09 Knowle - South of Knowle

Objection to Draft Solihull Local Plan

I write to express my full support for the objection prepared by the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum to the Draft Local Plan. I agree that the sites proposed for housing in Knowle are far too large and are not justified by the Council's evidence base. The impact on the social, physical and transport infrastructure of Knowle and Dorridge will be hugely adverse, to the detriment of the village character and rural "feel" of the village which is so valued by existing and aspiring residents.

I wish to make some additional points in relation to the Arden Academy and Arden Triangle proposed allocation.

No evidence has been presented to substantiate the numbers of houses needed to cross fund the school. The first proposals put forward by the school were relatively modest and based on the need for about 250 houses on what is now Phase 1 and 2 of the current proposals. The plans then expanded and the figure of around 350 houses was stated. The latest figure is 450 houses. No viability evidence has been provided to substantiate this. In addition, no evidence has been advanced as to why funding from other sources could not contribute to the costs, thereby reducing the number of houses required to enable the development.

It seems clear from the Call for Sites submissions that the new Academy is dependent on other landowners in the Triangle to provide adequate land for playing fields and access. This potentially places the Academy in a ransom situation and raises the prospect that far larger tracts of land are being allocated for housing in locations (particularly in the south west part of the site) that have previously been rejected and that are not sustainable. One landowner has expressed this explicitly (See Parcel 150 submission relating to Lansdowne Farm): "If the Arden triangle project goes ahead, this field will be made available as a school playing field , subject to the development of the rest of Lansdowne Farm". This could result in the community effectively being ransomed by this landowner if it wishes to secure better school and leisure facilities for the benefit of all.

I am aware that the Academy has very recently amended its plans in an attempt to show that it is not dependent on the Lansdowne Farm land to meet its playing field requirements. It would clearly be beneficial if this could be achieved; however, the area now shown for the development looks too small to accommodate a new Academy of the size proposed and it is very worrying that such basic matters have not yet been addressed.

The overall scale of housing proposed appears to be an opportunistic response by the Council, the landowners and the Academy, at the expense of the local community in terms of the numbers of houses, loss of Green Belt, and impact on landscape and local character. This is not an appropriate or acceptable planning solution. The Council, if it wishes to support the Academy, should be prepared to adopt alternative means of securing the desired end result such as compulsory purchase. This would be a wholly appropriate way to resolve issue: and affordable given capital returns from the proposed development.

The issue of potential ransoms is also a matter of concern in relation to the delivery of promised community benefits. There is a significant risk that the promised community benefits being offered in exchange for more housing may not be delivered. This, together with the lack of evidence on environmental, social and transportation impacts, are grounds for objection to the proposed Arden Triangle allocation.

I trust the Council will take these additional comments into account in considering proposed additional housing in Knowle and the wider KDBH area.

Solihull Draft Local Plan - Arden Triangle

I would like to respond to the proposals for the Arden Triangle site.

I have lived at Barn End, 98 Grove Road, B93 0PL for the last 30 years. My home is a grade two listed and converted field barn, circa 1680, and is currently approximately ¼ mile from the nearest property. It is tiny, one bedroom, and positioned just a few feet from Grove Road and it originally served the surrounding fields as a milking parlour and dairy with hayloft above. The conversion was sympathetically carried out by myself, and given a SMBC design award in 1990. The surrounding fields in our ownership, approximately 4 acres, have been preserved and enhanced, ie the original wildflower meadow has been retained, the hedges laid and maintained, the central ditch cleared, and trees, now maturing, planted on the boundary with Norton Green Lane, thanks to a Council tree grant.

The land is a through route for wildlife, from the land to the west of Barn End, down to the corner opposite Rotten Row Farm, from there, over Grove Road to the fields of Landsdowne Farm, Cuttle Brook, and probably as far Station Road. There is plenty of evidence, and I have seen badgers, foxes, muntjac, roe (I think!) deer, barn, tawny and little owls, bats, nesting buzzards and grass snakes, to name a few.

The Arden Triangle stretches from residential in the north to decidedly rural in the south, it is wrong to consider the whole parcel as one lot, the extremes of the site should be considered differently. In my view the southern extremity is far too remote from Knowle village and should be retained as farmland. Coming from Warwick on the A4141 the Landsdowne fields open up to view at the Rotten Row corner, the planting on the road verge is sparse in winter, so the land, rising up to the north, is clearly visible, and if built on, will present an unpleasant inclined plain mounded with houses on the approach to Knowle.

The rural nature of Grove Road will also be lost. Grove Road and Barn End are much lower than the Landsdowne fields, the barn is only 1 1/2 storeys, so 2 storey (or even 3?)dwellings, will tower above, and destroy its historic setting.

Only recently have I learned about the Mind site off Station Road, Knowle. This is an extremely valuable resource which serves many in the Solihull area. They have very much kept themselves to themselves over the 20 - 25 years they have been there, so their presence is not widely known, but it would be disastrous if the site was lost in the redevelopment of the school. As well as the benefits to the service users, it is also of benefit to the environment, and surely, with the increase in population across the borough, it's services will be in even more demand. It is a gem that should be retained, the Council who I believe own the site, would be seen in a very poor light if it was lost.

What is the justification for building 750 houses? Is it to warrant the rebuilding of the school? The number of houses proposed has risen over the months, I don't feel that Knowle residents should be made to pay, in the loss of their existing way of life, for the construction of a brand new school. It's too high a price to pay, there must be a more modest way of updating the school to bring it to what they feel they need. Your proposals state 50% affordable housing, I feel this is too high a percentage for a rural location and don't understand how this proportion has been arrived at. If that is the percentage required, you have the wrong location! The density for the site is quoted as 16 dwellings/ha, whereas other sites are 36 dwellings/ha. How has this been calculated, has the school and Mind site, together with the open areas around the lake and brook been included in the area for calculation, thereby making the figure look better than it actually is? If so, the density does not reflect the existing properties in the surrounding area, and the development will look incongruous.

Enough has been said about the impact on the local infrastructure, but is the capacity of the sewage treatment facility in Norton Green Lane capable of servicing another possible 1000 homes? The additional houses on the Middlefield site will be connected soon, and there is already impact in the vicinity from emissions, which can be quite offensive if there's a south easterly, have existing pollution levels been measured, how will this be addressed in the future?

I realise that new houses are urgently required, but Knowle is being asked to take a disproportionately large quota, which will completely destroy the character of our village and it's rural surroundings, I respectfully ask you to reconsider the number of houses proposed, and thereby the impact on our community.

Solihull Draft Local Plan

In general, I support the submissions of the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum

In particular, I am opposed to the building of 750 houses to the south of Knowle (No. 9 on the Schedule of Allocated Housing sites). I would support the re-building of Arden Academy and the construction of up to 450 houses to fund it but more than that would destroy the current ambience of the area.

I am very much opposed to the loss of Solihull Mind and find it hard to understand how you could possibly contemplate the loss of this important facility particularly at this time when great efforts are being made to increase awareness of and support for those blighted by mental health issues.

See attached letter

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

Solihull Local Plan Objection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

see attached response

see attached letter

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

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

Site 9 development

I am unable to send the form back but append my comments below.

I do not agree that Site 9 should be developed for housing/new school.

Combined with the Hampton Road site the increase in houses and consequent numbers of adults and children and their
cars would mean at least 2000 more people in the area and at least 1000 more cars. It is therefore completely implausable for SMBC to state on their plan for Site 9 that it avoids intrusion into the Conservation Area in Knowle village, Just because the houses are not actually located in the Conservation Area does not mean that there is no impact. What about the increase in traffic in the village and along Station Road? Where are all these people going to park their cars? What about GP provision? The village will be irreversably changed for the worse.

The mental health charity Solihull Mind has expressed concern that the plans indicate that they will lose most of their current space which will negate all their good work of the last 20 years and reduce or even destroy what they can offer. I share their concerns. If their land is taken I would regard this as a barometer of how poorly mental health provision is regarded.

This plan should be rejected in view of the environmental impact of cars and people on the village of Knowle.

I terms of the wider Draft Local Plan, why is there vacant office space in Solihull? Vacant office space and shops vacant for over a year should be converted into dwellings by compulsion.

KDBH Neighbourhood Plan

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

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

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

Consultation on Draft Local Plan for Knowle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Plan Review Submission
As part of our request for a two form entry school and our interest in a new site off
Grove Road, Knowle - we wish to remain part of the review process as you work
on the concept Masterplan for Site 9 Arden/Grove Road development.

We believe we can demonstrate a need for our catholic school to expand in line
with the local policy and proposed infrastructure requirements. Our catchment
area includes Knowle and Dorridge, Bentley Heath, parts of Hockley Heath (Rural South)
and the area up to, surrounding and including Balsall Common (Rural East).

As we are working with various stakeholders on feasibility we hope this response is
adequate for now.

We would welcome the opportunity to meet and discuss in the near future

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

Solihull Local Plan review - consultation

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

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

My objections are as follows:

Disproportionately large number of houses in Knowle

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

Negative impact on infrastructure

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

Impact on the green belt

- Building on the Green Belt should be a last resort

Housing Allocation 9

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

Inadequate evaluation procedures by Solihull Council

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

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

see attached documents

see letter

Neighbourhood Plan & Arden School

Please can you take my views into consideration regarding the potential new Arden School with the funding stemming from new housing in the area.

I support a thoughtful and considered approach to the new school build which may involve the building of several hundred houses on the site of Arden school that would fund a new school, further down Station road.

I have one child at Arden and two planning on going in the next few years and have many friends in the community at the same stage. A new school, I believe, would serve the community well.

Planned development in Knowle &Dorridge

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

Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum

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

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

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.

New school - Arden

To whom it may concern,
I live in Knowle and wish to express my views about land ownership changes, a new Arden School building project and the building of new houses in the area.

My son is a student at Arden, however despite this I do not want the building to take up any space than it does already and under no circumstances do I want any more houses built in the local area.

If you need me to provide further explanation as to my reasons, I am happy to provide them.

Arden Academy and new houses in Knowle

Arden Academy have encourage parents to respond directly to you with comments on the 2020 Vision for Arden.

My comments are:
1) I recognise the need to redevelop and refurbish parts of the Arden site however I fundamentally disagree with also demolishing newly built, modern teaching & sports facilities for the purposes of additional house building. There are large parts of the infrastructure of Arden that have been invested in (by the taxpayer) over recent years and it is wrong for these to be destroyed farther than incorporated into future plans for a secondary school.
2) For any further housing development of the Knowle, Dorridge, Bentley Heath area, a comprehensive plan which includes road transport improvements, parking improvements, better public transport provision and primary school and other facilities must be considered alongside housing and a secondary school.

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.

Dear SMBC,

Objection to the release of Green Belt for housing or other development in the so called Arden Triangle, known as Site/ Area RP39.

This is on the basis that it is not being released in 'Exceptional Circumstances' as is current Government Policy. The Housing Minister Gavin Barwell stated very clearly on BBC Radio on 7th Feb 2017 that Green Belt would "Only be released for housing in exceptional circumstances"

This is valuable, well-established green belt land with wildlife such as bats living there.

The scoring system used to rank the Green Belt around Solihull as assessed by Atkins, a worldwide Engineering company, appears to be subjective. Had CPRE assessed this Green Belt, I'm sure the results would have been very different.

In addition, there is a set of coincidences that make this land a potential candidate: these are that some, or all of the landowners are ready to profit from the land. And also that Arden Academy wants to grow considerably, producing a Super school.

Arden has had expensive investment in 4 major builds in recent years, which were all touted as being beneficial to the wider Knowle community. Further development is unlikely to be of benefit to Knowle, and will likely be detrimental, increasing road traffic and congestion.

It is accepted that housing is required, but neither of these situations create exceptional circumstances, and given the amount of Brown Field sites in the West Midlands, it seems wrong to destroy such a beautiful green site. To build on it seems to favour financial gains for some, without due consideration to the impact on local infrastructure, or the identification of other, less lucrative sites.

Additionally, Knowle as a village is struggling with parking, over-subscribed facilities such as Doctors, and the addition of hundreds of houses is not right for the Knowle community as a whole.

To quote Sajid Javid's (Department for Communities and Local Government) statement to Parliament on the recent white paper.

"First, we need to plan properly so we get the right homes built in the right places."
"Let me reassure the House that this will not entail recklessly ripping up our countryside.
In 2015 we promised the British people that the green belt was safe in our hands."

Just because Landowners want to profit and the Head of Arden wants to be a Super Head, is it right to build on good quality Green Belt and to lose community facilities like the MIND community garden?

If no one was to gain significantly financially, would a proposal to destroy this established, beautiful Green belt really have been made?

site 9 Arden academy questionnaire