09 Knowle - South of Knowle

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.

Consultation regarding the future of Knowle and Arden school and community
To whom it may concern

I am writing in relation to the proposal to move Arden School and build houses on the remaining Station Road site and also the building proposals for Stripes Hill. I have two main concerns:

Firstly whilst I am in agreement that Arden School desperately needs development and investment, I am slightly concerned that this has been approached by the current Head in such a haphazard way. There has been significant investment in the capital buildings at Arden in recent years and several new blocks have been built and opened including a new sixth form building, the art (smart)? block and the very recent additional modular building built in the last 12 months. All of these under the new proposal will be knocked down. Whilst I am told that the modular building can be relocated elsewhere the practicalities of finding the 'right fit' for it on any new site will make such a move nigh on impossible.

If the long term view was that the school was ultimately to be relocated then this money could have been better invested elsewhere. This is a fundamental mismanagement of public money and a shows a significant lack of financial accountability.

I therefore have little confidence in the current school management's ability to identify and manage the long term strategy for investment in Arden including the building of a new school. Perhaps this is a matter more for Ofsted rather than the local authority? however it must surely also be a matter of concern for the local authority.

My second concern relates to the infrastructure of Knowle and the surrounding area. As a resident of Milverton Road I have noticed in recent years increasing congestion caused by significantly increased traffic on Station Road, Lodge Road and Warwick Road. How does the Council propose to manage the further increase to traffic that will ensure from more housing should these proposals be agreed? There simply is not room to accommodate any further traffic on the current road system around the village. Aligned to that is the lack of available parking in the village. Shoppers and local business employees already park dangerously on surrounding residential road. I am very often barely able to reverse off my drive onto Milverton Road due to this problem - not only is this inconvenient, it is dangerous. This problem will only worsen as the village grows.

I trust that you will take account of my comments and respond accordingly.

As an aside I have found your website relating to the consultation documentation extremely difficult to navigate. Some of the links do not seem to work. One has to wonder if this is to make it as difficult as possible for people to comment on the proposals. I do hope not!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is for that reason that I support them.

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

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

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

Road and Parking infrastructure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Regards and good luck with the next phase

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

In accordance with the consultation deadline for the Draft Local Plan Review, please find attached the following sent on behalf of our clients Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd:

* Letter addressing our representations on behalf of our client Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
* Appendix 1 Proposed Allocation Plan Layout
* Appendix 2 Grove Road, Knowle Promotional Document

see Arden Academy Questionnaire and email comment
Knowle Ref Site 9 South of Knowle

I would be in favour of houses being built if there is also a new Arden Academy school built, as I think this would be of great value to the local community in many ways.

I live very close to the current school site- on the turning circle of Milverton Road- and my main reservations are the concentration of buildings (and their height) packed into the Arden school footprint, the proximity of the new homes to current residents' gardens, and the maintenance of a cul-de-sac rather than a through road in Milverton.

It would be a mark of respect for the current residents, many longstanding of over 45 years, if the planning department could somehow incorporate a clause in the design of the new houses to be built so they do not overlook the gardens/ houses of adjacent neighbours, given that there will be so much land to be innovative with in the design.

I would also expect consideration of another GP surgery due to the numbers of extra patients, and as a local GP myself I know that the GP services are already straining under the load, particularly given the ageing population.

I would also like safe cycle routes to the new school incorporated, and maintenance of the MIND garden, possibly with local social prescribing as an option (particularly related to gardening- allotments are currently a 2-3 year wait- could there be any new ways of utilising space which might otherwise be poor building land? Could parts of allotments be sub-let to people keen to get involved who have little other opportunity?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

see attached letter

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.

New developments & future school development.
Having been made very aware of the shortage of houses via the media in the past few months, I would like to make it very clear that I fully understand the need for new houses. However, everything needs to be kept in proportion. With new houses, approx 6000 in our local area, of which approx 3000 to be built in the catchment area of St George & St Teresa I feel we need to have a local Catholic School that has been equipped to be able to fully meet the needs of its ever increasing Catholic population.
As you are already aware, St George & St Teresa School is at present a one form entry school. This has, in recent years led to the situation of not all pupils who already have a sibling at the school being offered a place at the school. As you can imagine this has led to a logistical nightmare to the parents who find themselves dropping off pupils at different Primary schools, not to mention increased traffic & pollution. More importantly these children are being denied a Catholic education, of which having had 4 children educated at this wonderful school deeply troubles & saddens me.
It was suggested at our meeting that the most positive outcome would be to create a 2 form entry school in response to the huge increase of housing to be built.
Two solutions were put forward, either to remain on the same site & extend or to move to the " Arden Triangle" & build a new school. Either of these solutions would be acceptable if it meant the Catholic education could be assured for any future Grandchildren!( one on his way & in catchment!) I, therefore would ask that the council in their forthcoming planning with regards to education would make this a high priority in addressing the future needs of any Catholic child within the catchment of St George & St Teresa by ensuring adequate funding for these proposals to be carried out, in order to allow the continuation of the excellent standard of education being offered at present by the staff of St George & St Teresa to future children .
Thank you for listening to my point of view.

see attached letter

Development Knowle and Dorridge

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

See Attachment

see attached letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

additional letter submission