09 Knowle - South of Knowle

South of Knowle.
The scale of this development is total out of proportion with Knowle and will seriously degrade the character of the area.
The local services in area cannot cope with this scale of development.
The local consultation proposed small developments across the Knowle, Dorridge Bentley Heath area. This is just one huge development and is unacceptable.
The area is currently part of the green belt around the village and should not be developed.

I fully support the Councils Objectives with Area 9.

My family own property in that area at 1928 Warwick Road and are happy to work with the Council where possible in order to achieve these objectives. We have no objections to the land being used for residential development.

Area 9, to the south of Knowle is true greenbelt. Its conversion to housing will be out of keeping with the area and blight what is a bulging village already

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

Knowle plans
FAO The Chief Planning Officer

I have been learning, recently, about the plans known as the Arden Triangle.
I would like to make the following points;-

1. TRAFFIC The plans for Knowle seem to propose upwards of 1000 new dwellings, many of which will be two car households. Everyone I have spoken to thinks this will be a disaster for Knowle High Street, Hampton Lane and Station Road. The already difficult parking would be made considerably worse.

2.ARDEN SCHOOL I am not convinced it is necessary to demolish the school. Many of the buildings are almost new. Nobody talked of demolition until this new plan surfaced.
Repair and partial rebuilding could, with planning and imagination, remedy the situation.

3.NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL. If a new primary school is needed, why should this be a Catholic, or any other religious institution? Religious education can be divisive in a community and apart from in education religion is mostly on the decline.

4. MIND The Mind site off the bridle path from Station Road has been quietly providing a valuable service for over 20 years. It should not just be swept away.As resource for mental health it must,surely, be very low cost to both to NHS and local govt.
In summary .....this is too much for Knowle and the plans need to be changed and/or rejected.

There is much emphasis in the plan on housing however in this connection I am concerned about infrastructure and specifically parking.
Since the recent additional housing in Four Ashes, Hampton Road and Middlefield it has become almost impossible for shoppers to park in the village centre car parks. also St John's Close is full of cars whose drivers prefer not to pay for all day parking, thus creating a hazard.
I would ask that a substantial piece of land in the Arden Triangle be provided for all day parking to absorb the many business people who now work in Knowle, thereby freeing up the car parks in the centre for shoppers including the proposed additional numbers This issue needs addressing urgently if Knowle is not to snarl up completely. It is close now and I already refrain from just popping down to the village for fear of not being able to park. The current infrastructure in the village will not accommodate an extra 1000 houses, circa 3000 people and 2000 cars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish to convey my comments, as follows, in relation to the proposed master plan development in Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath (KDBH).

The presentations I have attended at Arden School in recent months give a very clear indication that the Local Authority is not taking cognisance of the feedback informed in the Local Neighbourhood Plan. The planning officer in attendance provided a pro-development partisan view, as opposed to a balanced impartial position at this early stage in proceedings. Is this fair and reasonable? Why are the L.A. not relaying more of the negative aspects of the development master plan, instead of relying on local residents to establish and convey these views?

To support this, the local councilor's response to concerns on local infrastructure demands presented by increased development was simply to say, it's a good thing as it presents an opportunity to expand local infrastructure to support the development. He cited building new roads as an example to accommodate greater volumes of traffic? The response was basic and ill-informed to say the least, aside from flawed. We have one number high street in Knowle that cannot accommodate further expansion. Ditto, one major artery road between Knowle and Dorridge, namely, Station Road, that likewise, could not be expanded to cope with the increased traffic that would use Dorridge Station for example. A large volume of traffic commutes towards Birmingham City Centre and / or the local motorway network, whereby there are only two road bridges linking KDBH to Solihull and beyond. Any new infrastructure roads built within the new proposed developments would still filter on to these main arteries, which struggle to cope at peak traffic times as it is. If the solution is to build more major roads and bridges then the L.A. should be completely transparent and raise the possibility now instead of remaining silent.

Martin Murphy gave a speech concerning the once in a lifetime opportunity for the school to obtain a brand new state of the art £30m school / community facility for free. He also relayed that the financial cupboard was bear in relation to funds being available to refurbish or re-develop the existing Arden school site further. There are several fundamental points in regards to this statement which again illustrate an imbalance in the judgement and delivery given by an important and influential local figurehead.
Since when is a £30m school ever built for free? Has Martin Murphy never heard of the phrase "Opportunity Cost?". If not, perhaps he should stand aside or refrain from public speaking on what are essentially property development matters? If he has heard of the phrase, why did he engage with such a misleading statement? He's a head-teacher not a developer or politician! Relocating the school in some sort of pawnbroker exercise to generate funds at the expense of lost green fields forever is not "free" in the true meaning of the word. Increasing the local population by circa 20% with the consequences that come with it are not "free" in the true meaning of the word. Section 106 agreements in the context of property development are not free!

Martin Murphy failed to make any reference to the wonderful and newly acquired facilities at Arden School that have arisen over the years at the tax payers expense, namely, The Music Block, Science Block, 6th Form Centre, Smart Centre, Gym Astro-Turf, MUGA and recent new teaching block. Yes, we've all heard how this new block could be re-used but it cannot be re-used 1/2 mile down the road for free. Is it wise or acceptable that such fine facilities be simply demolished to make way for housing? Is it right that the costs incurred by the taxpayer over the past decade or so, which I would estimate to be in the region of £15m are just written off into some development appraisal. The remaining school buildings could be refurbished and modified at a fraction of the cost of a new school, with far less opportunity cost impact. The fact that the cupboard is so called bear does not give the right to sell off our countryside to pay for Whitehall's inability to manage finances appropriately.

Martin Murphy, also spoke proudly about the new school being a community facility. This is all smoke and mirrors based on current evidence. The school facilities at the Station Road site are nowhere near utilized by the local community to anything like the potential they could and should be. So why does moving a school 1/2 mile down the road give any cause to suspect anything significant will change? If it can be done at the new site, it can be done now. Likewise, relocating to a new school site will not paper over the widening cracks concerning the evident drop in standards at Arden. The school should stop using the existing site as an excuse in this regards and take a long hard look in the mirror.

Create a former pupils club and generate fund raising for a sports pavilion / clubhouse for example that would support the use of the school playing fields and facilities for wider community use. Knowle FC could train there preserving the one pitch they have for senior team match days. Feeder teams can utilize Arden. With all the facilities available to Arden and the 4 junior schools in the area, it is a joke for councilors to suggest we are devoid of sporting facilities. It's nearly as bigger joke as hearing the reason for BH School refusing to allow Knowle FC to play on the school field any longer owing to mud on the playground. Really....We're happy to ruin KDBH countryside, look and feel, rather than use a broom and elbow grease to keep perfectly acceptable facilities clean and tidy?

The suspicion of too many local residents I speak to is "what's the point" the government, L.A. and schools will stitch us up until they get what they want. Until the L.A. acts with a greater degree of impartiality and starts promoting reasons more fairly and clearly, this cynicism will only grow. Is that how they wish to be perceived? I do hope such cynicism is not proved to be true. I am not in favour of any major development in KDBH. If I was forced to compromise, I would select the Hampton Lane development as the more favourable and less intrusive to the community as a whole. I am not in favour of relocating Arden School, ST. G&T or development on the so called Arden triangle whatsoever. The fact that land values are sufficiently high to attract developers to fund Section 106 requirements and still make the margins in their development appraisals work is not a reason to destroy our local community and surrounding habitat and environment, let alone give politicians ground to proclaim they are pioneers of re-generation and growth, in order to hide their own levels of incompetency over a number of decades.

The proposals for Knowle are too big. The proposed numbers of houses are far too big and disproportionate
both for the Knowle area and as part of the Borough
plan. The infrastructure of Knowle and Dorridge will not be able to support such a large development. Local public transport networks are inadequate and the result will be a massive increase in car travel, parking problems, roadie congestion and environmental pollution. Smaller developments of fewer, but affordable houses, for young families and first time buyers will be much more suitable. In suggesting the current plan for Knowle the Council is going against many of it's stated objectives with regard to appropriateness etc.

In Knowle on land earmarked for Arden School there is a field run by Mind for those with mental health issues. This was leased to the charity several years ago and thanks to staff and users, has been transformed into a facility used regularly by its clients, old and new. No local alternative has been offered to Mind as a consequence of the Plan. Given the importance the Government has attached to improve mental health I firmly believe Mind should be allowed to remain and continue to offer an invaluable service to mental health users in our community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I recognise that there is a pressing need for further affordable housing. I am strongly supportive of the building of a new Arden Academy in Knowle and support the building of 750 new houses on the old school site. Unfortunately, I missed participating in the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum review. I do not agree with their conclusion that, "The scale of 750 houses is not justified by the Council's evidence base: nor is it justified by the need to fund the new Academy. On this basis, the NF objects to the proposed allocation."

see attached letter

My view is that the number of houses proposed for Knowle is disproportionate and unsustainable and is not justified by the Council's methodology.

In particular, the proposal for Arden Academy to have new school premises funded by large scale housing is completely unacceptable.

To loose such a large site to housing will cause significant loss of valuable and attractive landscape as well as eroding our sense of village community as we become more and more like a town!

Access to the site wold be via Knowle High Street adding to the pollution and congestion residents already experience.

I don't believe new homes are being built in the right locations. In Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath there should be a dispersed pattern of development to minimise the impact on the character of the area. The proposed development of the Arden Triangle is particularly unsuitable. 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 in the Arden Triangle in any scale is not sustainable and would exacerbate already unacceptable congestion along the High Street and Station Road.

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

The plan to build 700 houses in Knowle is ill conceived. The case has not been made to build on the green belt and is only being pursued because a developer is effectively 'bribing' the council and Arden school with a so called 'land swap'. The site is not well served by public transport and, therefore, the impact of the additional traffic through Knowle village, Station Road and the Warwick Road will be significant and has not been appropriately considered in the plan. government policy forbids in law building in the green belt. NOT A WELL THOUGH THROUGH PLAN!

The Arden triangle site on the green belt in Knowle is currently extensively used to give Knowle residents access to open countryside via the bridleway on Station Road. This would be lost if the scheme goes ahead.
In addition the provision of Mental Health facilities through Solihull Mind on the Arden triangle is an important provision and has taken 20 years of development on the site. With increasing requirement for mental health provision this should be developed rather than removed at this point in time.

The MIND field off the bridleway from Station Road has been a beautiful and beneficial facility helping vulnerable people with mental health needs over the past 20 years - it is appreciated widely, has been the product of a great deal of hard, creative work. It is vital that this space is allowed to continue in its current form.

Site 9 - The Arden Triangle states that it preserves the rural fringe to Knowle from the approach roads.
The land proposed rises up above the A4141 on the approach to Knowle from the South - and is highly visible.
Therefore the visible current rural fringe will then be lost. This statement is therefore wrong.

Given all you say, it would be insupportable if the Mind horticultural site is included in the Arden Plan. The loss of such a wonderful facility for a group of vulnerable people, those with mental health issues, goes against all that you say in this section of the document. I'm a service user at the site and it is a haven of calm, being outdoors and being part of the natural world. We learn good skills too. The site must not be touched or reduced in size in any way. It is a community resource for a disadvantaged group.

Allocation 9, 750 homes south of Knowle completely underestimates how much highways work is required. Before starting any more development work new roads and access from Warwick Road and Grove Road are required. If any further development is planned using access via Middlefield Avenue and Hertford Way it will make the current disaster there even worse. The Council needs to seriously look into training in Change Management if it is to have any hope of support from existing home owners rather than taking their rates to Stratford and Costswolds

see attached letter

see attached letter

see letter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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