Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 9507

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: The Knowle Society

Supply of new homes is governed by demand and as the past average annual rate achieved over the last 10 years is half the suggested requirement, it is argued the proposed requirement rate is completely unrealistic.
Any later changes in the 2020 projections will have an impact on future building rates but if it is less, then this raises the question of whether there is a need to demonstrate such land availability now. The overall land availability should be provided over a much longer term than this local plan suggests.

Object

Representation ID: 9508

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: The Knowle Society

The requirement for new housing is a borough-wide problem. The provision of sites required appears to be unfairly balanced against Knowle. This imbalance is purely due to Green Belt land which is considered to be readily available.
The increase is disproportionate to the size of the settlement.
Suggested that the number of new homes should be based on a more appropriate increase in population numbers such that infrastructure will not become overloaded.

Comment

Representation ID: 9509

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: The Knowle Society

Vague indications of infrastructure requirements are identified but these are not definitive proposals to enable a balanced and structured response.
Whilst the indicative requirements go some way towards meeting known problems, there is a lack of supportive details.
Without any essential details, not even the measurable impacts at various junctions which will have to be mitigated and how this can be achieved, the consultation is defective.

Object

Representation ID: 9510

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: The Knowle Society

The site is unsuitable for development as it would create an unacceptable skyline on this approach to Knowle.
The contours of the site will result in a prominent development.
Using the canal as a defensible barrier could open up surrounding areas around the canal for development.
Harm to the setting of Grimshaw Hall.
Impact on Knowle Conservation area from traffic generated by the development, particularly around the Hampton Road / High Street junction.
Adverse impact on ecology and inappropriate loss of Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 9511

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: The Knowle Society

Development here will do nothing except worsen an already busy road network.
Impact on ecology.
High density homes on the site of the existing School is unsuitable, given prevailing character of the area.
No definitive indication of how Arden relocation will be funded and redevelopment of Arden will create its own infrastructure problems.
However, redevelopment would help to meet other infrastructure requirement including additional medical and community facilities.
Option 2 is the only option for further examination in the next round of consultation and it would have to include a new junior or primary school.

Comment

Representation ID: 9512

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: The Knowle Society

Amber site A4 - Golden End Farm. The site is in a highly performing parcel of Green Belt so question why the Council should even begin to consider it for residential development.
This approach indicates a lack of consistency in the consideration of which sites should or should not go forward.
It is acknowledged that the site is close to Knowle village which may result in less traffic generation from new residents, although with the increased traffic flow from sites 8 and 9 there will be even more congestion along High Street and contamination from exhaust emissions.

Comment

Representation ID: 9513

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: The Knowle Society

Eight alternative sites (as suggested in 2017 DLP response).
Site ref: 34, 103, 199, 13, 14, 57, 121
The consultation has sought to demonstrate the suitability of site allocations in its selection process.

Support

Representation ID: 9514

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: The Knowle Society

This suggestion is close to the ideal but not quite there.
At present, the gross internal floor areas of market housing are subject to a continual downwards direction to make them smaller whilst still maximising the price the accommodation of each house offers to the market.
The result is housing which should provide less accommodation eg three bedrooms, rather than 4, in an acceptable total floor space area so that its usable space is in fact, truly useable by it being capable of housing the requisite number of people comfortably, irrelevant of its tenure.

Object

Representation ID: 9515

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: The Knowle Society

None of these alternatives.
To provide a 40% true representation of the total number of dwellings proposed for a site, then there should be provided 40% of each house type as affordable, thus by definition achieving a 40% representation of the whole.

Object

Representation ID: 9516

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: The Knowle Society

None of these alternatives.
The gross floorspace of any house allows for non-habitable space included such as utility rooms, kitchens and bathrooms, all of which are an important factor taken into account by prospective purchasers/shared equity owners/tenants.
Their omission could seriously adversely affect overall floor space of a house by building smaller houses but maintaining the stated habitable accommodation space being provided. Whether market or affordable housing, their overall floor areas should be the same for each house type being provided.