08 Knowle - Hampton Road

Consultation on Solihull Draft Local Plan

I attended the meeting of the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum on 13/2/17 and fully endorse the Forum's response to the Solihull draft local plan. In particular the number of new houses proposed for the area of KD and BH is disproportionate in terms of the housing needs and has not taken account of the impact on the local infrastructure and environment. I have lived in Knowle for over 20 years and have been disappointed in the way the council have allowed developers to build additional housing with little consideration for the community as a whole. This is an opportunity to do things in a more considered way for the benefits of the whole community.

I accept that some new houses will need to be built to meet local and national targets but I would urge you to reconsider the overall numbers proposed for KD and BH in the plan and to also to consider the improvements needed in terms of local infrastructure and the overall environment.

Best Regards

Site 8/9

Summary of my objection:

1. The Green Belt was designated as whole - and not as 'parcels' of land which can be nibbled away.
2. Many of these Refined Parcels are owned by developers and speculators.
3. The scoring of these parcels - by Atkins, a major Engineering Company - is subjective and does not even take into account one of the major Green Belt aims - which is to encourage the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
4. RP39 / Arden Triangle has been scored only moderately (compared to other local RPs), yet it has a strong rural outlook with much wildlife. It is an attractive green entry into Knowle and very close to the Historic centre.
5. Present owners of RP39 and Arden Academy set to gain financially if this land is developed.
6. Building on this area of Green Belt will irrevocably change the character of the area with the sprawl of new housing, and will increase pressure on already stretched local amenities.
Objection in detail with references:
1. I understand from the Department for Communities and Local Government in its National Planning Policy Framework (2012), that Green Belt land was designated with the "fundamental aim ... to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; and that "the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence."

2.3. Taking into account this last statement, I strongly believe that this designation was applied to the Green Belt in this area - AS A WHOLE. Dividing it into 'Refined parcels' and scoring these land parcels on the larger aims of Green Belt make a mockery of the original aim of the Green Belt:
* These parcels have been artificially formed, often by land developers or speculators.
* If some are 'scored' as 'not performing highly', the inference is that they are not as 'valuable' as other parcels within the Green Belt, suggesting they are more suitable to be built on.
* None of the parcels are scored on one of the Green Belt aims - which is to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

The logical conclusion from this is that land that is now part of the Green Belt will be nibbled away in these 'refined parcels'.

I did note however that in the Green Belt Assessment Report prepared for Solihull by Atkins in 2016, that "it is not the intention of this Assessment to rank the identified Refined Parcels ... against each other. Parcels which perform highly against one purpose yet do not perform against another should not be considered any less important in their role and contribution to Green Belt land in the borough."

4. With this in mind, I take particular exception to the scoring of Refined Parcel 39 - otherwise known as the Arden Triangle. It would appear from the report to score only moderately - and yet this is largely rural land with special wildlife - eg bats, herons, buzzards, kestrels. It has a beautiful and elevated open outlook - taking in Knowle Locks and the sweep of land dropping over towards Temple Balsall.
Compared to other local 'Refined Parcels' it has less development (eg former nursery on RP36. It is also significantly closer to the Historic core of Knowle than RP36.)
Given its natural incline, it currently presents a very attractive, green and rural entry into Knowle centre from the South. Just the sort of aspect that fits with the Green Belt purpose 'to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns".

5. I suspect that this parcel of land has been identified as preferred to being developed, (DLP Proposal Map 2016) more because it financially benefits the parties to whom it presently belongs - and because it fits in with the grand schemes of the local Academy to rebuild its entire school and attract more revenue.
6. I do not believe this to be of benefit of the local community as has been inferred, as the sprawl of new housing will irrevocably change the character of the area and increase pressure on the already stretched local amenities. In addition, facilities such as the MIND garden - a beautiful green resource - are at threat.

Response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review

I write to endorse the document to be submitted by the Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Heath Form with regards to the Solihull Draft Local Plan.

The Draft Local Plan regarding Knowle is in my mind overly ambitious and the Councils approach is disproportionate in the context of the Borough's Plan.

The current infrastructure (in particularly the roads) in the vicinity of the proposed building is already at breaking point and the Plan seriously eats in to existing Green Belt land and without question will serious impact on the village.

Whilst supportive of the development of Arden Academy I feel that Academy's plans have now become overly ambitious - probably based on local landowners seeing that by being 'supportive' of the school they can take the opportunity to unlock their investment and make a 'quick buck' in what is currently Green Belt land.

We broadly support the submission by the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum and in particular the following.

1.There is no clear reason why the proposed allocation of 1050 dwellings should be targeted in just two locations at East and South Knowle in preference to areas such as Bentley Heath and Widney Manor which are better positioned to access Solihull, the Railway and Motorway network.
It is quite possible to accomodate 3-400 new houses on the north western edge of KDBH without closing down the Solihull/KDBH 'gap'. The M42/River Blythe and power lines are a permanent barrier between the two.

2.The allocation of 750 house to the Arden Triangle is an entirely arbitrary response to a contrived "masterplan' generated by Developers riding on the back of the Academy.

3.Other than a less than clear land swap it is not clear that the new Academy could be adequately funded.

4.The 'ambition' for the Academy does not justify amalgamating all the greenbelt land ownerships in the area.(i.e. sites 148-157).

5. The southern approach to Knowle on the Warwick Road should be protected. The proposed reallocation of the Greenbelt boundary is too agressive and should be restricted to only the land immediately required for the Academy (if proven to be viable) and probably no further south than the bridleway/footpath to Jacknett.

6. The Landscape Character assessment for Area 3 is incorrect insofar as it aggregates a number of very different landscape types under one broad banner of more moderately performing when some of the individual plots have historic hedgerows and veteran trees and encompass existing footpath and watercourse networks of higher landscape value. These plots are also contiguous with current high performing areas.

7. The topography and highly visible profile of sites 149-152 in particular is not suited to large areas of new housing development.

8.The large scale expansion of rural settlements like Knowle should be dropped for a more limited and dispersed approach which would ensure greater variety and quality of new development.

9 SMBC should encourage smaller brownfield and edge of settlement greenbelt infill sites to be brought forward to take up part of the housing need.

Solihull Local Plan Review - Sport England consultation response
Sport England would like to make the following comments:

Borough wide Challenges
Sport England support the identification of Challenges H, J and K. These Challenges are consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and are consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.

Policy P15: Securing Design Quality
Sport England, in conjunction with Public Health England, has produced 'Active Design' (October 2015), a guide to planning new developments that create the right environment to help people get more active, more often in the interests of health and wellbeing. The guidance sets out ten key principles for ensuring new developments incorporate opportunities for people to take part in sport and physical activity. The Active Design principles are aimed at contributing towards the Government's desire for the planning system to promote healthy communities through good urban design. Sport England would commend the use of the guidance in the master planning process for new residential developments. The document can be downloaded via the following link:
http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/active-design/

Through our statutory role, non-statutory role (major housing schemes) and our involvement with strategy development (evidence base Para 73 of NPPF) and our involvement through the local plan process we seek to ensure that Active design is utilised in the determination of planning applications and is embedded in Planning Policy P15 in order to influence the design and promote healthy communities and active lifestyles.

Policy P18: Health and Well Being
Support is offered for the principle that provides support for proposals which encourage healthy and active lifestyles. This is consistent with Government planning policy (section 8 of the NPPF) on creating healthy communities and consistent with Sport England's current strategy 'Towards an Active Nation'.

The use of Health Impact Assessments for larger developments is welcomed as these can help ensure that developments give appropriate consideration to how environments can be created which allow healthy and active lifestyles to take place.

Policy P20: Provision for Open Space, Childrens Play, Sport, Recreation and Leisure
The protection and provision of sports facilities is supported. However it is not clear whether or not the reference to the protection of existing facilities in Part A of the policy includes playing fields. It would be useful to provide clarity in this regard.

Sport England considers that Part A of the policy should be more specific as to the clear evidence required to demonstrate that sports facilities (particularly if these include playing fields) are surplus to requirements. Sport England would only accept a robust and up-to-date strategic assessment (e.g. a Playing Pitch Strategy or Built Facilities Strategy).

Sport England object to the section of Part A of the policy which allows the loss of playing fields and other sporting facilities where there is a substantial community benefit. This approach does not accord with the relevant national planning policy contained within para 74 of the NPPF and it is not clear what 'substantial community benefit' would involve. The NPPF requires that the proposed development is for alternative sports provision, the need for which clearly outweighs the loss.

Part B should also reference the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy as the evidence base to demonstrate the need for playing pitches associated with the additional demand created by new housing developments. The occupiers of new development, especially residential, will generate demand for sporting provision. The existing provision within an area may not be able to accommodate this increased demand without exacerbating existing and/or predicted future deficiencies. Therefore, Sport England considers that new developments should contribute towards meeting the demand that they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. The level and nature of any provision should be informed by Solihull's forthcoming Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) and any future Built Facilities Strategy (BFS). It is anticipated that the Solihull PPS will be completed before the publication of the revised Solihull Local Plan.

If this demand is not adequately met then it may place additional pressure on existing sports facilities, thereby creating deficiencies in facility provision. In accordance with the NPPF, Sport England seeks to ensure that the development meets any new sports facility needs arising as a result of the development. Solihull Local Plan should reflect this need in its local policies.

Site Allocations
Sport England would object to the allocation of any sites which would result in the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities unless evidenced by a robust and up-to-date evidence, as required by paragraph 73 NPPF.

Sport England are aware that work is currently underway on the completion of an up-to-date Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS). The PPS should be used to determine whether or not the playing field proposed for allocation is surplus to sporting requirements by demonstrating that there is an excess of playing fields in the catchment. If this cannot be demonstrated then the playing field or formal recreation land would need to be replaced with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality.

In the absence of an up-to-date PPS to justify the loss of playing field (and other sporting facilities) or confirmation of replacement with equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality Sport England object to site allocations 4, 8, 15, 16 and 18; these site allocations would result in the loss of playing field land and other sporting facilities. Sport England will also object to any other site allocations which involve the loss of playing field or other sporting facilities without the necessary evidence or replacement facilities.

Draft local plan (Knowle & Dorridge)

As a residents of Solihull in the ward of Dorridge and Hockley Heath we would like to confirm our support for the KDBH Forum's response to the draft local plan. We have recently moved from B91 in Solihull as we consider Solihull has now become part of Birmingham and we wanted to live in a village. If this plan goes ahead in its current form Knowle will no longer be a village and its character and identity lost, in effect it will be part of the Solihull/ Birmingham conurbation. Furthermore the roads around Knowle and Dorridge cannot support the proposed housing density however much they are improved. Knowle High street will be a constant pinch point as there is no obvious by pass route.

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

Kdbh response

I wish to support the proposals made by the KDBH Neighbour Forum . Houses built on the proposed site of Arden School will completely gridlock the already traffic problems in Knowle .y

SOLIHULL DRAFT LOCAL PLAN REVIEW.

Solihull Council has identified two sites in Knowle for development in the future.
If these sites are developed they will provide over 1000 new homes, a new school and a sports complex, focusing on moving Knowle Football Club to a new location and creating better facilities.

These new homes will massively increase the size of the village.

I object to the loss of so much Green Belt.

The so called Arden Triangle site will comprise of 750 houses and a new school, all to be built on existing Green Belt.

The Hampton Road site will comprise initially of 250 homes, followed by a sports complex. On completion of the new football facilities the old Knowle football ground will provide land for further housing. The Hampton Road site will all be on Green Belt. This site will push the Green Belt boundary out considerably towards Hampton-in-Arden.

The Department for Communities and Local Government have insisted that Ministers were "committed to preserving the Green Belt". This Department has further stated that "only in exceptional circumstances may Councils alter Green Belt boundaries, after consulting local people and submitting the revised local plan for examination".

Ministers have further stated that the Government is committed to "strong protection of the Green Belt".

Green Belt land should be treated as a special case because that is what protects us from the urban sprawl. It also exists to prevent neighbouring villages merging into one another, to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the regeneration of derelict and other urban land.

Reluctantly I would have to agree that providing a new Arden School could be argued as being exceptional providing that the old facility is not fit for purpose as the school maintains. I would like to see the evidence for this. Many millions of pounds have been spent on improving and expanding Arden School in recent years only to be demolished.

The development of this site will take many years to complete causing a great deal of disruption to village life.

Should this site be developed then the housing build should be maximised. Land identified for "housing in the future" should be developed at the same time. All the housing needed could be built within this triangle. The homes within this site are within walking distance of the shops and railway station in Dorridge and Knowle village centre. The Hampton Road development is not.

There is no need to push the boundaries of the Green belt out in two directions.

The closest station to the Hampton Road site is Hampton-in Arden. It is not possible to walk to this station safely as there are no pavements or lighting. The parking facilities are at capacity, as indeed they are at Dorridge and Widney Manor stations. It is a two mile walk/drive to Dorridge station from where I live in Chantry Heath Crescent.

Should the Arden Triangle be developed then it is infilling a triangle of land.

The relatively small development at Arden Fields took over two years to complete causing traffic chaos, noise and mess, primarily mud on the surrounding roads. The end result is not attractive.

The Hampton Road development focuses around the relocation of Knowle FC to the north east of the site to cater for "local demand". I assume local demand to mean Knowle FC and its members, 291 in total.

The results of the Knowle Forum's residents survey indicated there was more interest in the provision of more allotments than in improving football facilities. Until recently there was a five year waiting list for an allotment in Knowle.

Knowle FC has been in existence for 90 years and in that time it has been unable to maintain and improve on its facilities.
I have lived in Knowle for 36 years and I have not seen any improvement to either the pitches or the club facilities.

Knowle FC have obtained permission to install floodlights at their existing ground. They complained for many years that the lack of floodlighting prevent them playing in various leagues. They have not installed floodlights because they cannot afford to.

The club is not financially sound.

In the proposal document for Knowle FC it is stated that it runs approximately 20 football teams, the majority of which are 5 and 7 aside teams of juniors, both boys and girls.

There are many facilities and areas in and around Knowle where football can be played and training undertaken, both indoor and outdoor. Examples are Arden School, the Old Silhills, the Children's Field in Kixley Lane, Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath parks.

Every year Knowle FC put signs at the entrance seeking new junior players. Why do this if they cannot provide adequate facilities?

My three daughters all played for Knowle FC. My two youngest daughters' team was made up primarily of girls from Yardley who were obviously prepared to travel and not local children..

The proposed facility would be for the benefit of a minority of people who are interested in football. Other sports facilities alluded to may never materialise.

The precise composition of the new facility is vague to say the least. Some of the rumours indicate a new cricket pitch is also possible. Does this mean that the cricket pitch behind Knowle FC will also be developed?

This new sports facility would adjoin the canal, which is a haven for wildlife. It is a peaceful place enjoyed by a significant number of local people including fishermen, dog walkers, people just out for a quiet stroll, canoeists and canal boat users.

This quiet haven will be destroyed by the noise and foul four letter language frequently generated by the adult football matches on a Saturday and Sunday. Sound travels a considerable distance and with clarity.

The area that the houses will be built on is also a haven for wildlife including bats, badgers, foxes, deer and birds of prey including buzzards, sparrow hawks and kestrels. Are we certain there are no newts, crested or otherwise in the pond on the site?

The developer has stated that it will "retain and where possible enhance connecting wildlife corridors". It would be interesting to see how they could achieve this in amongst all the houses, football pitches, flood lighting and any other sports facilities that may be built.

The developer also intends to retain views to and from the Grand Union canal. I cannot see how this can be achieved, unless of course you stand on top of a flood light gantry.

The developer makes many unrealistic promises for the benefit of the wider community. This includes "with the support of Sports England the sports hub could become a community meeting place" We have an abundance of meeting places in the centres of Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath and do not need another one on the north eastern edge of the village. All these meeting places are well used by the community.

There are excellent athletics facilities in Solihull, which do not need to be rivalled.

This site has been rejected in the past because of the topography and the impact on the skyline. As far as I can see, nothing has changed.

Response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Consultation

Dear Sirs

I wish to endorse the views of the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum Response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan.

Jane Watts

see letter

I refer to the draft SDLP and especially as it relates to the Knowle area. I have been a Knowle resident for 58 years.

Practically all of the land proposed by the plan for residential development and it is likely to be high density development currently has , so I understand, green belt status. I refer to the Warwick Road/Station Road/Grove Road triangle and the football/cricket grounds in Hampton Road. These areas are with the exception of the park, the remaining green areas in the village.

If these areas suffer high density development Knowle will have become a satellite dormitory town to Solihull and no longer the village that residents find so attractive. Traffic problems could become considerable. A recent statement by the relevant government minister confirmed that incursions into the green belt would not be acceptable other than in exceptional circumstances. We have not, I believe, reached this situation. It has been widely reported that planning approval already exists for700,000 housing units countrywide. The house builders should be compelled to utilise these approvals in full and meaningfully within 18 months of the granting of permission on pain of annulment of the approval.

The suggested proposal from Arden academy that the school should be demolished (and the school relocated) to provide land for more housing is preposterous at a time of enforced austerity given that there has been very substantial investment in the school in recent years. This investment must run into many millions of pounds of tax payers money (our money). If there is a problem with numbers the school catchment area should be restricted to the Knowle and Dorridge wards. A local school for local children.

The draft plan has taken the easy option with scant regard for the existing residents of Knowle.

Here is my response to the draft local plan. This focuses on the excessive amount of new housing development proposed for Knowle.

Total number of houses
The 1,050 houses proposed for Knowle is vastly excessive and totally out of scale with other locations. It is effectively a 20% increase in the size of the village (based on the existing number of households). I don't understand why there are no allocations proposed for Dorridge or Bentley Heath. Dorridge would be a much sensible solution for sustainable development with the rail connection.

The total number of houses is totally out of scale with the size of Knowle and will significantly exacerbate already very serious traffic congestion along the High Street and Station Road (not just new residents but deliveries, visitors etc). It will have a seriously detrimental impact on the village character turning it into a medium sized town.

The scale of housing development in Knowle is not justified by the evidence base, some of which is flawed in any case.

The Arden Triangle
I would like to strongly object to the number of houses proposed on the Arden Triangle. The scale of 750 houses is not justified by the Council's evidence base with the findings of the LCA that this area was only suitable for small scale developments. Such a large site will cause significant loss of some of the most attractive and valuable Arden landscape around Knowle and Dorridge. I don't think this area was appropriately assessed in the Green Belt Assessment. It is a very valuable and loved rural part of the village and provides a prominent and attractive landscape when approached from the south. Any development on this land near the Warwick Road would be highly visible and have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity when approaching Knowle. The area also includes important wildlife habitats.

Development on this site in any scale is not sustainable and would exacerbate already unacceptable congestion along the High Street and Station Road.

A dispersed pattern of development involving sites in Dorridge and Bentley Heath would be more appropriate for the area.

Whilst I accept there has to be a certain amount of development in the area a dispersed solution would be far more preferable and have less impact on the character of the area, less impact on road congestion and result in less impact on the Green Belt and Countryside.

Affordable housing
The 50% affordable housing is pointless as being within such an affluent area they will never actually be genuinely affordable. Furthermore by insisting on such a high percentage of affordable housing it makes achieving the community benefits much less likely as developers will have to factor this in their appraisals. It would be better to have much less affordable housing to make the benefits stack up. Furthermore developers will not be able to provide the required type of housing under the starter home scheme.


In summary the total number of houses proposed is far too many for the size of Knowle. Development should be dispersed to minimise impact on the community and congestion involving more sustainable development in Dorridge and Bentley Heath. The Arden Triangle proposal would have a seriously detrimental impact on very valuable green belt and the character of the village.

Regards

see letter attached

Housing Knowle Dorridge and Bently Heath

The number of houses to be built is far beyond a proportion that the villages can accept.

This cannot be allowed to happen.

While I sympathise with Solihull MBC at having to plan for 6500 new homes, I must express my fervent opposition to siting 1050 of them in Knowle. Apart from all other considerations, Knowle is full!

Parking in Knowle is extremely difficult at the best of times, without any additional houses. There simply is no room to accommodate more people using Knowle village centre. Even Waitrose gave up trying!

There are very few employment possibilities in Knowle, so any new residents would have to travel away from the village to work. The parking at Dorridge station is already full, which means that most journeys would have to be by car - this goes against the accepted wisdom of encouraging use of public transport.

Those living in houses on the Arden Triangle would mainly be travelling in the direction of the M42, Solihull and Birmingham. All these cars would need to drive along Knowle High Street which is already extremely congested at rush hours and very busy throughout the rest of the day. Add to this the cars coming from the proposed Hampton Lane development, and the Warwick Road towards the motorway would grind to a halt.

It would make so much more sense to build the houses where the jobs are going to be created - e.g. HS2, Birmingham Business Park, Jaguar Land Rover, Blythe Valley Business Park etc. These are going to be the booming areas of the borough and the people working there are going to need homes, so it would be logical to build them in those localities.

Urbs in Rure. The approach to Knowle from the Warwick direction is delightful - one goes from countryside, through a handful of houses and arrives in the village centre. Development of the Arden Triangle would be seen as soon as one approached the proposed traffic island at Rotten Row corner. An absolute blot on the landscape. Please leave the Green Belt alone - it is there for a reason.

As I understand It, the idea of developing of the Arden Triangle came about because of the wish of Arden Academy for new premises. The principal has given assurance that there will be sufficient places at the new school for all pupils of secondary age moving to these new houses in Knowle. But what about primary school places? I am led to believe that the new RC primary school proposed for the Arden campus will replace the existing St George & St Theresa's school, so there is no provision in the plan for extra primary school places. An impossible situation!

A small, but I believe relevant, point: Part of the proposed new site for the academy cannot be accessed without crossing land which is in private ownership. Without access to this area, the site would be unreasonably small for such a large school. Unless, or until, access to this area can be established, the whole plan is unfeasible.

Knowle is a village which has grown considerably since the war. Newcomers have been absorbed into the community as it has expanded. However, saturation point has been reached and I beseech the council to recognise that.

Arden academy questionnaire

I endorse the Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath Forum's response on the Solihull's Draft Local Plan.

I believe that the proposed housing numbers for Knowle are excessive and disproportionate in the context of the overall plan and they could not be supported by the villages current infrastructure, in particular the road network.

Yours faithfully

see attached

see attached

Please find attached the Response of The Knowle Society to your Consultation of the draft Local Plan 2017 Review.

I would like to comment on the Solihull Draft Local Plan.

I commend the authority for the work done and the quality of the reports and evidence. It is heartening to see that the authority is recognising the need to urgently have a plan in place and approved and I welcme the opportunity afforded for feedback.

I do not wish to address the borough wide issues, I will limit my feedback to some constructive criticism and suggestions of the plan as it affects the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath areas.

I should point out that I am vice chair of the KDBH Neighbourhood forum and on their behalf I have already submitted comments. Those comments do not necessarily accord with my own views but as vice chair I am obliged to reflect residents and member views.

I recognise that the borough as a difficult task and there is great demand for new housing throughout the area.

I am not particularly comfortable with the total magnitude of new housing proposed for KDBH and would like to see that total reduced.

I am, however, supportive of the two allocations proposed for the KDBH area; Hampton Rd and the 'Arden Triangle'. I think you have been brave in recommending them and I do believe that they could offer considerable community benefit.

It is for that reason that I support them.

I do not support the gradual sneaking in of windfall developments and some other smaller sights that offer nothing of community value. Developers and landowners should not profit from the lucky fortune of owning a plot of land in such an area if they cannot demonstrate that as a result of additional homes that they are building they will provide a specific community benefit.

With regard to the two sites as documented in the draft plan, I feel you have missed a trick in not selling those benefits enough. You need to be bold and really make the case if you are to have any chance of swaying public opinion. Recognise the objections and have arguments already in place to shoot them down.

As it stands the proposals are bereft of any significant positive message when you drill down to local issues.

Road and Parking infrastructure.

It is patently obvious that the two sites proposed in Knowle will have a significant direct effect on the level of road traffic and parking demand in Knowle - and indeed Dorridge Station indirectly.

So why is there no positive suggestion as to how you will alleviate those issues? It is no wonder that residents comment on the issue because your plan is effectively silent on the matter.

If the two allocations remain in the next iteration, you need to show that you have a plan. And don't say your plan is to initiate a study - your plan needs to be specific about what improvements will be made.

It might be argued that the levels of congestion suffered in KDBH are insignificant in comparison with other areas but they are real to residents and a high handed approach where they are ignored does not reflect well on a council that would I am sure like to be regarded as be more customer focussed.

I have some suggestions and you are free to lift them.

The problems of congestion, generally arise because traffic cannot keep moving due to:-
* Cars parked such that there is insufficient room for traffic in both directions and one lane has to wait
* Cars, delivery vehicles or utility vehicles temporarily stopped such that there is insufficient room for traffic in both directions and one lane has to wait
* Traffic attempting to turn across the oncoming traffic such that they have to wait for a gap and thus the vehicles following are held up
* Traffic wish to join another road where they have to wait for a gap in traffic, potentially in both directions if they wish to turn right.
* Pedestrians crossing - even at designated points.
* There may be other reasons
My suggestions are along these lines:-
* For the Knowle village centre, implement a one way system with the High Street, Station road (between Warwick road and lodge Road) and Lodge road each becoming one way.
* The Junction of Lodge road, High street and Hampton road could be improved by widening the left lane from Lodge road to the A4141 so that traffic has a smooth exit to the north.
* It might be appropriate to change the right of way for southbound traffic on the A4141 to allow traffic from lodge road going up the high street or across to Hampton road to keep moving. In peak times it would probably be preferable for any queue to be on the A4141. Traffic lights might also be an alternative. The Knowle society may object but if they are gas fired I am sure they could be swayed.
* Traffic coming from Hampton road would now only be able to turn left but if traffic from the north is filtered by lane markings to the right of the road even that flow could be improved.
* The junction of the High street and Kenilworth road where there is a triangle of roads could also be one way.
* The high street already has adequate parking restrictions
* The section of Station road is probably likewise OK because it is wide.
* Lodge road may need restrictions to allow residents parking only and only on one side where there remains a gap for two vehicles.
* I don't have any particualr suggestions with reagrd to pedestrian crossings other that possbly making them pelican as opposed to zebra to give the traffic a chance.
The above one way scheme would eliminate many of the cases of congestion. Much ofthe above could be implemented with little cost and could be implemented a trial. Anecodal eveidence during road works last year suggest that traffic flow was improved at that time when a temprraly oneway system was in place.

The parking capacity is a more complicated issue but I feel the major problem is the lack of all day parking capacity which results in surrounding roads and even St John's close from being blighted.

Both of the proposed allocations for housing have locations that are close enough to Knowle centre that they could have an area turned over to long stay parking. These are the current sites of Knowle Football club and the Arden Academy.

In the concept master plans, I would urge that either or both of these sites has a portion set aside for long stay parking. This would alleviate the pressure on the village centre where car parking should be limited to residents (who do not have garages or on-site parking) and short term parking i.e shoppers.

A further traficsuggestion that might be more controversial concerns the Hampton road site. This is going to put pressure on that junction between Hampton road and the High Street and as a result residents will soon identify Arden Vale road as a short cut. This will make the exit from that to the A4141 dangerous so why not cut to the chase and have Arden Vale Road connect to the roundabout at Wychwood Avenue and the A4141.

Lastly, can you bang together those that mange the car parks at Dorridge station such that there is a consistent pricing policy that
* deters people from parking there all week
* favours those who use the trains daily
* Deters people from parking on the surrounding streets and blocking bus routes
* Allows for investment in the capacity - potentially a multi-storey for the car park behind Sainsburys petrol station
As I mentioned above, the two allocations proposed will have an indirect impact on parking demand at Dorridge station it would be helpful if CIL funds could be directed towards a multi-storey car park there.

Hope you find the above useful - I have tried to be constructive and positive but if you think I am in the Victor Meldrew camp let me know and I will try to amend my tone.

Best Regards and good luck with the next phase

>> I attended the meeting of the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum on 13/2/17 and fully endorse the Forum's response to the Solihull draft local plan. In particular the number of new houses proposed for the area of KD and BH is disproportionate in terms of the housing needs and has not taken account of the impact on the local infrastructure and environment. I have lived in Knowle for over 20 years and have been disappointed in the way the council have allowed developers to build additional housing with little consideration for the community as a whole. This is an opportunity to do things in a more considered way for the benefit of the whole community.
>>
>> I accept that some new houses will need to be built to meet local and national targets but I would urge you to reconsider the overall numbers proposed for KD and BH in the plan and to also to consider the improvements needed in terms of local infrastructure and the overall environment.
>
> I would also like to say that a shared swimming pool is essential if you are going to enlarge the community with additional housing occupants.
> My initial reaction remains a feeling of power building for the school with little consideration of the the present community.

I wish to strongly object to this plan, as regards the 1,000+ houses proposed for Knowle.
There are apparently going to be no additional primary schools, doctors,roads or parking or other infrastructure.
If this so, there is likely to be major congestion (from both traffic and in schools, doctors, shops, etc) in Knowle and Dorridge from an additional 2 or 3,000 people.
Regas

see response and supporting documents

see attached response and supporting documents

see attached

I am writing to object to the above plan in line with the objections put forward by the KDBH Forum. I agree with their concerns and this email is to confirm that.
I consider the size and scale and massing of the proposed developments in Knowle to be too big and not without full consideration of the wider impact on both the greenbelt landscape and highways. It appears this is all being driven by the need for a new school which actually will only provide a better facility but no extra spaces when there are over a 1,000 new homes proposed. Included within this are no extra infrastructure provisions such as doctors surgery, primary schools etc. It also doesn't appear to have been economically tested as to whether the school is financially viable from a cost perspective and whether the proposed new benefits outweigh the harm of the damage to the greenbelt and the much wider impact of highways and pollution. There appears to be no technical back up on highways or greenbelt assessment grounds to back up the proposed allocations so don't see how the proposed sites can be put forward technically and from a wider planning point of view.
KDBH surveys have also indicated that residents would much rather see a smaller number of houses and a more dispersed approach to their concentration. This new plan completely ignores this and flies in the face of the proposed local planning agenda that central government are championing. The current government guidelines propose expansion around key growth corridors and areas which promote brown field development on a sustainable basis. Both proposal in Knowle are not in line with either and given their position and proximity to both public transport and other relevant infrastructure such as shops, doctors etc will only promote more car traffic and pollution.
Please acknowledge receipt of this objection.
Kind Regards

Reference : The Draft Local Plan in respect of further development in KDBH
I write to express my view with respect to the plans to add 1000+ properties to the KDBH villages.
I am, frankly, staggered that a development of this size and nature is being planned by our Local Authority, the very people in whom we trust as custodians of our local area and environment. I offer some simple and basic facts with respect to the planned developments for your consideration.
Traffic & Infrastructure
The addition of 1000+ properties to the area will mean a minimum of TWO THOUSAND extra vehicles on the local roads EVERY DAY. Given the remoteness of the areas being considered for development from any but the most basic forms of public transport infrastructure it is not a defence to suggest that many, if any residents, will consider using public transport. It is a certainty that every household will have at least one car, in the instances of properties where families reside we can expect there to be three or more cars. The average family car is 3.6 metres long, two thousand cars at this average length pressed bumper to bumper equates to a queue of traffic 7.2 kilometres in length which would stretch most of the way to Birmingham City Centre. Every weekday morning and evening the vast proportion of these vehicles will use the local main roads and subsequently the rat runs when congestion occurs. Most of the school children in the village walk to school - that's a minimum of TWO THOUSAND extra chances of FATALITY or INJURY amongst our children EVERY DAY, let alone the other generations that make up this close knit community. The Council have nothing to offer to compensate for this - an extra zebra crossing or speed bump interspersed across the local area will have negligible effect.
The infrastructure of a Conservation Area High Street by its very nature is not fit to cope with such enormous traffic volumes attempting to cross the village every day to access the motorway and Birmingham conurbation. The existing motorway junction is already straining, any further development of any kind in the KDBH area cannot even be considered without a significant upgrade of the motorway junction prior to development being undertaken and I ask for the Council to instigate a consultation with Highways England in this regard. It is abundantly clear that the new traffic volumes will back up on to the motorway network itself, causing further disruption to the M42 and adding further misery to users of the jewel in the crown of our region the NEC - something I am shocked that the Council does not seek to protect.
By copy of this letter I make a Freedom of Information request for a copy of the Contract the Council placed with it's Highways Consultants regarding the effect of the proposed developments on the local roads. Any suggestion in the reports the Council has received from their advisors that the planned developments will not have a detrimental effect on the local road infrastructure may, in my opinion, be Professionally Negligent. I sincerely hope that the Council has not taken advice from Highways Consultants that were engaged by the Developers associated with the success of these proposals.

Arden School
I am saddened that the Headteacher of Arden school sees fit to stake his career on backing the Development. The existing school facilities are of a standard that would make the larger portion of academic facilities in the UK exceptionally jealous. The suggestion that what currently prevails is outdated and outmoded must be very upsetting to those pupils and parents who currently use the school. Money has never been lacking from the local authority and local community for any upgrade to Arden's schooling facilities - it is our jewel in our crown - to suggest that the existing facilities are not good enough and have not been good enough for some time by the Headteacher leaves me dismayed on behalf of all of those over the years who have supported the establishment and made it what it is today.
Arden school should not be used as a pawn in the Council's and any Developer's game to secure the go ahead of the KDBH schemes and anyone linking the School, the beating heart of our community, to the very thing which may shatter the local community should be ashamed of themselves.
Hampton Road site
I understand there are plans to move Knowle FC and provide a new site for them with enhanced facilities including floodlit pitches. Our football team is a small, well run football team(s) serving the community. ALL small, well run, community football teams would like to see themselves playing in facilities to rival Manchester United and I understand why they would seek to move to enhanced facilities. But quite simply it is wrong and incompatible with village life. We know from the floodlit pitches at Light Hall School in Shirley the damage that pollution from such installations can do to the surrounding environment (being a former resident of Shirley myself), I find it hard to see how the Council can consider granting permission for such a scheme.
Given the appalling light pollution these installations create, can the Council confirm that Birmingham Airport approves of such an installation in close proximity to the flight path into the airport? Distracting and/or blinding pilots on the flight path and causing a subsequent media frenzy on the subject will not end well for the Council if this turns out to be the case and I request confirmation this has been considered.
Housebuilders
As a professional in the Construction Industry with some 20 years experience I can categorically assure the Council that any suggestion of a housing shortage in KDBH, Solihull Borough and indeed the United Kingdom is a complete myth and is founded purely on the basis of self preservation on behalf of the Housebuilding companies in this country. Housebuilding companies exist for one thing only, to build property and make profit. At some point in the future there will be a day when no more houses can be built in this country, either because local people say 'enough is enough' or because we simply run out of land. Only one of those two options is going to occur and this will sound the death knell for many of these enormous organisations and until that day comes they will do everything in their power to continue to make profits for their shareholders by spending many millions of pounds with well equipped PR companies to scaremonger the british public and civil servants into believing that there is a housing crisis in this country.
The Buy to Let market means that at any one time thousands of properties across our country are empty. Our housebuilders simply wish to continue churning out property to support their business models. The Council seem oblivious to this simple fact.
Accordingly I call upon the Council, were it to ignore the wishes of local residents and grant the go ahead for further development of KDBH, to place the following stipulations in the Planning Consents for any Development :
* All property must be owner occupied.
* The widths of the roads in any given development MUST match the AVERAGE width of roads in the KDBH area.
* The widths of the pavements in any given development MUST match the AVERAGE width of pavements in the KDBH area.
* All roads in any new development must have a pavement on both sides.
* Off street parking for two vehicles for EVERY household must be provided.
* All new houses must sit a minimum of 3 metres from the edge of the pavement outside the property.
* Cycle paths must be provided through the new developments.
* The existing road network must be upgraded at the DEVELOPERS cost to accommodate the increased capacity required PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT COMMENCING. TO BE CLEAR - the Developer is not to contribute a token gesture sum of money to the Council for this, the Developer is to pay for the final cost of this work, once out-turned by the Council's and Highways Englands appointed Contractors. Upon the work being completed, only then may any Development proceed. Such infrastructure needing to be in place not only to accommodate the vehicles of new residents but also the approximate ten years of construction traffic that will be using the roads in the construction of these Development(s).
Conclusion
For our Local Authority to give serious consideration to Developments that will be far reaching in their damage to the area of KDBH is an appalling abuse of the trust placed in it by the KDBH residents. I am firmly opposed to anything that seeks to denigrate our community and the local environment - which is the reason many residents here have chosen to call KDBH their home.
I urge the Local Authority to listen to the many voices who oppose further development of KDBH in any form; concreting over another plot of our wonderful Borough is not acceptable.
Enough is enough.

I am writing to you to register my views on the proposed Solihull Draft Local Plan, predominantly for the 'Arden Triangle'.

I believe that it is an absolute ludicrous idea to even entertain developing that whole area, with two new schools and 750 houses due to the reasons that I outline below.

I have attended a couple of the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum meetings and nothing that has been discussed has swayed my mind to believe this proposed plan would work for the village and its inhabitants. As a young parent, that was born and who grew up in the village and is now a permanent resident, I do believe that development is an important element of a village life but it is essential that it must be done so to enrich the village and it must increase benefits for the residents. 'Development' for development sake is completely pointless and will only contribute to the demise of village life and hinder key ingredients which currently make Knowle the great village it is. At a KDBH Forum Meeting, that was attended by the current Head teacher of Arden School, it seemed to be implied that if we objected to this plan we were old fashioned and out of our minds! I can assure you I am neither of these. A KPI for a school is of course its exam results and looking at the exam results for Arden, you cannot, in anyway sanction that improvements need to be made.

We were told at a KDBH forum that Arden school building is currently old fashioned, out dated and not fit for purpose. As an example the school have stated that wi-fi is not accessible to all parts of the school buildings. We had problems with our wi-fi at home, I can assure you that we didn't have a new home built to rectify this problem! Yes, the building is old but surely it can be upgraded without the need for a whole new building and causing a detriment to the whole village in the process. Surely a school should be built around a village and not vice-versa, which is essentially what would happen if the proposed plan would be to go ahead.

One of the main concerns is the loss of Greenbelt land. The KDBH NF have been told that the whole of the Draft Local Plan will only use 2.5% of the borough's Greenbelt. How much in a percentage is that for Greenbelt belonging to only Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath? It has to be a lot higher than 2.5%. The array of animals that occupy and use the Arden Triangle is varied and plentiful. We have spotted Bats to hedgehogs and Buzzards to Snakes. One of the reasons I chose Knowle to bring up my family is the gorgeous setting and expanse of countryside that is on our door step. If this plan does go ahead than this reason for choosing such a great village is greatly taken away from mine and all of the local resident's families.

This brings me on to my next point. After talking to family and friends that live in the area, the vast majority have said they would seriously reconsider their choice of location to home their family and in turn would look to move out of the area. This will of course as a detrimental effect to house prices and in turn it would change the demographic of whom would populate the area. With the proposed plan increasing the village by an enormous 27%, this is way above the national average and completely unsustainable.
Another concern is the infrastructure that is in place is already stretched. The main Warwick Road running through, is already very congested. This congestion does not only occur in the peak flow times but can be quite catastrophic throughout the day. Surely, if this plan does go ahead, then this will only get worse. Especially when the residents are gaining access or leaving the area of Arden School and the proposed housing estate. When the councillor was asked what the answer would be when the roads are jammed, his answer was simply, "we'll build another road". What an appalling answer to give. So this again would impair valuable Greenbelt land and add to the 'Concrete Jungle'. Air pollution will of course only increase and this will have a negative effect on all of the residents, mainly the young and elderly. What measures are in place to combat this? Also, all of the local village primary schools are currently at or near to maximum capacity. Will these schools then be expanded as the local population grows? We chose this area because of the excellent local primary schools, their sizes and their village ethos, sadly this will no longer be the case if they become large three or four form entry. I'm not going to even mention the increased pressure on medical resources, parking in the area and recreational resources.

According to what was said at a KDBH Forum meeting, 50% of the houses built will be affordable/social housing, which massively exceeds the current government guidelines. Taking new build villages nearby as an example, we know that this only increases the buy to let ratio, thus the majority of residents will be tenants and not homeowners. Many studies have proven that this situation causes a rise in petty crime and anti-social behaviour. The crime rates of Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath have increased phenomenally over the last few months alone and this would increase further if these studies are to be considered. Furthermore this will only increase further if the recent movement of policing from the rural areas continues to diminish.

Finally, I would like to re-iterate that I grew up in Knowle and had fantastic opportunities thus wanting my young family to also grow up in Knowle. We chose Knowle and its surrounding area because of the green spaces, location and the typical village life that it offers to its residents. All of these opportunities are in jeopardy if these plans go ahead, which will sadden a great number of residents. In my opinion, when a school dictates its surroundings, it is a very sad state of affairs for the country and for the adults of tomorrow.