road into Solihull, rather than the Warwick Road and motorway connection via the A34 (J4). Additional shopping could be provided together with other essential infrastructure facilities that are clearly missing at present. This would relieve the pressure on Knowle village, with its woefully inadequate parking; it would also be convenient to Widney Manor railway station.

With regards to the Hampton Road Proposal, this should have taken the form of 3 completely separate proposals. Each should be considered independently of one another. If planning permission were to be granted on the Football pitch and woodland, it should be up to the football club to seek an alternative site. The development of the football pitch itself could possibly be accepted, as it would not extend beyond the existing developed frontage of Hampton Road and would form a boundary limit to any future development to the East, within the Green Belt. I note that the plans for the football pitch also include the cricket pitch in one of the documents. This is very misleading and clearly shows that this proposed site is just the thin edge of the wedge. The football club have failed to maintain or improve their existing facilities, so I fail to understand how they can hope to maintain a very much larger complex. The owners of the woodland adjacent to the football pitch are currently felling many trees; I trust that this is being carefully monitored by the Council to ensure that no specimen or mature trees are felled and that TPO's have been put in place.

The creation of a commercial sports complex on the land off Hampton Road, by the canal, would be totally inappropriate within the Green Belt. The proposed site includes inadequate car parking, and the proposed increase in commercial activities is not acceptable within the Green Belt. A visit to the Old Silhillians Club at Copt Heath, on a Sunday morning, will quickly demonstrate the effect that the construction of a similar sports facility will have on the immediate area. There will be car parking all over the proposed new development and down Hampton Road. The Old Silhillian's site includes vastly superior car parking, yet cars are frequently parked on the verges and down Lady Byron Lane. One must also question whether yet another sports complex is actually required. The huge costs in running such a complex will necessitate large scale non sports related activities including: Bar& dining, Conferencing, Discos and other fund raising activities, all within the Green Belt. The use of Section 106 money for the building of this complex would be totally inappropriate; it should be for the benefit of the general local population, not just for the members of a local sports club.

The development of Thacker's nursery and the fields fronting onto Hampton Road, opposite Grimshaw Hall, is an unnecessary extension of the village into the Green Belt. This land has been deliberately neglected in recent years to aid an application for residential housing. It is basically good quality agricultural land which forms a sloping site down to Purnell's Brook. The lower area liable to flooding, and the drainage run off from the new site would greatly exacerbate the problem. . The development of this sloping/elevated site would have a devastating effect on the surrounding and adjoining housing. The area is a haven for wildlife including bats, badgers, birds of prey and other protected species. This land should be brought back into agriculture, rather than being left vacant in the hope of future development. If this proposal succeeds it will encourage more land owners to neglect vulnerable sites, in the hope of getting residential/commercial development.

It is my opinion that Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council have failed in their duty to fully consider all possible sites and have taken the easy option of adopting two professionally submitted proposals, to the exclusion of all other options.
There are several sites within the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath area which have been put up for consideration and overlooked. Inevitably future planning applications will be made on some of these which will be difficult to refuse, as they are eminently more suitable for development than the selected sites. This will result in the continuing urbanisation of the area and further increase the pressure on local facilities.

I therefore urge Solihull MBC to change its proposals and limit the Hampton Road proposed site to the Football pitch only.

Please acknowledge that this letter has been received and passed to the appropriate department.

I write to express my objection to the number of new houses proposed for Knowle under the Solihull Local Plan.

I accept there is a housing shortage in the UK and that Solihull and Knowle need to make a contribution towards the total Government Plan. However 1050 new houses in Knowle is disproportionate and unreasonable

1050 houses is 17% of the total allocation for Solihull. If you include the houses that have been recently built in Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Heath or are at present under construction or have planning permission to commence then this brings the total number of houses to 1900 which is a 25% growth in the housing stock. This exceeds Government guidelines for ne housing development in a particular locality.

There has been very little change to the infrastructure in Knowle and Dorridge since the late 1950's when i was a schoolboy in the area. Chiltern Railway, and Sainsbury's car park at Dorridge, some road widening at Dorridge. some additional car parking in Knowle and the installation of a few roundabouts pretty much sums it up. The infrastructure is struggling to cope at present with the volumes of traffic and car parking in Knowle and Dorridge and Bentley Heath is inadequate.

I have not seen any plans for improving the roads and parking to cope with the new developments which are likely to increase the population by 2500 -3000 people. I understand in fact that no transport assessment has been carried out

Two sites have been recommended for development at Arden and Hampton Road.

There is much to be commended about the Arden proposal. Improving education is an absolute priority for the UK in order to be able to compete in the world economy. Arden is a very well performing school which needs better facilities and larger capacity. I support the rebuilding of the school and the construction of a new primary school. However I do not accept the building of 750 additional house on this site. The school themselves are asking for 450 to fund their rebuild. I am not sure how they have reached that figure. Originally it was 250 then increased to 350 and now 450.I think 350 houses are the absolute maximum that should be built on that site together with the school rebuilds. Bearing in mind that Taylor Wimpey are at present building 110 homes at Middlefield and this makes the total 460 houses. We should remember of course that the land is at present Green Belt.

The existing Arden proposal recommends the closure of the Solihull Mind site which at present occupies a 3.5 acre field at Middlefield. .Mental Health is an area of healthcare which has been neglected in the UK as highlighted by the recent speech by the Prime Minister and it is a very important that this site should be retained for its current use.

With regard to Hampton Road the infrastructure problems are very significant particularly the increased volumes of traffic that will be needing to turn onto the Warwick Road through Knowle. I understand however that Knowle FC are not unhappy to sell their land and be rehoused so I would accept this development as reasonable if infrastructure issues can be resolved.

In summary my view is that 1050 houses is an excessive percentage growth in the housing stock ( bearing in mind the recent number of new houses built) and the existing infrastructure will not sustain it. It removes a large swathe of Green Belt Land and the Solihull Mind site. I accept however that Knowle has to make a contribution to the Housing shortage and believe that 350 houses at Arden and 300 at Hampton Road plus the school redevelopments would be fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

No. The Hampton Road site in Knowle should not proceed. The current road does not have capacity for the traffic generated by the new houses or for the traffic generated by the proposed new football/sports centre. As noted elsewhere no public transport options have even been considered in the plan.
The Arden triangle site in Knowle could proceed at a lower size (450 house, say). However, the development must take into account the Solihull MIND horticultural site which should not be swept away in the development. Mental health is a national priority and yet the Solihull Plan proposes to destroy a facility built up over 20 years (mainly by patients & volunteers) without even a mention.

I do not agree that the Hampton Road Knowle site should be developed. It is Green Belt, which should be preserved, and, together with plans for South of Knowle, it will add over 1000 houses to Knowle, increasing the size of Knowle by around 25% in 10 years. The existing schools are over-full, with residents finding it very difficult to get local places for their children. Hampton Road is not suitable for the big increase in traffic implied by the development. There is no obvious provision of additional green spaces or local facilities, just a large soul-less housing estate.

"The Knowle Streamside Trust Committee has responsibility for the management of the Wychwood Avenue Local Wildlife Site in Knowle, which became a designated Local Wildlife Site (LWS) in 2007 and which will be affected in the event that the proposed Housing Allocation 8 in the Solihull Draft Local Plan is approved by the Council. We note that the hatched area of Housing Allocation 8 extends over the LWS and whilst we appreciate that the boundaries in the Draft Local Plan have been drawn on a very general basis, we would be grateful to receive your confirmation that the inclusion of the LWS within area 8 is an error which will be corrected when the detailed mapping is undertaken.

The Committee wishes to express its concerns regarding the possible impact that large scale housing development in proximity to the LWS might have and would seek the Council's assurance that in the event of this area being approved for housing, any future application must include all the appropriate environmental and ecological impact assessments in order to ensure that such development will not adversely affect the LWS and in particular that no surface run-off from such development will adversely affect the Purnells Brook.

I have had the opportunity to see the response made by the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum to the Solihull Draft Local Plan, which proposes the siting of over 1000 new houses in Knowle and would endorse and support all the points they make, in particular:-
* The siting of over 1000 (in reality nearer 1400) new houses in Knowle is wholly disproportionate especially considering the new houses already built in the area over the last 4 years;
* The scale of development fails to take into account the impact on local services and infrastructure;
* There does not appear to have been adequate consideration of alternative locations;
* The proposed allocations do not accord with the Council's own policies;
* The proposed Housing Allocation 8 constitutes an unacceptable encroachment into highly performing Green Belt land.
In relation to the Hampton Road proposals (Proposed Housing Allocation 8) I would wish to make the following points:-
Whilst I appreciate that the boundaries of the proposed Allocation 8 are indicative only, the northern boundary of the hatched area to the north of Hampton Road includes an area which comprises the Wychwood Avenue Local Wildlife Site (LWS), which I imagine is an error and needs to be corrected. Any development in this area must take into account any possible impact on the LWS and include appropriate buffer zones and remedial measures in order to ensure that the development does not adversely impact in any way upon the LWS and the Purnells Brook.
Firstly, as I understand it, the existing football club premises to the south of Hampton Road would be available for housing only if an alternative ground can be found and the proposal is for this to be sited further east on the north side of Hampton Road, adjoining the Grand Union Canal (a site also in Green Belt). The reasons cited by the football club for requiring new premises are that the existing pitches are inadequate and the facilities are in poor condition.
Taking the latter issue first, the reason the club premises are in such poor condition is primarily because there has been a deliberate and consistent policy by the club over recent years not to invest any money at the existing ground because they could see a potential opportunity to relocate and to sell their existing ground for housing. This policy has become even more apparent since the inclusion of the adjoining land at Arden Gate in the 2013 SHLAA and its subsequent development for housing. The football club has no interest in maintain or improving its current site as it regards any investment there as being wasted. Its sole aim for many years has been to move to an alternate site, funded by the sale of its existing premises for housing, and the current dilapidated condition of the club premises has arisen as a direct result of this policy.
With regard to the football pitch itself, the club asserts this is in poor condition due to overuse. I inspected the pitch on Wednesday 1st February and found it to be in excellent condition with a good covering of thick grass even in the goalmouth where additional wear would normally be expected. A notice at the entrance to the ground indicated that a match had been played on 28th January 2017 with the next fixture being due to be played on 11th February 2016. One match every two weeks does not appear to me to be overuse, and the current condition of the pitch in no way indicates the intensive use suggested by the club.
Secondly, with regard to the issue of requiring additional pitch capacity, in its response to the Council's 2016 call for sites, the club stated that it has nearly 300 people "involved" in the club, however it does not state how many are actually members. In addition, closer inspection of the figures reveals that only 60 of these involved persons are adults, with over half of the number being children under 12 years of age. Out of a total of 23 teams, only 3 are adult teams, with 15 out of the total number of teams being comprised of under 12's who presumably do not require extensive pitch facilities. The club's response also fails to indicate how many of those associated with the club actually live in Knowle and it would appear that the village is being asked to accommodate significant numbers of new houses in order to finance a facility which may not be providing any great benefit to the inhabitants of Knowle at all.
The club's proposed alternative site set out in its submission to the Council in January 2016, showed a facility comprising "at least 4 full size pitches" which is completely excessive for the needs of the club of this size and proposes to provide the opportunity for an "enhanced sports hub" for the rest of Solihull. The siting of both the football facilities and this proposed sports hub is wholly inappropriate since they will be over 1km from the nearest access to public transport and will result in everyone using these facilities accessing them by private car. This is contrary to the Council's policies on sustainability and accessibility and the additional traffic generated will add to the already difficult junction of Hampton Road with the Warwick Road (A4141) which is in a Conservation Area. In addition, any new facility in this location will require a footpath (possible cycleway), and street lighting from the end of the existing footway on the north side of Hampton Road all the way to the Grand Union Canal. Some, at least of the proposed football pitches will presumably require floodlighting, and the perimeter adjoining the highway will require high level fencing, all of which will seriously detract from the current rural aspect of the eastern approach to Knowle.
The latest proposal tabled by the football club at a public meeting on 7th December 2016 showed the football club being relocated to the north eastern corner of the proposed new site, with a new cricket pitch adjoining the Hampton Road. This presumably is in anticipation of the possible move by Knowle Village cricket club from its present site to the proposed "sports hub" on the north side of Hampton Rad. Again this would be well over 1km from any public transport access, and vehicles accessing this facility (and the additional housing which would presumably be facilitated on the existing cricket ground) would simply add to the traffic congestion along Hampton Road and at the junction with the A4141. Also a cricket pitch immediately adjoining the rod would presumably require significant perimeter fencing/netting, significantly detracting from the current open aspect of this part of Hampton Road.
Any sports facility of the kind anticipated will require significant car parking provision otherwise a similar situation will arise to that which exists at the nearby Old Sills ground on the Warwick Road, where, despite having on-site parking provision for at least 40-50 vehicles, cars spill out and park in an ad hoc and haphazard fashion on the Warwick Road on a regular basis. This situation would be completely unacceptable on Hampton Road, especially given that the site is on the approach to a sharp left hand bend which has a history of fatal accidents. The provision of large areas of car parking, hard standing and potentially spectator provision is not an appropriate use of Green Belt land and will seriously detract from the openness and rural aspect of this area of Green Belt.
The current football club site has an area of poor quality woodland adjacent to it, which was included within the club's response to the 2016 call for sites (up to 3.4 hectares). If this were to be utilised by the club, it could provide at least one extra full size pitch together with further junior pitches/training areas which could easily fulfil the club's needs for additional playing surfaces. In addition, were the existing pitch to be upgraded (possibly to 3G standard) then this would easily accommodate much more regular and intensive use.
The existing club site is in a far better location and serious efforts should be made to enhance and upgrade these facilities, rather than relocating to a wholly inappropriate site, which is in Green Belt, which is much further out from the centre of the village and for all practical purposes (particularly given that 231 out of a total number of 291 people involved in the club are under 17 years of age) wholly inaccessible, other than by private car.
I am also aware that significant sporting facilities are proposed within Arden Triangle site, (Proposed Housing Allocation 9), including potentially a 4G football pitch and additional artificial surfaces. If these facilities are truly intended to be "community facilities" as is promised, then this would be a much better facility to which the club could relocate, as it is within the current built up area of Knowle and has much better access to public transport.
With regard to the proposed siting of new housing on the north side of Hampton Road, I understand a previous application for housing on this site was made some 10-15 years ago which was refused. I have made inquiries of the Council but have not been able to obtain any details relating to this, but I understand that the refusal was firstly on the grounds that the site was within Green Belt and secondly that the development would result in "skyline development" which was considered unacceptable. Given that the topography of the site has not changed, then presumably, the objection to the site on this second ground remains a valid one. Also, no evidence has been provided that 300 houses are in fact needed to finance a new football club, or how such a potentially large facility is to be maintained and supported. The club currently asserts that it has difficulty financially supporting its existing facilities so how would it support a much larger and more sophisticated one?
With regard to the site being within Green Belt, this has also not changed. The Council's recent Green Belt review resulted in Refined Parcels RP36 and RP 37 (which cover the proposed Housing Allocation 8 in the Draft Local Plan) being the two areas which scored most highly of all those parcels of Green Belt immediately surrounding Knowle and Dorridge. Indeed, with regard to Purpose 1 of Green Belt, namely to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, both RP 36 and 37 are category 3, (the highest performing), and are the best performing of any refined parcel of Green Belt immediately surrounding the KDBH are. It is therefore difficult to understand why Green Belt land within these two parcels should have been allocated for housing, in preference to any other sites. There appears to be no justification for this, based upon the Council's own review.
The siting of new housing on the north side of Hampton Road is poor in location terms, is well beyond the current built up area of Knowle and would constitute a significant and unacceptable encroachment into open countryside.
For the reasons highlighted above I would urge the Council to reconsider its proposed Housing Allocation 8 in the Draft Local Plan.

Proposed Developments In Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Plan
Having attended many of the above forums we are writing to lodge our disapproval to the proposed Arden Triangle development which will entail demolishing Arden School and the Mind Horticultural site in favour of a new Arden School, new St George and Theresa School in exchange for 750 new houses. How can Mr Murphy the Head Teacher at Arden say "we will have a new £30 million school for free". This is an extremely costly and ridiculous statement to make. Arden School has spent in the region of £15 million of new buildings in the last approx. 10 years and to demolish these would be a total waste of taxpayers money at a time of austerity. What parts of the old school that remain could easily be updated and modernised for relatively little cost in comparison to the "deal" being proposed.

I understand the proposed plans on 2 sites in Knowle will result in over 1,000 dwellings being built, not including those sites that have already received planning consent which is certainly the lion's share for the whole of the Borough. The residents of Knowle already face horrendous traffic problems with most roads being used for car parking throughout the week. Knowle is gridlocked so can you imagine what it would be like with the proposed 750 houses (1,500 cars) making their way through Knowle High Street. The village of Knowle would be changed for ever and there would be no going back. One man's aspirations is causing so much division and upset throughout Knowle and he has only lived in the area for a relatively short period. (This is not the first time the Head Teacher of Arden School has got above their position.) The educational standards are declining so would it not be better for the Head Teacher to concentrate on these. After all no one will want to come and live here if the school has not got the reputation it had in the past.

Also with the new Sports facilities proposed in Hampton Lane the people of Knowle could use these, so where is the need for a further sports complex. After all Arden School has not been exactly forthcoming in allowing the usage of their facilities so why duplicate. Another case of money wasted!

In addition to the above the Mind site in Greswolde Walk which has been established for 20 years is to be bulldozed to make way for St George and Theresa's School (there current site to be developed for even more houses). Talking of robbing Peter to pay Paul and those with the loudest voices shouting the loudest. At least the pupils do have a school, the colleagues at Mind would have nothing. Mind is a lifeline for 40 people and the fantastic work they have done on the site is incredible and inspirational. How many of you have visited the site in recent years?

Caroline Spelman wrote an article in The Observer on 12th January saying "For too long there hasn't been enough focus on mental healthcare in this country". She called it "A hidden injustice" and went on to say "people in the Solihull Borough can receive the compassion, care and the treatment they need and deserve". Where is the compassion here in her own constituency or once again are these just empty words and saying what people want to hear but with no sincerity. Just remind yourselves what affect removing this facility would have on their mental wellbeing having worked so incredibly hard. Could you live with your conscience!

We are not against more housing but not on the scale that is proposed. The mass impact of 750 new homes, two schools in one area would be totally destructive.

Finally, what is the point of setting up neighbourhood forums to give residents more say on these matters if their concerns are to be ignored and overruled by the Council or is this another case of lip service!!

see attached letter

I would like it recorded that I have great concerns with the suggested development of housing in Knowle and I endorse KDBH forums document.

My answer is not to imply that I disagree with all sites, however, as a Knowle resident, I feel that Site 8 is a bad example of urban sprawl, is remote from the village and has no compensating community benefits, unless you are a footballer. I support Site 9 the Arden Triangle, because it has ideal and totally defensible boundaries. It can provide not only the replacement Arden Academy, but a new public park, a final solution to the unsatisfactory Rotten Row junctions, and a new section of Grove Road, to improve traffic flows to Dorridge and Bentley Heath.

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.

see letter

see letter

The plans for a huge number of additional houses in Knowle is preposterous and in no way justified. They ignore many of the Council's own policies and would cause much harm to the environment and amenity of the area, while completely altering its character. The size and concentration of the proposals, as well as the density of the proposed housing, are completely out of character for the area. I strongly support the submission of the Neighbourhood Forum, which has itself been almost completely ignored, in contravention of Government policies.

Solihull Local Plan Objection

I would like to register my objection to the proposed expansion of Knowle village as laid out in the Councils local plan.

I support the KDBH neighborhood forum report that identifies that the Council has used unproportionate building in Knowle village. The whole reason people want to live in a village is that it is a community. By building over 1000 houses in Knowle it would not be a village. It would increase traffic, pollution, increase demand on GP surgeries, schools etc.

There is already sufficient family homes in Knowle and Dorridge. What there is a shortage of bungalows for older people to downsize to, thereby releasing larger homes for families. Not all older people want to live in retirement apartments, they want bungalows with gardens to enjoy their retirement years, not be forced out of the area, or into apartments with no gardens to potter in! It is almost as though the council want to alter the demographics of Knowle by failing to provide suitable housing for its agent population. There should be more sheltered accommodation.

With respect to Arden Academy, I would love the village of Knowle to have a new Senior School building, but not at the expense of loosing our valuable green belt and open fields. I therefore, not convinced that using the green fields to build a new school and then build more houses on the existing school site is the right option for Knowle. Again this increases all kind of pressures on a small village and it's amenities. I therefore, object to Arden Academy existing proposal.

As identified in the KDBH Neighborhood forum report the Council needs to look at other areas for house building. The council needs to identify all these empty properties that could be used to house people, or even convert some of the empty business into habitual properties. This would take up some of the demand.

Again my view is that there is a shortage of starter homes and smaller homes (bungalows) for the aging population to downsize into. Sort out the aging population and you will free up a huge number of family homes. However, the price needs to be right for the aging population to release equity for their old age.

Where I live we are surrounded by couples in their late 60's who want to downsize from their 4 bedroom detached homes. However, they cannot find suitable bungalows with gardens to downsize to, to release sufficient cash.

see attached response

see letter and various appendices supporting site land - between no. 39 and 79 Earlswood Road (The Paddock) and The Orchard, 79 Earlswood Road, Dorridge

see letter and supporting documents
Land rear of 114 Kenilworth Road Knowle

KDBH Neighbourhood Plan

We were unable to attend the meeting at Arden tonight due to how early it was.
I have read the draft review and would like to make it clear that this does not represent my view. It obviously has a real bias representing people who are unable to move on and accept change.
It is clear, additional housing is required and that some of that should be in Knowle. It makes sense that this should be built closer to the village centre and if the offset of that is a new school for the future of the KDBH area then a legacy will be built rather than a development. The houses will be built either way. We need to ensure that we get support to absorb that housing. Having social housing is part and parcel of any new development. I found that paragraph of the report deeply shocking.

What does need to be managed is the number of homes built.

I do feel that this draft is not representative of the future of the KDBH area.
Had I have seen this draft in sufficient time, I would have made sure I was at the meeting to voice my objections but we only received this after school today. Why was it issued so late?? To limit objections as it was objectionable. The whole tone was unsavoury.

Consultation on Draft Local Plan for Knowle

Regarding the current consultation on the draft local plan for Knowle which is currently open for initial consultation: I write to express my view that the strength of statement in the submission of the Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum (KDBH NF) regarding the parcel 153 (aka "the Arden Triangle") and the issue of house building linked to a rebuilt Arden school may not fully reflect the view of the whole community.

I have no criticism of the NF who have gone to significant lengths to engage all residents in this matter. Nonetheless, their own analysis of their survey respondents shows a response rate of 14% with a statistical skew (comparing survey response to 2011 census data) toward the 55+ age group.

As a local resident and parent of three children in the area in two separate schools I believe the under representation of families with school age children in the survey which has informed KDBH NF's response introduces the potential for a skewed conclusion. My sense based on many discussions with families in the currently under represented group suggests that the statement on page 9 of the (currently only available in draft) KDBH NF submission is an overstatement of the strength of feeling within the community (viz "A view is emerging that a new school could be of benefit to the community but the price to pay for those uncertain benefits in terms of 750 houses and consequential impacts on infrastructure, landscape, and access to countryside is unnecessary and too high. The scale of 750 houses is not justified by the Council's evidence base: nor is it justified by the need to fund the new Academy. On this basis, the NF objects to the proposed allocation") . In making this statement I am not claiming that my conversations are themselves an unbiased sample; I do claim however that they are relevant but not fully represented in the KDBH NF's conclusions.

I believe the source of KDBH NF's over-statement of the objection to parcel 153 is the statistical bias in the survey and subsequent interpretation of the data. Again, this is not to criticise KDBH NF who can only work with the response they have received; that said, I personally cannot find the evidence within the full survey responses (available at http://bit.ly/2ks4BJm ) that justifies the strength of the quoted statement. For instance education appears in all three lists of 'top things to improve in the short term' and the top 3 things in 'top things to improve in the medium term' and is therefore a major concern of the community. This supports the first part of the statement that "A view is emerging that a new school could be of benefit to the community" but not the second "but the price to pay... is unnecessary and too high" does not. The evidence base for the strength of the latter statement is not entirely clear based on the data presented. There is, therefore, a risk that this is anecdotal, subjective and hence an unrepresentative statement of the survey itself, let alone the wider community view, in what is otherwise a fact based and reasoned document.

My view is that a more factual representation of the findings plus the views of the wider community would be along the lines of

"There is a clear view that improvements in education facilities is a priority for residents. Further a view is emerging that a new school would be of benefit to the community, particularly in relation to the provisioning of other development priorities expressed by local residents such as youth, leisure and adult education facilities. However, there are concerns regarding the size and scale of residential building currently proposed to enable this development and the impact that this would have on local infrastructure. Therefore, on balance, the community does not support the current proposal for 750 homes on this site but, given the maturity of the plans and the potential negative and positive impacts it offers, the community recognises the need to understand and explore this option further."

There is, of course, an element of subjectivity in this wording, as indeed there is in the the KDBH NF submission on this matter. My contention is that the this wording better represents the (quantitative) survey data and general sense of (qualitative) community feeling as a whole.

In closing, as a resident I would also like to disassociate myself from the forum's conclusions regarding affordable housing and the stated strong objection to rental homes since this, as expressed, seems to support a strategy of social exclusion. The apparent strength of feeling again appears to be anecdotal and possibly arises from the statistical make-up of the sample and hence may not be representative (in strength and tone) of the entire community. I believe that any development in any community should be sympathetic and proportionate to its current nature but must stop short at 'social engineering' in either direction (i.e. by forcing or excluding). There is, therefore, I feel a reasonable argument for broadening the range of housing available in Knowle. Given house price escalation here and elsewhere, however, efforts should be made to ensure that 'affordable' housing remains affordable going forward, and not just for the first purchaser or occupier.

I trust these views will be taken into account as you consider the next steps in this process.

Solihull Local Plan review - consultation

You wrote to me on 8/12/16 asking for my views on the draft Local Plan and in particular proposed housing allocation 9, South of Knowle

I am opposed the proposed development and support the view submitted by the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum in their response to the draft plan.

My objections are as follows:

Disproportionately large number of houses in Knowle

- Far too many houses in Knowle as a proportion of the total proposed (over 1,000 out of 6,000)
- The proposed housing is too densely packed

Negative impact on infrastructure

- The housing allocation 9 will hugely increase traffic through Knowle High Street - it would be better to build to the other side of Knowle, close to the motorway
- The impact on infrastructure has not been considered, the additional demands on doctors surgeries / infant and junior schools has been ignored
- The Councils own sustainability report states that large scale expansion of rural settlements is a poor option

Impact on the green belt

- Building on the Green Belt should be a last resort

Housing Allocation 9

- There is no need for a new school - any community benefits (none of which have been identified by Arden Academy) are clearly outweighed by the negative impact on the infrastructure of Knowle as above
- Pedestrian access to the school will largely be by the bridleway on Station Road, leading to parking problems and dangers to children at drop off and collection times
- New houses will not be "affordable" if located in Knowle -they will be well over the national average, benefiting only the developer
- Any funding for new school facilities arising from new housing must be shared with the infant and junior schools in Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath (not just St Teresa's)
- The proposed loss of the Solihull Mind facility is very disappointing and goes against the Governments stated goals of supporting mental health provision.

Inadequate evaluation procedures by Solihull Council

- Proposals are inconsistent with the Spatial strategy which itself is inconsistent with other council strategies and the draft local plan
- The scale of the proposed development is not justified by the Councils methodology and study findings
- The site selection methodology is unclear and its application flawed
- The views of residents expressed in the KDBH residents survey have not been taken into account
- Inadequate consideration has been given to other patters of distribution
- The above indicates that an improper procedure is being undertaken by the Council.

I trust you will take these views into account and ensure that proper evaluation procedures are undertaken. I look forward to hearing from you

see attached documents

Planned development in Knowle &Dorridge

I wish to add my support to the reply by the KDBH forum on the above subject.. there is already a traffic problem to say nothing about lack of parking, Doctors, Schooling etc so your proposals will destroy the character of the area.
The forum has provided you with alternative options which would avoid this destructive idea.

Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum

I have attended all the meetings and have now seen a copy of the proposed response which I endorse. The overwhelming consideration is the number of houses proposed for the area but accepting that some must be built these MUST be contained within the sites already identified and speculative building on smaller sites all over the are MUST not be allowed to happen. The preservation of the green belt is my major concern.

Feedback on local plan sites 8 and 9

I wish to object to the proposal in the Solihull Local Plan to build 1000 + houses on two sites in Knowle - site number 8 Hampton Road and 9 land to the South of Knowle known as the Arden Triangle.

I fully accept that there is a real need for new homes within the borough. However, Knowle would be increased by more than 20% if these plans went ahead - a highly disproportionate amount. Given that Knowle has no major commercial or industrial areas, it is effectively becoming a "Dormitory Village" - a place from which many people travel in order to work in a bigger town or city. The village infrastructure is already stretched, parking is woefully inadequate and the primary schools and doctors' surgeries are reaching saturation point. Both proposed developments would make significant inroads into the Green Belt at a time when the Government has issued a White Paper to the effect that Green Belt should be protected at all costs.

I live in Chantry Heath Crescent, in one of the houses that will be directly overlooked by any new houses built in Hampton Road so do have a vested interest in what happens there. Notwithstanding that, having read the Football Club's proposal for houses to fund a new club, I dispute the conclusion on page 28 which claims that 'the parcel sits well within the village development pattern' whereas in reality, as per the KDBH forum submission, 'Development here would be beyond the built-up area of Knowle and a significant encroachment into open countryside.

In the Benefits section on page 28 of the Football Club prospectus they refer to

* The provision of much needed housing in the area. I would reiterate that Knowle itself does not need housing on the scale provided. Very few occupants of the new houses would find work in Knowle, but would add to current congestion on the village roads and add to the parking problems around each of the local train stations.
* The potential for a borough sports hub. I question whether the facilities listed in the prospectus (other than the direct relocation of the football club) would ever materialise. On page 6 it states that 'further funding for a sports hub could also come forward with support from Sport England and the FA,' which of course may never happen.
* Provision of a community meeting place. We already have the Village Hall, Knowle Church Hall, Downing Hall and the Methodist Church Hall all situated in the very centre of Knowle.

There is a great contrast between the current state of the football and cricket clubs on the Hampton Road Site. The cricket club has been proactive in improving their clubhouse, providing a new electronic scoreboard and maintaining the whole ground well. The football club on the other hand is in a very sorry rundown state, with few attempts at improvement. In their own prospectus they state that 'planning permission has been granted for floodlighting at the existing site. This has been commenced but not completed due to issues with funding'. They could have already fundraised and/or applied for funding from the FA, and other sources, (on which they wiil rely to add extra facilities at any new site), but have failed to do so. Do we really want to entrust new green belt to a club which appears too lacklustre and incompetent to maintain and improve the smaller site it occupies now?


In my opinion, none of the constraints that caused Solihull MBC to reject the request for planning permission on the land opposite Grimshaw Hall in the 2012 SHLAA have changed. What has changed however, is that developers have dangled the carrot of a new football club (and other amenities which may never materialise) in front of us, in the hope that we will overlook how much green belt we will all be sacrificing for ever, in order that the 291players, volunteers and supporters of the football club will get an extra couple of pitches to play on.

With regards to the Arden Triangle site, I accept that if we must have more houses, then by all means include a new school or two as part of the deal, as this will benefit so many more people that the Football Club proposal. Please only grant permission for as few new houses as would be needed to fund the new school and ensure that as little new greenbelt as possible is taken
Knowle is a popular place to live precisely because it still has a village feel. How much expansion can it take before this is no longer the case?

see letter and supporting documents for Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Nos. 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green