Draft Local Plan Review

No

Representation ID: 3924

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: The Knowle Society

In relation to Site 8:
Well defined parcels of land: Only meets this criterion if take both parcels together.
Preventing towns merging: Knowle already linked to Dorridge and Bentley Heath. 2 miles from Hampton-in-Arden and Chadwick End.
Checking unrestricted sprawl: Does not comply with this, except for Knowle Football Club.
Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: Does not comply except for extending the settlement boundary as a result of proposed development.
Preservation of the setting of historic towns: Site will cause considerable harm to village and its Conservation Area.

No

Representation ID: 3925

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: The Knowle Society

In relation to Site 9:
Well defined parcels of land: meets this criterion if all parcels of land taken together.
Preventing towns merging: Knowle already linked to Dorridge and Bentley Heath. 2 miles from Hampton-in-Arden and Chadwick End.
Checking unrestricted sprawl: Does not comply with this.
Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: Does not comply except for extending the settlement boundary as a result of proposed development.
Preservation of the setting of historic towns: Site will cause considerable harm to village and its Conservation Area.

No

Representation ID: 3926

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: The Knowle Society

No mention in DLP Site 9 proposal for the inclusion of any additional accommodation for older people.
Does not identify any future suitable provision for what is the largest sector of Knowle's population.
Pepper-potting affordable houses around sites has an adverse impact on all residents. Partly due to poor management by RSLs or Housing Associations.
Could resolve this by not pepper-potting homes, or by providing low cost market housing for rent or sale.
Proportion of shared ownership should be for local people only.
Densities are too high; need pre-1980s layouts. Would only require further 0.5% of Green Belt.

No

Representation ID: 6367

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: The Knowle Society

Support the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath Forum response.

No

Representation ID: 6368

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: The Knowle Society

The Council's decision-making process has been based on a points system which includes the following aspects:
Well defined parcels of land;
Preventing towns merging,
Checking unrestricted sprawl,
Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
Preservation of the setting of historic towns.

The weighting of each of these five points has not been explained by the Council.
Must be explained by Council if they want support for proposals in Knowle.

No

Representation ID: 6369

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: The Knowle Society

Objection to development in Knowle:
Proportion of anticipated windfall sites will also occur in Knowle, exacerbating the impact of planned sites.
20% of proposed housing numbers in the Green Belt are in Knowle. Unfair and unjustified.
High existing traffic flows through the village - see TA for Waitrose application (Sept 2011). Hazardous to pedestrians; causes rat runs.
Fourway lights near M42 Jn5 for high-voltage electricity main did not work.
Lack of parking.
Poor response times from emergency vehicles, needs to be improved.
Considerable pressure on existing local services.

No

Representation ID: 6370

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: The Knowle Society

Council rejected a self-contained new village near Berkswell, due to inadequate access.
How inadequate was it for that opinion to be applicable?
Is not the same situation going to arise in Knowle from these sites if they are developed?

No

Representation ID: 6371

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: The Knowle Society

Alternative sites to south and east of Borough have been discounted.
Sites which abut or are in close proximity to the A3400 would be a better link between Solihull and M42 Junction 4.
Would not pass through a settlement such as Knowle.
Council must publish its decision-making process based on their stated planning points for why Call for Sites Ref. 34, 103, 199, 13, 14, 57, 121 and 165 were discounted in favour of Sites 8 and 9.

No

Representation ID: 6372

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: The Knowle Society

Site 8 objections:
North eastern boundary is located on one of Knowle's highest points. 2-3 storey dwellings will create an unacceptable skyline in Knowle.
Mixed development will create an image of a town rather than village.
Will detract from Conservation Area status.
Village status will be lost due to vast increase in population.
Unlikely that density can be achieved due to hard constraints such as trees.
Loss of wildlife. Will require land for wildlife buffer.
Will require traffic calming measures.
Enlarged sports complex is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Scale of development will create urban sprawl.

No

Representation ID: 6373

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: The Knowle Society

Site 9 objections:
Public knowledge that Arden Academy is seeking to relocate to a new complex called Arden Centre for Community Learning.
Assume that part of Site 9 has been assigned to this complex, as lower density proposed.
Concern that Complex already taken as a statement of fact. Much work still needs to be completed for inclusion in a planning application, and may not be built at all.
Unacceptable if gap between housing and new school site.
A singular access to site would be unacceptable.