Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Support

Representation ID: 9326

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum CIO

Use of the 2014 based household projections, together with a contribution of 2,000 dwellings towards the Housing Market Assessment (HMA) shortfall, would lead to a required annual delivery rate of 885 dwellings. This is double the rate achieved over the last 10 years and is unrealistic. If the HMA shortfall contribution were to increase, this rate would be even higher and above the Government cap. It would be undeliverable. Bearing in mind also the unsuitability of the sites proposed in KDBH, the housing requirement and the HMA contribution will need to be reduced.
There is justification for an alternative approach.

Object

Representation ID: 9327

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum CIO

There are significant flaws in both the methodology and its application. The site selection process must be set in the context of the overall housing need and Spatial Strategy, neither of which have been updated for this consultation but should be in the light of new evidence.
In testing the appropriateness of sites, consideration must be given to the impact of new development on the physical, economic and social infrastructure of the settlement and on its character and distinctiveness. The methodology does not do so. There are also significant variations in the scoring assessments of sites which require justification.

Object

Representation ID: 9328

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum CIO

The Council has identified most of the infrastructure requirements for the KDBH Area - but only in vague terms with no information on how such needs can be met or consideration of whether such development will be harmful to the settlement. Impacts on doctor's surgeries, pre school facilities and the capacity of Dorridge Station should be included. The lack of evidence on infrastructure impacts and mitigation is a serious omission.

Object

Representation ID: 9329

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum CIO

This allocation would be a large scale encroachment into the countryside and Green Belt extending well beyond the built limits and natural topography of Knowle. The topography and substantial changes in levels are not addressed in the masterplan. Without information on levels, infrastructure impacts (particularly highways/junction impacts/mitigation), impacts on Knowle Conservation Area and clarity on the GB and LWS boundaries, it is not possible to support this allocation and the draft concept masterplan. The issues raised by the NF Landscape Study and Masterplanning/Design and Design Coding Study need first to be addressed before any allocation can be supported.

Object

Representation ID: 9330

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum CIO

There remain too many outstanding issues regarding the justification for development in this area to be able to support this allocation in principle. The studies undertaken on behalf of the NF raise significant concerns about the scale of development,. Fundamental issues regarding the future of Arden Academy and the
impacts of this scale of development on local infrastructure have still not been addressed. If Arden Academy is not relocated, there is no real wider community benefit from such a scale of development and no justification for the release of the land to the east of the Academy.

Comment

Representation ID: 9331

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum CIO

In its 2016 DLP consultation response, the NF objected to the scale of 1000+ houses in KDBH. As none of the matters raised then have been satisfactorily addressed, the Forum cannot see how a further 590 houses can be accommodated in the Area without substantial harm to KDBH Area, contrary to the aims of the Spatial Strategy and the Draft KDBH NP. Whether parts of these sites can be brought forward as alternatives to all, or part, of the draft allocations would require further consideration based on a clearer understanding of the site hierarchy assessments and site impacts/proposed mitigation.

Comment

Representation ID: 9332

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Knowle, Dorridge & Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum CIO

The Council should review its site assessments as there are inconsistencies regarding several sites. Examples in KDBH include sites within Arden Triangle, Site 213, Site 244, but also smaller sites. Some of these perform well on a number of criteria, and some of the concerns may be able to be overcome. A mix of large and smaller sites in a more dispersed pattern would have less impact on the Green Belt, be more consistent with government guidance and potentially be less damaging to village character and infrastructure.