08 Knowle - Hampton Road

Thank you for your letter of 8 December 2016 informing me of the consultation process.
Please find attached my response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Consultation.
Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan Consultation

RESPONSE

This is to raise objections and concerns about the proposal to build 1050 new houses in Knowle, this being on two sites, namely the 'Arden Triangle' with 750 houses and Hampton Road with 300 houses.
My wife and I have lived in Knowle for over 37 years. I have been active, since its inception, in the work of the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum (KDBH-NF) and am consequently familiar with relevant background evidence including the Residents' Survey and data related to infrastructure, transport and services.
The proposed excessive housing allocation for Knowle is in complete conflict with the evidence base.
This document supports points made in the response from the KDBH-NF, which presents a convincing argument to significantly reduce the proposed allocation of housing in Knowle.
The points made below are often inter-related and represent only a sample of the arguments for opposing the proposals for Knowle in the Draft Local Plan
1050 extra houses for Knowle is far too many.
* This increases the housing stock in Knowle by over 25%, this is not counting the recent and current developments taking place. There has been zero allocation to Dorridge and Bentley Heath. This seems abundantly unreasonable.
* Where there is to be a mix of large and small-scale developments across the Borough, it would seem logical that any large development (over 400, for instance) should be adjoining urban areas to minimise detrimental impact and the 'smaller' developments (100-400) equitably sited around the villages to avoid overload of services and infra-structure. To put two large developments in the village is a sure way to secure maximum harm to services and infra-structure.
* There will be extremely detrimental impact on the identity, character and appearance of Knowle. Outcomes such as increased traffic density, reduced provision of personalised service, diminished sense of community and lack of locally specific services will erode the 'village character' currently valued by residents.
* The residents' survey has identified that there are already problems with parking, traffic congestion at peak times and access to primary medical care. Development of such magnitude will undoubtedly take this infrastructure beyond breaking point. Recent roadworks in Knowle have shown that any further stress on the road system will bring about gridlock.
* There would be a need for just under 2 additional forms of entry at primary school level. Even with this, primary school admission arrangements will be severely disrupted by the increased numbers of primary age children in two large blocks of new housing.
* With regard to retail facilities, it seems inappropriate to build all the houses in Knowle, where the provision of a Waitrose is problematic, and no houses in Dorridge where there is a new Sainsbury's with additional parking.
* The area, by nature of its village context, is not well connected or adjacent to the main transport links. There are much better sites.
* The proposal will ensure that Knowle effectively becomes a building site for 15 years with all that recent developments have brought to the village - mud on the roads, large lorries on small roads, noise, danger and inconvenience.


The rationale for choosing the two sites is unclear and there is a lack of strategic planning.
* It is unclear how the choice of sites arises from the policies, criteria and spatial strategy. The methodology to arrive at the proposal seems unsound.
* Access and transport criteria appear to have been evaluated from the nearest point to the village of each site, giving a falsely favourable reading to the site suitability overall.
* The methodology of basing choices around the 'call for sites' model seems to contradict the government current and intended policy of only using greenbelt in 'exceptional circumstances'. The two sites chosen perform highly on SMBC's own assessment of quality of green belt and therefore should have been safe from major development.
* The decision to choose the two sites seems to be swayed by the promise of community facilities. However, much of this is problematic at best.
* It seems absurd to base the future of Knowle around the aspirations of two independent organisations. It is particularly incomprehensible that the Solihull Draft Plan assumes that these two organisations are in a position to judge community need, particularly when on a parochial basis. In contrast, KDBH-NF has spent the last year collecting data, much of it from SMBC, and feedback, such as the residents' survey carried out by an independent organisation across every household in the area, that gives, without bias, as clear a picture as possible of community need and aspiration in the KDBH area.
* There is no account of the cost in terms of lost estate, revenue, recent investment and resource. A rough estimate is at least £50m - this at a time of increasing demands on public finances. There is no attempt to match income from developers to assessed need in order to make best use of finance.
Arden Triangle
The 'Arden Triangle' scheme was made known approximately 4 years ago. Proposals dated January 2013 were for a small-scale land swap scheme to provide new buildings for Arden Academy, a figure of 250 new homes in keeping with existing properties being mentioned. Since then, the vision has magnified considerably, there currently being a number of issues that are not clear, including any guarantee of accessibility and availability of community resources and the extent, type and density of new housing within the scheme in order to deliver the full package with appropriate facilities, playing fields and access. Assertions previously made, such as the nature of housing, have changed and cannot be kept once the project is in the hands of developers. The prospect of new buildings for Arden, promoted over the past 4 years, is seen by some as attractive. However, the cost, need and impact aspects have not been made public and many of these implications would not impact on those many parents and pupils favouring a new school who live outside Knowle. The proposed new school is reported to cost approximately £30m, a further cost being poor return on past and recent investment in existing buildings, some relatively new, to be demolished. This total cost is presumably at a loss to SMBC and could be spent on the basis of well researched priorities. This need analysis would certainly entail a condition and capacity assessment of all schools in KDBH. Overall, what evidence is there to justify the need for a new school at a cost of £30m+ and the detrimental impact on Knowle of 750 houses? This needs far deeper public scrutiny with consideration of alternatives.
Existing projects, such as the MIND garden area, had not been considered. There must be clear arrangements to avoid distress to vulnerable people.
There is mention of moving St George and St Teresa school to the new site. However, the logical priority for school places arising from current trends and the proposed housing would appear to be an additional two forms of entry at primary, these being sited with regard to reducing travel distance from any new houses and at a school that has a priority for local children.
In general, there must be maximum protection for public investment in new school buildings, whether primary or secondary, as this presents an extreme financial risk, particularly in the light of the autonomy of academies in relation to access to resources and in their admission policies which, even currently, cater for the admission of a high proportion of students from outside the area.
The proposed site for the 750 houses would present difficulties of access and considerable increases in traffic through the village as it is the 'wrong' side for access to Birmingham, the NEC, airport, railway stations and motorways, these being centres for employment and onward journeys.
This site, if extending to the full 750 houses, would have a significantly detrimental effect on the street scene in Station Road and approach through Stripes Hill and Grove Road.
The proposal has arisen from the stated aim of providing new premises for Arden Academy, it is not put forward as a planned scheme for new housing. The need and cost implications have not been made public. Whilst there may be some aspects of merit, the lack of independent assessment of need, the vagueness of outcome and no public awareness at this point of any concept masterplan, means SMBC is proposing a scheme that will undoubtedly have a devastating impact on Knowle and with little idea of what the plan will cost and what it will deliver.
Hampton Road
The proposals from the football club are at a more moderate scale. However, there are still questions about the cost to SMBC and the ownership and availability of resources. It is clear that the football club have a large number of teams that cannot be accommodated easily with the current number of pitches. However, provision of new resources would be of greater benefit if extending to more sports beyond football in order to cater for a wide range of skills and consequently attract more people to sport.

The views of residents have been ignored.
* The Draft Local Plan is as far away as possible from the views of residents, as reflected in the Neighbourhood Forum survey. Whilst it may have been impossible to accommodate the view about total numbers, there is serious conflict with regard to the size and location of sites, the appropriateness of the housing mix and the need to address the impact on local services and infrastructure. As one example, 98% of residents wanted sites on green belt to be less than 500 houses and 96% wanted them to be less than 100 houses. The current proposal is clearly way out of line with this and other views of residents.

The type and density of housing is inappropriate.
* The stipulation of 50% affordable housing and, in particular, the requirement for rented accommodation, is out of keeping with the area and will have a detrimental effect on the profile and character of Knowle.
* The densities quoted for the two sites are too high, particularly as this presumably average figure takes into account the school and club playing fields.
Recent housing development in Knowle has shown what high-density mixed housing looks like and the difficulties created, particularly with regard to parking and street scene. These recent developments are an indication of how developers can have little regard for providing building that is in keeping with existing housing.

Suggestions
The present proposal is a potential disaster for Knowle and needs a radical rethink along the following lines:
* Significantly reduce the number of houses that are proposed for Knowle by considering:
A new freestanding small-scale garden city that can have its own purpose-built community facilities;
Allocation of large sites to existing conurbations rather than villages;
Other sites outside the area such as those suggested by the Neighbourhood Forum and Knowle Society;
Smaller sites of around 200 to 300 around Dorridge and Bentley Heath to spread the load. Sites 207 (retains adequate separation from Solihull), 104, 135, 241, 199, 029, 210, 127 would take some pressure off Knowle and 059 in Knowle, as a last resort, would ease some aspects of impact in Knowle.
* Assess the costs and benefits of the two existing proposals and, if favourable, set this within a wider planning perspective as below.
* SMBC, in partnership with KDBH-NF and its extensive database, takes an overall strategic view of the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath area, not accepting without question what is being offered by the two organisations and developers currently favoured. Such proactive planning to take account of:
Making the sites no larger than that needed to secure outcomes that meet proven need;
The need for additional primary school places and planning that take regard of travel plans and maximum preservation of primary school catchment areas;
The need for additional and enhanced primary medical care provision;
Additional resources for a wide range of sport and leisure activities and that have full and long term availability to the community;
Accessibility of community resources, including retail;
Accessibility of sites;
Reducing the use and impact of the car;
Transport links to employment, railway stations, airport and major centres;
Minimal impact on the character of the three villages.

It is difficult to see the current Draft Solihull Plan as anything but a long term disaster for Knowle. It is essential that there is an objective, evidence based re-assessment of the plan for Knowle that evaluates priorities, responds to need, examines cost implications to the public purse and delivers housing in a way that has minimum detrimental impact on services, infrastructure, environmental issues, landscape and village identity.

I am a member of the Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum and fully support the KDBH Forum response to the Local Plan Review consultation.

see attached letter and appendices

Dear Sirs

Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan Consultation re Hampton Road Knowle and Station/Warwick Road Knowle

I would like to object most strongly to the proposed developments for Knowle and feel that none of them should be supported. I feel you have failed to inform the residents of Knowle of the proposed developments. In my own area I suggest that you sent your letter dated 8 December 2016 to only about a dozen homes immediately adjoining the site. Yet the addition of so many new homes in Knowle will wreck the semi rural character of the Village and affect all of Knowle residents. It is likely that nearly all the occupiers of these homes would be commuting by cars (possibly 2 per household) to their places of work some miles away as there are very few employment opportunities in the area.

Green Belt I believe these sites are in the Green Belt. If Solihull MBC is happy to sacrifice existing green belt and prefers concentrated development rather than dispersed in-fill development, then surely it would be sense to build an entirely new Village, similar to the development of Dickens Heath with schools, library etc?

Garden Village With the Governments recent initiative for these, Solihull MBC would be far better putting all their proposed concentrated development for a new village, homes 6000+, with all new infrastructure and facilities. Somewhere between Balsall Common and Hampton-in-Arden could be a location with good Road/Rail access to the Cities of both Birmingham and Coventry and other major towns of Leamington Spa and Stratford-upon-Avon and the Midlands Motorway Network. There seem many options when looking at a map of the area. Could Cheswick Green be increased to form a lovely Garden Village?

Hampton Road Sites None of this development should happen as the land is Green Belt and the infrastructure is unsuitable for such developments. This area should have been treated as 3 distinct sites and each one should be individually evaluated as all are in the existing Green Belt and access for each will be separate off Hampton Road. These are to the East, the existing football club/cricket club and Grimshaw wood; to the West, the former nursery and farm land; to the West the area around the fishermans car park and canal proposed as a new site for the football club.
If the football club wish to move, their existing site could be considered for development taking into account the usual planning criteria. However, the additional traffic caused by the proposed housing will make Hampton Road a bottleneck. Other infrastructure such as schools and doctors are already stretched and I understand all Knowle Schools are oversubscribed. If the proposed new site for the football club is considered it should be noted that this would be commercial development in the Green Belt. There are many other under used good sports facilities including football clubs within a 2 mile radius of Knowle.
The former Thackers Nursery site and agricultural land to the West of Hampton Road is the natural boundary to the Green belt and should remain so. The proposal for so many houses would make the traffic additions to Hampton Road impossible/impassable and with worse bottlenecks. The suggestion of cycling as a major means of transport is ridiculous - on Warwick Road where there are cycle lanes, I see about 1 cyclist a week using them. The UK weather is not conducive to cycling apart for as a recreation. This site is too far from the Village to be walkable for most people and there is not currently a bus service on Hampton Road. Hence we would need further parking facilities in Knowle or these new residents would 'shop' in other areas.

Arden relocation and Large Housing development This should not happen. Whilst a new purpose built school would be nice, this is again development in the Green Belt. Perhaps the school should consider incremental rebuilding within the existing site, as their 6th form centre.
The proposed housing here is vast and in the Green Belt. It should not happen. The increased traffic on Warwick Road and Station Road would create bottle necks and wreck the beautiful heart we have in Knowle. Clearly the infrastructure could not cope with such a development.

I have spoken to many friends in Knowle and I know my feelings above are in line with the majority of Knowle residents. However, many had no idea about these plans.

Yours sincerely

Dear Sir,

I wish to register my strong objection to the Council's Plan and support the detailed response to the Plan, which I have attached to this email.

Yours faithfully,

Objection to planning proposals for building in Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath.

We would like to lodge our objection to the proposal to build some 1,500 houses in the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath areas as it is a disproportionate expansion of these villages.

I wish to object very strongly to the Solihull Draft Local Plan.

I am extremely concerned and surprised that the plan is of such poor quality. A plan of this nature must be developed in the most rigorous manner - this one definitely has not been. It fails to address many of the key issues associated with such developments. Broad aspects of infrastructure is just one example. Implementation of the plan will create, quite demonstrably, an unsustainable situation.

I am very concerned that my Council should publish such a lazy, ill thought through plan for such a large scale development. I believe that it should be immediately withdrawn and the planners sent back to the drawing board. We all deserve a much better and more professional plan than this!

I have read the draft response of the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum and I would like to add my full support to that document.

Several years ago, when I lived in the Thames Valley, local Councils used a case study for training purposes. The case study was entitled "How To Get It Wrong". The case study was based upon a very unfavourable critique of the development of Knowle by SMBC!!!!!!! Enough is enough - we must get this one right!

Please scrap this plan.

See Attachment

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

see email and KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

email and copy of KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

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

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

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

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

To whom it may concern

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

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

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

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

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

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

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand, St George & St Teresa has been ignored!! We have been forced to turn away children in the parish and with siblings in our school which causes huge problems for families that are split up as a result and unnecessary stress for children involved.

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

I trust that you will recognise the need to expand the current offering at St George & St Teresa.

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

This directly impacts on the education of my child Keeley-May O'Sullivan at St George & St Teresa RC School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools

in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

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

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to highlight the

need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my children at St George & St Teresa RC School

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

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools

in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath

and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed.

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.
This directly impacts on the education of my children at St George & St Teresa RC School and I request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.
During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.
The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed.

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

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

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

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

Please take note of these comments.

To whom it may concern,

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

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

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand the same has not been offered to St George & St Teresa RC School. We have been forced to exclude children in our parish and with siblings in our school; in particular my own child who does not have a place at St George and St Teresa's meaning she has to attend a different school to her siblings. This is personally damaging to us as a family as we are often forced to chose which school productions and assemblies to attend, prioritising one child over another. This has been heartbreaking and immensely difficult for us, something I wouldn't relish or wish other families now and in the future to have to put up with due to insufficient school places.

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

Thank you for taking the time to read this email.

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9. This directly impacts on the education of my child Lucas year 1 at St George & St Teresa RC School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward.

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

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

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review we would like to highlight the

need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my child/children at St George & St Teresa RC School

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

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools

in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have

been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath

and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates

a need which should be addresse

We currently have 3 children at St George & Teresa.

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

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

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

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

Dear solihull council,

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

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

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. The school have been forced to exclude children in parish. My son, despite being in catchment was initially excluded from G&T.

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

I would also like to note my concern at the potential removal of bus services to G&T. By doing this, the council are discriminating against my son's right to have a faith based education

I am writing to voice my concern about how the new development proposals will effect school provision in the Knowle and Dorridge area.

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

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

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

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

If large housing schemes are to be approved it is vital that schools and all amenities are improved to meet need.

In addition the road through Knowle high street is already struggling to cope with the current traffi,c a plan needs to be designed to cope with access to the new proposal.

To be clear I agree some development is needed to cope with the country wide shortfall but it is essential amenities upgraded to meet the needs of the growing community.

For the attention of Members

Further to public consultation with parents, staff and our local community, the governors of St George & St Teresa RC Primary School
would like to respond formally to the Draft Local Plan Review.

We would like to highlight the urgent need for an increase in local primary education places proposed in the infrastructure requirements
for Items 4, 8 and 9 and particularly, the desperate need for more Catholic primary education places.

Our catchment area includes proposed significant developments in Knowle, Dorridge, Bentley Heath, Hockley Heath (part of Rural South)
and Balsall Common (Rural East). We have the largest primary catchment area in the Borough and the only Catholic Primary School
on the eastern side of the M42. As such, we will be directly affected by the plans proposed by Solihull Local Authority.
We would ask to be involved in the scoping of the Masterplan as and when you undertake it so that we are fully involved in the infrastructure
planning that must support this level of new housing development.

During recent years, local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority schools in the area have been increased to meet
demand, St George & St Teresa has been prevented from doing so. This, despite discussion with the Local Authority regarding proportionality.
We have seen a consistent increase in demand for places at our school but, as a single form entry school, we have not had sufficient places
available to accommodate this need. We have, therefore, had to turn away local Catholic children wanting to attend our school - excluding
those who live in the local catchment area and with siblings already in our school. This means we are denying Catholic children their right
to a Catholic education - a situation which can only get worse with the increase in new housing and subsequent increase in demand for
primary places.

On behalf of the children, teachers, parents and local community, the governors of St George & St Teresa RC Primary School formally
request that the infrastructure planning, accompanying proposed development, addresses the need to increase the number of primary
Catholic places available to meet the needs of the local Catholic community.



Respectfully yours

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

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

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools
in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have two children at St George and St Teresa but our third child is educated at Hockley Heath Academy because of a lack of places. This is a horrible situation for any family to be in and we would like Catholic education to be considered properly in the planning for our area. Whilst other schools in the borough have been expanded partly to prevent families being split up, Catholic families are not protected in the same way, this is unacceptable and appears to be discriminatory.

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

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

This directly impacts on the education of my children at St George & St Teresa RC School.

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

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand, St George & St Teresa has not. We were forced to send our third child with siblings at the school to a different school. Eventually we got a place for him but we had a taster of how stretched school places are.

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

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to highlight the

need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9.

This directly impacts on the education of my children at St George & St Teresa RC School

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

During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools

in the area have been increased to meet demand St George & St Teresa has not. We have

been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school.

The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath

and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates

a need which should be addressed

To Who It May Concern,

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to highlight the need for increase in primary education proposed in Items 4, 8 and 9. This directly impacts on the education of my children at St George & St Teresa RC School and we request to be considered in the planning of this provision going forward. During recent years local development has been substantial and whilst Local Authority Schools in the area have been increased to meet demand, St George & St Teresa has not. We have been forced to exclude children in parish and with siblings in our school. The size of our catchment area to include new developments at Balsall Common, Hockley Heath and additional potential impact from Blythe Valley, as well as Knowle & Dorridge demonstrates a need which should be addressed.

Dear Sirs,

The local plan has major flaw- the new infrastructure and economic activity centres (UK central and HS2 hub) are in the north-east of the borough and the majority of the development is sited in the south of the borough. This means that the workforce for the new economic areas will be crossing the borough on a regular basis. There are no plans for new infrastructure to link the housing to the economic activity areas, the roads, in particular the M42 and the A4141 are already at capacity at peak periods. It would be better to site the housing near to the economic activity areas.

The housing development allocations in Knowle go far beyond what the current infrastructure can cope with. your stated objective is to retain the historic core of the village. With the increased traffic having no alternative but to cross the village through the High St, this will become constantly clogged with traffic, which will increase pollution and could lead to damage to fragile foundations of the historic buildings. If this plan is accepted the green belt will be lost, but as important a 20% increase in the number of homes in the area will destroy the nature of the area and the village of Knowle as we know it.

The vision states that the developments will be in Dorridge, Bentley Heath and Knowle. The plan shows only development in Knowle and the majority of traffic leaving the development with be going North to Solihull on the A4141 in Knowle.

The plan shows housing at a density which has recently been achieved in 2 new developments in Knowle. The experience of this density is that there are traffic problems, no suitable locations for recycling storage, little green space. One only has to look back but a few years to see that overcrowded developments become the substandard housing of the future. If due to lack of space people find it difficult to keep the area tidy (dustbins in the road etc, no where to store a bike, no where to keep equipment for maintaining the exterior) work will not be done and the area will become unpleasant for the majority.

We are not a London Borough where public transport links mean a car is not necessary. Current bike routes end at the most dangerous points, at junctions or roundabouts and it is therefore unrealistic to bank on the prospect of people managing in our areas without a car. Developments will need space for cars and people.

Your vision for expansion of the Town centre does not take into account the expectation that shopping in the high street will decline over the next 20 years. An extension to Touchwood is not needed, and if built, will further destroy the character of Solihull.

Yours faithfully